Given that the US Bishops were given no notice of Rome’s decision to suppress their vote on their plan to create a new organ to handle complaints against bishops, and no real explanation, is this week’s decision yet another manifestation of an increasingly autocratic papacy?

Shock, Confusion As Vatican Orders American Bishops Not to Vote on Abuse Measures

Steve Skojec

Steve SkojecNovember 13, 2018

Yesterday, during the opening session of the US Bishops’ fall annual meeting, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the American bishops’ conference, announced that the Holy See had intervened to stop the bishops from voting on two measures designed to tackle the Church’s ongoing sex abuse crisis. The Vatican has inexplicably ordered the bishops to wait on taking further action to address the crisis until after a February meeting in which the pope plans to gather the heads of the bishops’ conferences from around the world.

Ed Condon of the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that the crowd of assembled bishops were “visibly surprised” at the announcement, based on orders DiNardo had from Rome just the day before the meeting began. The two draft documents that had been circulated before the meeting dealt with creating standards of conduct for bishops regarding abuse as well as a proposal to create an investigative commission to examine accusations against bishops. Condon reports that these initiatives “had been considered to be the bishops’ best chance to produce a substantive result during the meeting and signal to the American faithful that they were taking firm action” on clerical sex abuse. DiNardo, who has himself been accused of mishandling abuse, told the assembled bishops that he was “disappointed” in the decision from the Holy See to put a stop to the vote on these action items.

In a separate report, Condon, along with CNA editor J.D. Flynn, observed that the announcement of the Vatican directive “seemed to shock almost everyone in the room” except Cardinal Blase Cupich, who interrupted DiNardo while he was speaking to express support for Pope Francis, saying, “It is clear the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously”. CNA also reported that according to some observers, Cupich “seemed prepared with comprehensive thoughts on the matter while most bishops, including DiNardo, seemed to still be processing the news.” This raises the question of whether Cupich, known as a strong papal ally in the American Church, was briefed ahead of time on what was coming, and how Rome wanted him to steer the conversation.

Whatever the case, it appears that Cupich was alone in his assessment of the decision to suppress the vote. On his Twitter account, Flynn noted that reporters had “already heard from several bishops who are angry.” Elsewhere, CNA indicated that DiNardo had questioned how the move fits with the “synodality” that appeared to be such an important theme coming out of the Youth Synod held in Rome last month:

“I’m wondering if they could turn the synodality back on us.” DiNardo said. “My first reaction was, this didn’t seem so synodical; but maybe the Americans weren’t acting so synodically either. But it was quizzical to me, when I saw it.”

According to the Washington Post, Bishop Shawn McKnight, appointed earlier this year to his first see in Jefferson City, Missouri, was far more forthright in his assessment of Rome’s decision: “This kind of thing is a blow to what we’re trying to overcome here in the United States – the perception of a hierarchy that is unresponsive to the reality of the tragedy,” he said. “I’m beginning to wonder if we need to look at a resolution where we refuse to participate in any kind of cover-up from those above us … It’s for the good of the church.” McKnight had previously described as “almost unbearable” how “a brother bishop” [McCarrick] could “disrespect with such callousness the dignity of young boys, seminarians, and priests over decades and no one called him on the carpet.”

The directive not to hold the vote came specifically from the Congregation for Bishops, the prefect of which is Cardinal Marc Oullet, who came out strongly in an ad hominem attack against Former US Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò last month after Viganò had requested that he reveal what he knew about McCarrick and the restrictions Pope Benedict had placed on his ministry and public life, including “key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups”. Cardinal Wuerl, who succeeded McCarrick in the Washington DC archdiocese, is also a prominent member of the congregation. Wuerl’s resignation was recently accepted by the Holy See after mounting public pressure that he be removed for his role in the sex abuse crisis during his tenure as bishop of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as well as allegations that he had knowledge of McCarrick’s misconduct. Wuerl has remained as apostolic administrator of D.C. since his resignation, and is considered to continue to have significant influence in the Church — particularly in the appointment of bishops. Bishop Martin Holley, formerly of Memphis, Tennessee, was removed from his position last month – a decision he believes came “at the behest” of Wuerl, whose appointment to a prominent Vatican position Holley opposed in 2012. The Vatican has made clear that the reasons for Holley’s removal were “not abuse-related.”

An Unsurprising Surprise

Though few seemed to expect Rome to take such decisive form of intervention, the mind of the Holy See on the matter was not unknown to the American Bishops. In September, after their appeal to the pope to provide an apostolic visitation to investigate more deeply into the life of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was rejected, it was reported that sources close to the Vatican indicated that “Francis had urged the U.S. bishops to cancel their upcoming November meeting, and take a week of closed retreat instead”.

It was also in September that noted German theologian and editor Benjamin Leven revealed in an article in Herder Korrespondenz that Vatican sources were saying it was Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, close adviser to the pope on canonical matters and alleged to have been present at the “drug-fueled gay orgy” in an apartment of one of his priest-employees last year, who “promoted an attitude of indulgence at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith toward priests who were responsible for sexual abuse.” Leven believes that it was through Coccopalmerio’s intercession that ” several priests who were working in the disciplinary section responsible for handling cases of abuse were dismissed from the CDF.” These priests, readers will recall, were dismissed without cause over the objections of then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. When the cardinal asked the pope why the men were being dismissed, he is claimed to have responded, “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.”

In his September article, Leven also claims that “it was Pope Francis himself who intervened to stop the plan ‘to establish a permanent criminal tribunal for bishops’ implicated in cases of sexual abuse.”

Given that the US Bishops were given no notice of Rome’s decision to suppress their vote, and no real explanation, is this week’s decision yet another manifestation of an increasingly autocratic papacy?

In the Absence of Leadership, Confusion and Doubt

Back in September, on the heels of the Vatican’s rejection of their request for an internal investigation of McCarrick, the USCCB Administrative Committee announced a four-step plan to begin addressing the problem of clerical abuse. Among the four steps, which included the establishment of a third-party reporting system and potential policies for dealing with bishops who had been credibly accused of abuse or misconduct, were the broad outlines of the two initiatives they were forbidden from voting on during this week’s meeting. J.D. Flynn of CNA, who is live tweeting the bishops’ meeting, said this morning that the bishops were proceeding with a discussion of the four items, but that “I’m not sure I completely understand what is going to happen in this discussion” now that the vote was cancelled, “or that many bishops do.” Flynn reports that “DiNardo says discussion is not intended to flout the authority of the holy see, but to do only things within the purview of the USCCB.” There is a fear, according to Flynn and Condon, that if the bishops were to “simply pass their agenda items as planned, defying Rome’s directive,” this could be “dangerously close to an act of schism.”

Viganò Issues Statement, Exhorts the US Bishops “to lead the flock to Christ.”

Archbishop Viganò, who has been instrumental in drawing attention to clerical abuse cover-up at the highest levels of the Church, issued a new statement himself today, following the news that the Vatican had shut down the primary thrust of the US bishops’ meeting. In it, he urged the bishops to remember the scriptural admonition that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom!” and to act accordingly. “Do not behave like frightened sheep,” he wrote “but as courageous shepherds.”

“Do not be afraid of standing up and doing the right thing for the victims, for the faithful and for your own salvation,” he continued.”The Lord will render to every one of us according to our actions and omissions.”



Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.  So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. 

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

 Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters.  The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do.  Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.   May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de PlumeUn ami des Papes

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Given that the US Bishops were given no notice of Rome’s decision to suppress their vote on their plan to create a new organ to handle complaints against bishops, and no real explanation, is this week’s decision yet another manifestation of an increasingly autocratic papacy?

  1. Mary Anne says:

    Thank you, Your Excellency for laying it out so clearly. What appear to me to be guards are always in photos of Benedict XVI. They are masonic/communist thugs! I think they would kill him. The situation is truly dire, as you say. God help us.

  2. Mary Anne says:

    That’s JUST what it is!! We should spread those two words all over the place.

  3. Mary Anne says:

    Thank God for Archbishop Vigano’s letter today giving the bishops support and spiritual advice. God bless him. I hope they don’t ever find him.

  4. hellenback7 says:

    So the CCCB is bold enough to publish the detestable “Winnipeg Statement” (on supposed behalf of the entire laity) against a recently promulgated Humanae Vitae by Pope PaulVI (Francis’ “hero”) but the USCCB can’t make any statements that bind themselves to a code of conduct to help deal with their own transgressions which are an indirect result of the theology behind the abominable “Winnipeg Statement”.

    Sounds about right for a Church steeped in HOMOSEXUAL CLERICALISM from the top on down!

Comments are closed.