Monday, September 17, 2018

Homosexualism's Communist Underpinnings

A key error of Marxism is the placement of the Second Great Commandment of "love thy neighbor as thyself" ahead of the First and Greatest Commandment, love God totally.
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.
And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31
When you invert that order, removing God and the truth to second place, then the good completely loses its grounding, moral confusion takes the day.
(Cf. James V. Schall, The Regensburg Lecture, South Bend, Indiana, St. Augustine's Press, 2007, 17.)

Lust, the source of all sexual sins, is the counterfeit of love. It is selfishness in place of selflessness.

Remember that Judas was "concerned about the poor" because he kept the apostolic purse and was a thief. Cf. John 12:6.

P.S. When the communists came to take over Cuba, Castro and all his court, they came with rosaries around their necks! But their false secular-humanist doctrine gives them away! You cannot love man without loving God because you neither know what love is nor do you have any real incentive to pursue it, especially when it requires sacrifice and discipline. Do not trust homosexualists, especially who claim to love Jesus! It's a big lie. It's the same lie of Judas.

"Communist, Mobster, Homosexuals"

Saint Peter Arbues (San Pedro Arbues)


Today we commemorate, at Saragossa in Spain, (in the year 1485) St Peter de Arbues, first Inquisitor of the faith of the Kingdom of Aragon, who was cruelly butchered by relapsed Jews for the sake of that Catholic faith which he had zealously protected by virtue of his office. Pope Pius IX added him to the list of Martyr Saints.

The Roman Martyrology, editor Canon J.B. O'Connell, Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1962.

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Relativism's Clericalism

That type of clericalism which usurps ecclesial authority to promote homosexual perversion for the corruption of souls is a very specific type of clericalism. It is a clericalism which hates the truth, hates the Church and spreads confusion. It is an anti-clerical clericalism. We could call it the clericalism of relativism, or, if you prefer, homo-clericalism.

You see, some clericalism does actually believe in right doctrine and upright conduct, and still abuses authority. That is clericalism in the strict sense.

To call unchastity clericalism is therefore inaccurate. A misnomer. Typical Pope Francis equivocation.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Popes are Dispensable; Christ, His Church, and Peter, Remain

Some are saying that if you remove the Pope you remove the Church. Not true. Look at Pope Emeritus Benedict. He removed the Pope, and the Church, well, goes on. A sequel to the great abdicator Pope would be just fine. And it is quite OK for faithful Catholics to call for the Pope to resign for the good of the Church. And it would be just fine for the Pope to heed that call of the faithful for that same good.

Why is it that when the secular world calls for a resignation the Church authority capitulates, but when the faithful Catholics call for a resignation it is deemed somehow inappropriate? Whom is the Church serving? And, anyway, aren't "we the Church?"

Recall canon 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Blog on Christian faithful to put an end to the heresy and immorality of the Catholic hierarchy. For over fifty years they've been fagging the sacred doctrine, fagging the sacred liturgy, and now we discover, surprise, surprise! that they've been fagging themselves! If it quacks like a duck...!

And we need to call it out!

All the heterodox Catholics who were always so keen on lay involvement in the Church are now somehow squeamish when the laity are finally speaking out for the good of the faith and morals of the ages. We simply demand that our clergy promote the Catholic religion and condemn whatever is contrary to it, especially within their own ranks. And we shall not desist, lest we betray the Lord of all Popes and priests.

What is presently being borne out for the whole world to see is the competence and driving force of the sensus fidei fidelium.

The crisis/scandal is not in the reports but it the sins. To my mind the far greater crisis was from 1960 through the 1990's, when the sins were being propagated and roundly ignored and the innocent were being systematically corrupted. From around 1990 to the present much of that filth has been coming to light, thank God, and we must have it out! But, make no mistake, that immorality was programmatic, for it follows very logically false doctrine.

I'll give one example. The year was 1990. A "retreat" of all the seminarians of a small US diocese with the bishop and his entourage. The main feature of the retreat was worship of the elements. Gathered at a beach house, we prayed around a bowl of sea grass and sand and prayed a Native Indian prayer to the four winds, standing to face the respective winds as we did so. All of it was very queer, including the pontifical mass which we systematically had on the cottage coffee table, never in the local Catholic church. I never again went on a retreat with that diocese which I left the following year.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Chastity and Corporal Mortification


Arrested emotional development, according to psychologists, may result in disordered affections which tend toward sexual sins. That defect may be corrected by prayer and penance.

As Christ says in one rendition of the Gospel, there are certain demons which are expelled only by prayer and fasting. Cf. Mark 9:28 Fasting is a fundamental Christian act of piety. Basically, it is a form of corporal mortification, which is deliberately going against one's physical appetites by foregoing licit pleasures and suffering physical pain for the sake of Christ and His Cross, fulfilling the Gospel injunction of our Lord:
If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself? Luke 9:23-25
Having said that it is important to note two things, the supernatural and the natural element. Repentance and sacramental absolution through the ministry of the Church brings salvation at once, entire spiritual integrity of the person making him fit for heaven. But the acquisition of the virtue of penance is the work of an entire lifetime: therefore "Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak." Matthew 26:40-43

Our Popes and Bishops, Cardinals, Religious Superiors, Monsignors, Rectors of Seminaries, Pastors, indeed all Priests, Deacons and men and women of faith, need to discipline themselves in the body for Jesus' sake. It was corporal mortification which made the difference between Sodom and Ninive. Ninive was saved be cause the people did penance, physical penance.
And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Jonah 3:5-10
Corporal Mortification
On Diets and Fasting
Ember Days
The Traditional Lenten Fast

Monday, September 10, 2018

"Communist, Mobster, Homosexuals"

My dad, a Cuban refugee, pulled out of the Bay of Pigs fiasco because his mentor gave him inside knowledge that the government organizers of the invasion were communist, mobster, and homosexual who were designing the invasion to fail, in collusion with Castro.
That thought came to mind in light of the sociology Ph.D. Theodore McCarrick's disgrace and the below documentary on Saul Alinsky, communist mobster backed by the hierarchy of the Church.
Our present day homosexualism has been festered by the Anti-Catholic pro-communist power in America for decades, with its tandem opposition to and subversion of Catholicism, e.g. The New York Times newspaper as an official organ of the power. The Jesuit run America Magazine is an example of distortion of the Catholic faith by unfaithful Catholic clergy.



P.S. Atheism => amoralism (e.g. the end justifies the means) is an essential tenet of communism.

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Suggestion: Move the Homily to the End of Mass, and Make it Optional. You Would See the Churches Full.

Stilum Curiæ
2 September 2018
Marco Tosatti

Excuse my unloading, but I understand why people don't go to Mass anymore, and I have the solution. If anyone else can tell those who need to be told, for example the reigning Pontiff, may he do it and I won't hold him to copyright.

I immediately give the remedy, divided in two options.

The first: move the homily to the end of Mass, and make it optional. Which means that after the final blessing he who wishes may stay to be instructed and edified. He, rather, who would prefer to stay in the state of grace in which the celebration of the sacrifice has left him, can go.

The second: guarantee that every Sunday there is a Mass without a homily, or with a homily strictly regulated under three minutes. In three minutes one can synthesize the spiritual essence of the Scripture, and give to the faithful points for personal reflection, without watering down the soup or doing verbal theater. Certainly, one can always mentally say the Rosary, but...

I went to Mass today in a large Roman church, because of my schedule. Believe me if I tell you that during the homily I wanted to get up and leave. Among the other examples of formal purity--it was the scene of the Pharisees scandalized because the disciples ate without washing their hands; and from a hygienic standpoint they were surely right--the connection was made with the pre-eucharistic fast. It was being said, as if it were an achievement, that now one hour is enough. However, before the Council one had to fast--at least the priest, he added--from midnight. And if one had to celebrate an early Mass, that might be OK. But if one had to celebrate later in the morning "it was a twelve hour fast!" seeing the protruding belly of the celebrant which formed a fine contour under his vestments one could be sure that his fasting business would not be more than sixty one minutes... Then at the moment for the exchange of peace he left the altar and came to great EVERYONE. We were around forty people, standing like scarecrows in an unnatural pause, which broke the entire sacred rhythm. The Church does not need liturgists but choreographers to show that the event has a rhythm which leads to a climax and that to break it is a disaster. Indeed for spiritual concentration, the recollection of those who participate in it. I may be bad, but I had the great impression that the celebrant was merely reciting. Speaking of Pharisees...

(Plinthos translation)

Most Priests (never mind Deacons!) Should Perhaps Not Preach at Mass!

Homiletic Directory Sermon Program

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Ave Maria

Gregorian Chant

Gregorian Chant

Palestrina (1525-1594)

Friedrich Handel (1685-1759)

Mozart (1756-1791)

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

Rossini (1792-1868)

Franz Schubert (1797-1828)

Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (1809 - 1847)

Charles Gounod (1818-1893)

Josef Anton Bruckner (1824-1896)

Franz Listz (1811-1886)

Franz Listz (1811-1886)

Franz Listz on Schubert (1811-1886)

Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921)

Vladimir Vavilov (1925-1973)

Las Cigarreras

A Respectful Response to Pope Francis' Despisal of the Cassock


"During an August 1st gathering with a group of Jesuits the Holy Father said: 'I am happy to receive you. Thank you so much for this visit, it does me good. When I was a student, when you had to go to the Superior General, and when with the Superior General we had to go to the Pope, you wore the cassock and the mantello. I see that this fashion no longer exists, thank God.' The Pope can be seen in the photos with a group of Jesuits with clerical shirts of various colors and styles, all with a clerical collar; no one is wearing his cassock, except the Pope.

"Now, I, as a priest, am accustomed to show respect to the Pope, but I don't understand these comments at all. I don't see how comments like this cannot do more harm than good. The use of the cassock and the mantello, Holy Father, is not a 'fashion,' but a sign of deeper respect for one's priestly dignity. Do you think that the faithful prefer their priests in sweaters and polo shirts? No, Holy Father; when the simple people see a priest in his cassock they always say things like: 'he looks like a real priest!' Because the habit, sometimes, does make the monk.

"I remember an old religious hospitalized in the last days of his life imploring the nurses to not deprive him of his habit (they should wash it...), because he had never separated himself from his habit, he was always faithful to it. Because, know, Holy Father, that these 'deconstructionist' expressions foreshadow the total rejection of ecclesiastical attire, including that being worn by those who were visiting You.

"Your predecessor of venerated memory Saint John Paul II in 1982 said: 'We the envoys of Christ to preach the Gospel, have a message to transmit, whether it is expressed with words or also with external signs, above all in the present world which is so keen on the language of images. The clerical habit, as that of the religious, has a particular significance; for the diocesan priest it has principally the character of a sign, which distinguishes him from the worldly environment in which he lives; for the religious it expresses also the character of consecration and manifests the eschatological end of the religious life. The habit, therefore, aids the evangelical ends and elicits reflection on the reality which we represent in the world and on the primacy of the spiritual values in the existence of man, which we affirm. By means of such a sign, it is made easier for others to arrive at the Mystery, of which we are bearers, and at Him to Whom we belong and Whom we wish to announce with all of our being.

"I esteem my confreres who wear a distinctive clerical garb according to their state in life, and I esteem even more those who wear the cassock, as I do, a deeper sign of separation from the world and of belonging to the supernatural dimension."

Abate Faria
Stilum Curiae, 9-8-18
(Plinthos translation)

Thirteen Reasons I Wear the Cassock Rather Than the Clerical Suit

Friday, September 7, 2018

Munda et muni, Domine!

Here is the closing prayer for the extraordinary form Roman liturgy during this week of the 15th Sunday after Pentecost, from which I draw the above ejaculation for the Lord's cleansing and protection of Holy Mother Church.

Ecclésiam tuam, Dómine, miserátio continuáta mundet et múniat: et quia sine te non potest salva consístere; tuo semper múnere gubernétur.
Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum.

O Lord, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church, and because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness.
Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

divinumofficium.com

Pope Benedict on Humanae Vitae October 2, 2008


MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI ON THE OCCASION OF THE 40th ANNIVERSARY OF PAUL VI'S ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE

To Mons. Livio Melina
President of the John Paul II Pontifical Institute
for Studies on Marriage and Family

I learned with joy that the Pontifical Institute of which you are President and the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart have opportunely organized an International Congress on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the publication of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, an important Document that treats one of the essential aspects of the vocation to marriage and the specific journey of holiness that results from it. Indeed, having received the gift of love, husband and wife are called in turn to give themselves to each other without reserve. Only in this way are the acts proper and exclusive to spouses truly acts of love which, while they unite them in one flesh, build a genuine personal communion. Therefore, the logic of the totality of the gift intrinsically configures conjugal love and, thanks to the sacramental outpouring of the Holy Spirit, becomes the means to achieve authentic conjugal charity in their own life.

The possibility of procreating a new human life is included in a married couple's integral gift of themselves. Since, in fact, every form of love endeavours to spread the fullness on which it lives, conjugal love has its own special way of communicating itself: the generation of children. Thus it not only resembles but also shares in the love of God who wants to communicate himself by calling the human person to life. Excluding this dimension of communication through an action that aims to prevent procreation means denying the intimate truth of spousal love, with which the divine gift is communicated: "If the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass" (Humanae Vitae, n. 17). This is the essential nucleus of the teaching that my Venerable Predecessor Paul VI addressed to married couples and which the Servant of God John Paul ii, in turn, reasserted on many occasions, illuminating its anthropological and moral basis.

Forty years after the Encyclical's publication we can understand better how decisive this light was for understanding the great "yes" that conjugal love involves. In this light, children are no longer the objective of a human project but are recognized as an authentic gift, to be accepted with an attitude of responsible generosity toward God, the first source of human life. This great "yes" to the beauty of love certainly entails gratitude, both of the parents in receiving the gift of a child, and of the child himself, in knowing that his life originates in such a great and welcoming love.

It is true, moreover, that serious circumstances may develop in the couple's growth which make it prudent to space out births or even to suspend them. And it is here that knowledge of the natural rhythms of the woman's fertility becomes important for the couple's life. The methods of observation which enable the couple to determine the periods of fertility permit them to administer what the Creator has wisely inscribed in human nature without interfering with the integral significance of sexual giving. In this way spouses, respecting the full truth of their love, will be able to modulate its expression in conformity with these rhythms without taking anything from the totality of the gift of self that union in the flesh expresses. Obviously, this requires maturity in love which is not instantly acquired but involves dialogue and reciprocal listening, as well as a special mastery of the sexual impulse in a journey of growth in virtue.

In this perspective, knowing that the Congress is also taking place through an initiative of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, I am likewise eager to express in particular my appreciation for all that this university institution does to support the International Paul VI Institute for Research in Human Fertility and Infertility for Responsible Procreation(ISI), which it gave to my unforgettable Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, thereby desiring to make, so to speak, an institutionalized response to the appeal launched by Pope Paul VI in paragraph n. 24 of the Encyclical, to "men of science". A task of the ISI, in fact, is to improve the knowledge of the natural methods for controlling human fertility and of natural methods for overcoming possible infertility. Today, "thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages" (Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation, Donum vitae, n. 1). In this perspective, "many researchers are engaged in the fight against sterility. While fully safeguarding the dignity of human procreation, some have achieved results which previously seemed unattainable.
"Scientists therefore are to be encouraged to continue their research with the aim of preventing the causes of sterility and of being able to remedy them so that sterile couples will be able to procreate in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of the child to be born" (ibid., n. 8). It is precisely this goal that is proposed by the ISI Paul VI and by other similar centres, with the encouragement of the ecclesiastical authority.

We may ask ourselves: how is it possible that the world today, and also many of the faithful, find it so difficult to understand the Church's message which illustrates and defends the beauty of conjugal love in its natural expression? Of course, in important human issues the technical solution often appears the easiest. Yet it actually conceals the basic question that concerns the meaning of human sexuality and the need for a responsible mastery of it so that its practice may become an expression of personal love. When love is at stake, technology cannot replace the maturation of freedom. Indeed, as we well know, not even reason suffices: it must be the heart that sees. Only the eyes of the heart succeed in understanding the proper needs of a great love, capable of embracing the totality of the human being. For this, the service that the Church offers in her pastoral care of marriages and families must be able to guide couples to understand with their hearts the marvellous plan that God has written into the human body, helping them to accept all that an authentic process of maturation involves.

The Congress that you are celebrating therefore represents an important moment of reflection and care for couples and families, offering them the results of years of research in both the anthropological and ethical dimensions, as well as that which is strictly scientific, with regard to truly responsible procreation. In this light I can only congratulate you and express the hope that this work will bear abundant fruit and contribute to supporting couples on their way with ever greater wisdom and clarity, encouraging them in their mission to be credible witnesses of the beauty of love in the world. With these hopes, as I invoke the Lord's help on the work of the congress, I impart a special Apostolic Blessing to all.

From the Vatican, 2 October 2008

BENEDICTVS PP. XVI

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Stay on Topic: Gaydom is the Problem!

The real and obvious problem today in the Church is the tacit acceptance of homosexuality at the highest levels of the Church, the Pope himself's "who am I to judge."

Even after the very effective anti-homophile papacy's of Pope Saint John II and Pope Benedict XVI, there are still a significant number of high ranking officials in the Church at all levels who are homophiles and express their public support of homosexuality in all its forms. That is clearly against the decalogue and against Canon Law, to be pro-sexual immorality of any type, never mind doing it! But this position is politically correct and those clergymen have accepted it and promote it. And it is that very homosexuality, which they openly approve and promote, that is at the root of almost all of the criminal abuse. But the homosexualists deny that fact and continue to flaunt the Church Law on the matter of homosexual immorality in the priesthood because they condone that same immorality in the world in general.

The problem is gaydom!

And that problem has been with the Church our entire lifetime. What has changed now is that there is a very strong body of clergy at every level that are vocally opposed to this social and ecclesiastical aberration of homophilia and they are calling it out and demanding an end to it in the Church. We are actually in the best position ever in our age regarding the integrity of the clergy. The present crisis now is simply that this slow-dying cancer is finally being publicly confronted (from within the Church, of course). Let's see if that helps clean it up, and not just in typical hypocritical minimal response to the civil law, which does not address the real problem which is "thou shalt not commit adultery" (with all the variations on that theme), purity, the Gospel!

The criminals regarding civil law have been dealt with very severely by the Church. That is not the issue. The issue is the world-approved perverse immorality which has corrupted the Church and is slow to die. The Church needs to stand, not for the law of men, but for the law of God and of His Church. Do that and we will have no problems with the laws of men, even when they try to destroy us (and they will) for following the law of God.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

The Truth Should Keep Silent says Pope Francis

Monday morning Mass, September 3, 2018, Vatican City
Christ says...

And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

Monday, September 3, 2018

The Scientific Dilemma: Does God Exist?

Just saw this 2-minute video on EWTN.
It explains the limits of the scientific method and
the boundaries of non-metaphysical knowledge.

Dead Knowledge

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock people out of heaven... You brood of vipers and serpents, you blind leaders, you strain gnats out and swallow camels."

"...[T]he scribes, they know every single letter of Scripture, so to speak; they are the exegetes, Bible specialists, who can tell you right off which prophet said what and where. But it is all dead knowledge. They only dissect and analyze the Scriptures and no longer find life in them. Thus, the danger of any and every specialized exegesis is made visible in this figure of speech. People know everything, but Scripture is treated like a laboratory specimen, like a skeleton, that can be used for developing all kinds of things. However much people may know in detail, in this way they have strayed a long way from the message of Scripture. When simple people listen, on the other hand, they often understand the real message better than those whose extensive learning has become blind and deaf to the heart of the matter."

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000, 239.

Don't Forget to Preach Humanae Vitae!


Amidst all the ecclesiastical and media confusion remember that the most ignored perversions of marriage are masturbation, pornography and contraception, in addition to fornication, adultery, divorce and, of course, homosexuality and homophilia.

Most people have never heard the good news of Humanae Vitae. Preach it: Fecundity and unity are the double and inseparable meanings of the marital act! And there is no law saying that you cannot teach it in that order: that the procreation and education of saints is the primary end of marriage, which, when thwarted, marriage--the family--unity, is destroyed.

What is more, the wholesale acceptance of the perversion of contraception (which some dictionaries also rightly define as masturbation) begets and promotes (among other things) the perversion of homophilia (which also features men abusing boys).

Spread the word! Our contraception feeds our homosexualism!

Do not let the present issues distract you from speaking the truth of Humanae Vitae, largely silenced these fifty years.

Do not let the truth of Genesis 38:8 be silenced. Masturbation/contraception is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance. God himself killed the first man on record who did it, because the marital act needs to be pure and holy. Marital love needs to manifest and realize the love of God, especially in its distinctively marital activity. To abuse that act kills you, hence, mortal sin.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

A Prayer of the Faithful in Troubled Times

Dear Lord, cleanse the world of sexual perversion, even within Your holy Church, our Mother, beginning especially with the Pope, the Bishops and all the Clergy. Amen.

Saturday, September 1, 2018

"Maybe the devil didn't have your accommodations ready." McCarrick's Allusion to his Roman Condemnation

There is a very perplexing anecdote told by the then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in his notorious 2013 Villanova address (minute 9:17) where he bragged about cooperating with a conspiracy to elect Bergoglio Pope Francis.

Cardinal McCarrick recounts that he was deathly ill in Rome and on the evening of the day of Pope Francis' Installation as Pope, March 19, 2013, he received a call (at the seminary, where he was staying) from the Pope. In the conversation McCarrick said: "Holy Father, I guess the Lord still has some work for me to do." To which the Holy Father replied, "Well, that may be true. On the other hand, maybe the devil didn't have your accommodations ready." McCarrick: "To which I said nothing. But, inside I'm saying, you think that was an infallible statement?"

That anecdote, referencing a damning comment by the Pope, is only now intelligible after the Viganò report revelation detailing the intrigue regarding Pope Benedict's disciplining of McCarrick and of Pope Francis' awareness of that action and his subsequent reversal thereof.

Bishop Schneider Official Statement on Implications of Viganò Report

Bishop Schneider: ‘no reasonable…cause to doubt the truth’ of Viganò revelations about Pope
Original version: italianoGerman version.

August 27, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana Kazakhstan, one of the most outspoken bishops in the world concerning the crisis of faith in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, has written a document responding to the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

Bishop Schneider says that there is “no reasonable and plausible basis to doubt the truth content of the document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.”

Archbishop Viganò, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011-2016, detailed in an 11-page letter last week that Pope Francis covered-up the now ex-Cardinal McCarrick's abuse.

READ: Pope Francis covered-up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies

Bishop Schneider acknowledges that it is extremely grave and rare that a bishop would publicly accuse a reigning pope, but points out that “Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God.”

Bishop Schneider's document, published in Italian in La Verità newspaper and on the blog of Marco Tosatti and Aldo María Valli, is published in full below, LifeSiteNews translation slightly edited by Plinthos (based on the Italian version).
***

Reflections on the Archbishop Carlo María Viganò Testimony of August 22, 2018

It is a rare and an extremely grave event in the history of the Church that a bishop publicly and specifically accuse the reigning Pope. In a recently published document (from August 22, 2018). Archbishop Carlo María Viganò attests that for five years Pope Francis had known two facts: that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick committed sexual offenses against his seminarians and against his subordinates, and that there were sanctions imposed upon him by Pope Benedict XVI.

Furthermore, Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God. There is, therefore, no reasonable and plausible basis to doubt the truth content of Archbishop Carlo María Viganò's document.

Catholics all over the world, the simple faithful, the “little ones,” are deeply shocked and scandalized by the recently disclosed grave cases in which Church authorities covered-up and protected clerics who committed sexual offenses against minors and against their own subordinates. Such a historic situation, which the Church is experiencing in our days, requires absolute transparency at all levels of the Church’s hierarchy, and, first of all, obviously, on the part of the Pope.

It is completely insufficient and unconvincing, that Church authorities continue to formulate general appeals for zero tolerance in the cases of clerical sexual abuses and for an end to the covering-up of such cases. Equally insufficient are the cliché pleas for forgiveness by Church authorities. Such appeals for zero tolerance and pleas for forgiveness will become credible only if the authorities of the Roman Curia will lay the cards on the table, giving the names and surnames of all those in the Roman Curia – independent of their rank and title - who covered-up cases of sexual abuse of minors and of subordinates.

 One can derive the following eight consequent demands from Archbishop Viganò's document:

1. That the Holy See and the Pope himself will start to uncompromisingly cleanse the Roman Curia and the episcopate from homosexual cliques and networks.

2. That the Pope will proclaim unambiguously the Divine doctrine about the grievously sinful character of homosexual acts.

3. That peremptory and detailed norms will be issued , which will prevent the ordination of men with a homosexual tendency.

4. That the Pope will restore the purity and unambiguity of the entire Catholic doctrine in teaching and preaching.

5. That there will be restored in the Church through papal and episcopal teaching and through practical norms the ever valid Christian ascesis: the exercises of fasting, of corporal penitence, of abnegations.

6. That there will be restored in the Church the spirit and the praxis of reparation and expiation for sins committed.

7. That there will start in the Church a securely guaranteed selection process of candidates to the episcopacy, who are demonstrably true men of God; and that it would be better to leave the dioceses several years without a bishop rather than to appoint a candidate who is not a true man of God in prayer, in doctrine and in moral life.

8. That there will start in the Church a movement especially among cardinals, bishops and priests to renounce any compromise and any flirtation with the world.

One should not be surprised, when the mainstream oligarchical international media, which promote homosexuality and moral depravity, will start to denigrate the person of Archbishop Viganò and to let the core issue of his document disappear in the sand.

In the midst of the spreading of Luther’s heresy and the deep moral crisis of a considerable part of the clergy and especially of the Roman Curia, Pope Adrian VI wrote the following astonishingly frank words, addressed to the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg in 1522: "We know, that for some time many abominations, abuses in ecclesiastical affairs, and violations of rights have taken place in the Holy See; and that all things have been perverted into bad. From the head the corruption has passed to the limbs, from the Pope to the prelates: we have all departed; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Ruthlessness and transparency in detecting and in confessing the evils in the life of the Church will help to initiate an efficient process of spiritual and moral purification and renewal. Before condemning others, every clerical office holder in the Church, regardless of rank and title, should ask himself in the presence of God, if he himself had in some way covered-up sexual abuses. Should he discover himself guilty, he should confess it publicly, for the Word of God admonishes him: “Be not ashamed to acknowledge your guilt” (Sir 4:26). For, as Saint Peter, the first Pope, wrote, “the time has come for the judging, starting with the house (the church) of God” (1 Peter 4:17).

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Friday, August 31, 2018

Sign this Formal Petition to His Holiness Pope Francis to Investigate the Viganò Report


popefrancispetition.com
4155 signatures so far.

Mainstream Media's Collusion in Cover-Up for Catholic Hierarchy's Homophile Mob

Pope Francis' no response to journalists regarding the Viganò report is very telling. The Holy Father entrusts the interpretation of the letter to the secular journalists! He, who is directly implicated, has nothing to say! No honest journalist can be content with that answer.


Pope Francis
Just one thing, I would prefer – even though I will answer your question – that we speak about the trip [to Ireland] and then move on to other topics... but I will answer your question.

I read the statement this morning. I read it and sincerely I must tell you, and all those who are interested: read it yourselves carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word on this. I believe the memo speaks for itself, and you are capable enough as journalists to draw your own conclusions. This is an act of trust: when some time has passed and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak. But I ask that you use your professional maturity in doing this: it will do you good, really. That is enough for now.


Plinthos
Let the journalists make their own judgment!
"The memo speaks for itself!" Yes, it says that Pope Francis is guilty.

"This is an act of trust."  What does that mean? That the Holy Father trusts that the journalists will protect him, even though he is guilty of abetting the homosexual abuse at the highest level of the Church? He can trust the journalists to distort and ignore the facts and shift the attention of the masses and cover-up for Pope Francis, their friend? That is how it sounds!

In other words the Holy Father is telling them to trust him, to cover for him, as they did for decades for McCarrick and countless other abusing homosexualists in the Church hierarchy.

In that short interview and the aftermath, which has amounted to silence and distortion, the real proportions of the homophile mob shows itself. The mainstream media is complicit and also just one instrument of the enormous homophile mob in the world without which the Church's homophile's would have been eliminated long ago. The forces of evil outside the Church are much larger than any inside Her and it is that external power and violence which largely enables the Church's corruption within! It promotes, supports and defends the corruption of the Church in every way.

Notice that it was the Church which finally exposed McCarrick, and it is again the Church which is exposing Pope Francis. The mainstream media come very late in the saga to say what they have known (because they are hired by the same people who cause such corruption in the Church from the outside) and covered-up for a long time.

N.B. Pope Francis, who is still concealing the truth on this, held a press conference this morning on the environment! What about the moral environment of the Church!!!
---

BEN SHAPIRO: WHY IN THE NAME OF GOD IS THE MEDIA PROTECTING POPE FRANCIS? | OPINION
BEN SHAPIRO , NEWSWEEK COLUMNIST, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE DAILY WIRE AND HOST OF “THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW"
ON 8/31/18 AT 9:54 AM

In 2003, The Boston Globe won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on a massive sex abuse cover-up inside the Roman Catholic Church, led by the archdiocese of Boston. The Pulitzer board praised the newspaper’s “courageous, comprehensive coverage of sexual abuse by priests, an effort that pierced secrecy, stirred local, national and international reaction and produced changes in the Roman Catholic Church.” Hollywood made the Oscar-winning movieSpotlight about the effort.

In 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, former Vatican ambassador to the United States, released an 11-page memo alleging that Pope Francis and other top members of the Vatican had reinstated Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to a public position despite credible allegations of sexual abuse of seminarians and minors. The memo rocked the Catholic Church; Pope Francis refused to comment; other sources came forward to back Vigano’s claims.

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago made the near-unbelievable claim that Pope Francis shouldn’tcomment, since he has “a bigger agenda. He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”

So, did the press leap to investigate Vigano’s claims? Did they demand answers from Pope Francis? Did we see the same type of courageous, comprehensive coverage of Francis’ activities that we saw from the Globe team circa 2003? Of course not.

Instead, mainstream media outlets went out of their way to portray Vigano as a disgruntled conservative angry at Pope Francis’ progressive interpretation of Catholic doctrine. The New York Times headlined, “Vatican Power Struggle Bursts Into Open as Conservatives Pounce.” Their print headline was even worse: “Francis Takes High Road As Conservatives Pounce, Taking Criticisms Public.”

Yes, according to the Times, the story wasn’t the sitting Pope being credibly accused of a sexual abuse cover-up—it was conservatives attacking him for it. The problem of child molestation and sexual abuse of clergy took a back seat to Francis’ leftist politics, as the Times piece made clear in its first paragraph: “Since the start of his papacy, Francis has infuriated Catholic traditionalists as he tries to nurture a more welcoming church and shift it away from culture war issues, whether abortion or homosexuality. ‘Who am I to judge?’ the pope famously said, when asked about gay priests. Just how angry his political and doctrinal enemies are became clear this weekend…”

It wasn’t just the Times. On Wednesday, Reuters headlined, “Defenders rally around pope, fear conservatives escalating war.” On Thursday, Reuters doubled down with this headline: “Conservative media move to front line of battle to undermine Pope Francis.” The Telegraph(U.K.) reported, “Vatican analysts say the attack appears to be part of a concerted effort by conservatives to oust Pope Francis, who they dislike for his relatively liberal views…”
But why in the name of God is calling on the Vatican not to defend sexual abusers a political issuefor the press? Why isn’t this something we can all agree upon? Why aren’t the press asking the pope tough questions, instead of focusing on the supposed motivations of the whistleblowers?

The media’s disgraceful attempts to cover for Francis because of their love for his politics merely exposes the actual malign motivations of many in the media: they were happy to expose misconduct and evil inside the Catholic Church when the pope was a conservative; they’re happy to facilitate a cover-up when the pope is a liberal.

That’s vile. And most Catholics understand that if the members of the media—an overwhelmingly secular group of people—are steadfastly defending a papacy accused of sexual abuse cover-ups, it’s not out of goodwill for the Church generally. It’s out of a belief that traditionalist doctrine must be rooted out at any cost, even including the abuse of minors and the violation of basic canon law.

The media’s coverage of the burgeoning potential cover-up scandal by Pope Francis and his associates doesn’t call conservative Catholics into question. It calls into question members of the media themselves, who seem eager to uncover wrongdoing only when it serves their political interests, and eager to subordinate the interests of the innocent to their political agenda when they must.

Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire and host of The Ben Shapiro Show, available on iTunes and syndicated across America.​

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.​​​

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Don't Keep the Truth Silent! --Benedict XVI, Beheading of John the Baptist 2012


Today the Church celebrates the memorial of the Martyrdom of John the Baptist. He was the one who called Christ the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Even to the shedding of his own blood, he remained faithful to the Lord.

St. Bede says he was not asked to deny Christ; but he was asked to keep silent the truth. And he did not do that. He died for the truth, and so he died for Christ.

In the seclusion and stillness of the desert he had grown and matured in the inner friendship with God. During that time, God himself had become his power, the center of his life.

Thus, John the Baptist shows us that the relationship with God, the inner relationship with him, is essential, and that prayer is never lost time. On the contrary, through prayer, God enables us to overcome difficulties and testify with courage, even in our time.

God bless you all.

Message at the end of the Wednesday Audience on 29 August 2012, to the German speaking pilgrims.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Report on "Gay Lobby" in Roman Curia, 300-pages, 2012


By BILL HUTCHINSON
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
FEB 22, 2013 | 8:01 PM

A bombshell report revealed Pope Benedict’s resignation is tied to top Vatican clergy involved in sex romps with male prostitutes at Rome saunas.

Pope Benedict's stunning resignation is being linked to a bombshell report exposing a secret gay conclave at the Vatican being blackmailed over acts of a "worldly nature" with laymen.

The 300-page dossier — compiled by three cardinals investigating the theft of Vatican documents — was given to the Pope on Dec. 17, the same day he decided to resign, an Italian newspaper reported Friday.

Just days after receiving the report, Pope Benedict railed against gay marriage and homosexuality, calling it "the manipulation of nature."

The probe uncovered a number of factions within the Vatican, including one whose members were "united by sexual orientation," La Repubblica reported, citing passages from the report.

Members of the gay lobby included high-ranking Catholic clergy who organized sex romps at a Rome sauna, a suburban Rome villa and a beauty parlor, according to the report. The group was also known to meet at a university residence used by an Italian archbishop.

Quoting a high-placed Vatican source, La Repubblica revealed members of the gay faction were being subjected to "external influence" or blackmail, from laymen with whom they had relationships of a "worldly nature."

Male prostitutes — who had pictures of the priests dressed in drag and others performing gay sex acts — were behind the extortion, The Daily Beast reported.

"Everything revolves around the nonobservance of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments," a source close to the cardinals who prepared the report told La Repubblica.

The Sixth Commandment instructs: "Thou shall not commit adultery" and under Catholic doctrine also forbids homosexuality. The Seventh Commandment declares stealing to be a sin.

The report, which comes in two volumes bound in red covers, is being kept in a safe at the papal apartments. It is to be delivered to the next Pope once he is elected.

It was prepared by Spanish Cardinal Julián Herranz, Slovak Cardinal Jozef Tomko and Cardinal Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo.

The sleuthing cardinals were ordered by Pope Benedict to conduct a secret investigation into the so-called "Vatileaks" scandal involving the pontiff's former butler, Paolo Gabriele.

Gabriele was arrested in May for stealing and leaking papal correspondence to the press.

Journalist David Gibson, who wrote the latest biography on Pope Benedict, said the Pope's resignation was likely due to numerous factors, mainly revolving around the internal problems of the Vatican, of which sexual shenanigans were likely one.

Benedict, 85, publicly announced on Feb. 11 that he is stepping down after heading the Holy See for nearly eight years. He is the first Pope to retire in more than seven centuries.

Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said he would not "confirm or deny" news accounts of the report.

The Pope's last day on the job is Feb. 28. His successor will be chosen in March by the 116-member College of Cardinals — which includes Timothy Cardinal Dolan, head of the New York Archdiocese.

"I know nothing of the content of the report but whatever it contains it is clear that significant reforms are needed within the Vatican bureaucracy," said Australia's George Cardinal Pell.

Journalist David Gibson, who wrote the latest biography on Pope Benedict, said it is a stretch to infer the pontiff's resignation was prompted by the cardinals' report. "For one thing, Benedict's resignation was most certainly the result of numerous factors, mainly revolving around the internal problems of the Vatican, of which sexual shenanigans were likely one — but hardly the only one, or even the principal one," Gibson wrote in his online blog.

P.S. In his 2016 book Last Testament (New York: Bloomsbury), Pope Benedict had this to say about the gay lobby in the Vatican.
"A group had been pointed out to me, in fact, which we have since dismantled. That was even revealed in the report of the tripartite commission (so called because it was supervised by three cardinals) that was able to link a group of individuals, a small one, maybe four or five people, which we dismantled. Whether something forms again, I do not know. It would not be teeming with such things anyway." 230.

Homophile Clericalism

Recall this February 27, 2013 cover?
"The Conclave's 'Gay Lobby'"
"Now the smoke, is it coming?"
On January 7, 2015 12 members of  the Hebdo company were assassinated!

Certain homosexualists at the highest levels of the Church Hierarchy, in denial over the obvious homosexual abuse in the Church, are saying that the clerical homosexual abuse is not homosexualism at all but rather clericalism. Yes, and there are scripture scholars who claim that the sin of Sodom was not sodomy but a lack of hospitality.

Well, if you insist on calling it clericalism, you must, in all honesty, brand it a specific type of clericalism: it is homosexualist clericalism. And that brand of clericalism, homophile clericalism, if you prefer, is typified by the following characteristics.

1. Confusion and error in transmitting the Deposit of Faith, the constant and unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals, and the liturgical disciplines which manifest it.

2. Homophilia: open acceptance and/or promotion of homosexuality, including a militant denial of the inherent evils of homosexuality (e.g. disease, mental/emotional instability, abuse, relativism). Cf. Isaiah 5:20.

3. Habitual violation of the canonical norm regarding clerical attire, including a general rejection of the priestly cassock. They go about in society habitually in mufti.

4. Hatred of Latin in the liturgy and a total rejection of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

5. A heavy-handed abuse of clerical authority in promoting the above behaviors and destroying anyone, especially any cleric, who opposes those aberrations. It is authoritarianism coupled with heterodoxy.

N.B. In our present abusive Sodomite climate you either clearly and publicly oppose homosexualism and all its wiles or you embrace it in tacit approval. Call it out! The Viganò Plan!

Of course, traditional Catholicism also certainly includes sexual deviants, but it is not deviant in principle. Here it is helpful to distinguish between the weak and the corrupt. Consider the difference between the perversions of "LGBT" activism (terminology roundly rejected by Plinthos!) and the chastity of COURAGE!

Isaiah 26:17-21 As a woman with child, when she draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs: so are we become in thy presence, O Lord. We have conceived, and been as it were in labour, and have brought forth wind: we have not wrought salvation on the earth, therefore the inhabitants of the earth have not fallen. Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again: awake, and give praise, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is the dew of the light: and the land of the giants thou shalt pull down into ruin. Go, my people, enter into thy chambers, shut thy doors upon thee, hide thyself a little for a moment, until the indignation pass away. For behold the Lord will come out of his place, to visit the iniquity of the inhabitant of the earth against him: and the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall cover her slain no more.

P.S. It would be important to read the relevant article on the conclave "gay lobby" in "Charlie Hebdo, apparently referencing a number of articles in the Italian press at the time in the wake of the resignation of Pope Benedict.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Expose and Depose the Homophiles Who are Running the Church, at Every Level! THE VIGANO PLAN

May the historic testimony of His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò begin a new era in the Church and in the world.

Those in authority who are notoriously immoral need to be removed by their rightful superiors. 

Popes, Cardinals, The Roman Curial Officials, Ordinaries, Bishops, Abbots, Religious Superiors, Episcopal Vicars, Chancery Officials, Rectors of Seminaries, Pastors, all have a policing responsibility in the Church to ensure that all of those under their watch who have care of souls are shepherds and not wolves! They have a serious obligation to ensure the sound doctrine and upright character of those under them; if they do not fulfill that obligation, then they themselves are the wolves devouring the sheep!

We no longer need pastors to "smell like the sheep," the pastors need to smell like the Good Shepherd alone, Christ our Blessed Lord and God!, and extend his sweet fragrance which is virginal. "The smell of the sheep" of the bad shepherds has become an unbearable stench at every level of the Church! It needs to be completely cleaned out.

All those who are suffering the injustices of the present immorality and abuse of authority of their ecclesiastical superiors (including the gross neglect to rightly exercise that authority) should expose those men by name and demand, by all means, their immediate removal from office, following the example of the heroic Cardinal Viganò! So, for example, if the pastor of your parish is a notorious homosexualist you need to demand his immediate removal, and not rest until he's gone, for good of the Church and the salvation of souls!

The shepherds are in dire need of shepherding! And everyone in the Church should forcefully demand that it be accomplished.

Miserere nobis, Domine! Miserere nobis! Blessed Lord, please rid the Church of the plague of Sodom!

Let us call it THE VIGANO PLAN. ¡A crear lío!

N.B. Canon 521 of the Code of Canon Law on the Required Integrity of Pastors.

P.S. A good rule of thumb is that a priest in authority who acts like a faggot probably is a faggot, and should be removed just upon that principle, and because of the huge harm to the faith which comes from the bad image (scandal! of clerical proportions). It's the Viganò Plan, which is necessary to erase the insidious McCarrick method of harming the faith! Let the faithful Catholics stand up and shamelessly expose and get rid of the homophiles, based on that principle which is so well manifested in the McCarrick case.

McCarrick Homophile Conspiracy Includes Pope Francis --Archbishop Viganò

Here below is the official English text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s Testimony.

His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio

In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.

To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever you have said in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3).

I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until end of May 2016.

As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.

To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.

The office that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State.

Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the Holy See.

In writing up a memo[1] on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.

In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:
Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the United States,
and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”;
I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.

I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.

My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any actual decision by the superiors on this matter.

Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month later, on May 24, 2008.

The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken.”

I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state.

This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006.

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.

In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance.

The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick.

It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned.

Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.

Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any reply!

The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick.

Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretary of State.

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a different ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it!

Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?

Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.
Advertisement


* * *

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.

In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my first meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.

On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the red-trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”

At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.

The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!” Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation.

At the end of the audience the Pope announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me.

On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The Pope told me to ask if you are free now!”Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: “We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.

Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction.

It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position!

The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newarkwere orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”

The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.” McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.

These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.

Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.

In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.

The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.

By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.

In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: “It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.

In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public.

Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I received worrisome information about him.

In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.

Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.

Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should resign.

But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.

I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.

Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance: Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!

In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin.

I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.

In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.

Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and dedication.

It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance.

Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!

Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”

Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit!

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!

Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!

Rome, August 22, 2018
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Official translation by Diane Montagna LifesiteNews

[1] All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...