Whistleblower Found Dead: Accused Gustavo Vera, Close Friend of Pope Francis, of Human Trafficking
02/24 12:00 p.m. EST UPDATE
Church Militant reports that Natacha Jaitt died two weeks before she was scheduled to give court testimony against Gustavo Vera, whom she accused of sex trafficking.
02/24 8:00 a.m. EST UPDATE
LaCapital reports Natacha Jaitt died as a result of “respiratory failure due to acute pulmonary edema secondary to multiorgan failure,” according to the forensic doctors who performed the autopsy in the judicial morgue of San Fernando, judicial sources informed. Meanwhile, the general prosecutor of San Isidro, Beatriz Molinelli, ordered this Saturday to create a special team of three prosecutors to investigate the death of model Natacha Jaitt in the Buenos Aires town of Benavídez, judicial sources reported.
02/23 10:00 p.m. EST UPDATE
Ciudad Magazine reports the investigation of the tragic death of Natacha Jaitt (41), who was found dead at dawn on Saturday 23, in a complex for events of La Ñata, Benavídez, generated new hypotheses. Although the autopsy is still ongoing and the cause of death is not known with determination, a police doctor who went to the scene of the death informed that Natacha “does not show signs of external violence, having been his death a possible cerebrovascular accident produced for the ingestion of alcohol and cocaine. ” “THEY FOUND DRUG DISCARDED IN A SEWER, AS IF SOMEONE HAD RUN AWAY FROM THE PLACE AND THROWN AWAY THE DRUG, THEY KIDNAPPED A MOTORCYCLE AND A VERY IMPORTANT CELL PHONE.”
Original Story
Natacha Jaitt, a model from Argentina, was found dead this morning in the town of Villa La Ñata. She was 41 years old. Jaitt gained international notoriety when she when went public with accusations of human trafficking against Gustavo Vera, a close friend of Pope Francis. Here’s what we know so far:
Model and driver Natacha Jaitt was found dead this morning at a complex for events in the town of Villa La Ñata, in the Buenos Aires Tigre party.
As it transpired, two people who were in the place made a call to 911 and said that there was a person who had vanished.
Up to the complex for Xanadu events, Isla Verde 644, an ambulance arrived from the Emergency Service of Tigre and the doctor Evangelina Serrano found that Jaitt was dead.
This morning there were troops from the Buenos Aires police and it was expected that at 11 o’clock the autopsy would be performed.
The investigation was carried out by prosecutor Sebastián Fitipaldi, from the decentralized Functional Instructional Unit (UFI) of Benavídez.
We featured a video of Natacha Jaitt’s accusations on our blog several months ago (see below). Key time segments in the video are listed below:
4:13 – 7:07: Jaitt directly states that Gustavo Vera is a pedophile and runs a trafficking network. And that he uses his organization La Alameda to shut down his competition.
8:49 – 9:51: Jaitt recounts how Bergoglio saved pedophile priest Grassi and relocated him to a new area where he had access to vulnerable children.
Early in his pontificate the Catholic Left gushed about the Francis Effect, which mainly reflected their hopes and dreams that the new Holy See leadership would advance their “progressive” agenda. Progressive is usually code for departing from the teachings of Scripture and Tradition. And they predicted this would attract new converts and reverts who had been kept away, in their view, by the retrograde policies of his immediate predecessors.
Honest observers of his reign during the last five years would agree that the what of his agenda has been to pull the Church to the left in many ways, albeit with substantial ambiguity, as evidenced by Amoris Laetitia and many other public statements. Honesty would also dictate that the how of his pontificate—his modus operandi or leadership style—has been to use control, manipulation, and other dictatorial measures to accomplish his goals along with stonewalling, obfuscation, and subterfuge when needed.
A fine Machiavellian tool box has been assembled. This was all on display at the recent dog and pony show called the sex abuse summit in Rome where the root cause of the pestilence (i.e., homosexual activity and predation in the priesthood), its effects (i.e., the abuse of men who are not children) and the depraved legacy of Theodore McCarrick, and those who protected him, were all swept under the rug.
It wasn’t that the prelates failed to talk about the elephant in the room; they averted their eyes from an entire herd.
This makes perfect sense and is politically expedient, because if Francis facilitated an investigation into these matters in a just and effective matter, he himself would be exposed. Indeed, when you look at the careers of such prelates and priests as McCarrick, Monsignor Battista Ricca, Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, and the defrocked Mauro Inzoli, homosexual activity and predation seem to be a resume-enhancer for the pontiff leading to promotion.
William Kirkpatrick writes: “A recent article by journalist Marco Tosatti provides a list of prelates who have been favored, protected, promoted or rehabilitated by Pope Francis despite their record of covering up for abusers. The list includes: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Cardinal Errazuriz Ossa, Bishop Juan Barros, Bishop Juan Jose Pineda, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and Archbishop Kevin Farrell.”
This is all part of Francis’s strategy of control. If you have men around you of weak character with skeletons in their closets, they’re easier to manipulate in accomplishing your goals.
Character doesn’t seem to matter; what matters is acquiring, consolidating, and wielding power while accomplishing a progressive agenda and pursuing vainglory. You can have honor without power and power without honor, but, when the two come together in the fallen human heart, they make for a deadly ecclesial cocktail.
St. Ambrose hits the bull’s eye: “Ambition often makes criminals of those whom no vice would delight, whom no lust could move, whom no avarice could deceive.” He was undoubtedly echoing the words of the apostle James three centuries earlier: “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice” (James 3:16; emphasis added).
Getting “Red-Pilled” on Pope Francis Just as my parents’ generation can remember where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assassinated, many orthodox Catholics can remember similar details when they got “red-pilled” on Pope Francis. Probably because my pre-Catholic background is one that is steeped in the study of Scripture, the release of Amoris Laetitia and the subsequent five dubia by the four cardinals was when I realized that we had a bad pope.
There was also a moral obtuseness evident in the pope that was (ironically) eye-opening for me. With his usual keen wit, the inimitable Fr. Rutler wrote about Pope Francis’s reluctance—“I will not say a word”—to talk about serious allegations of depravity in the Church, and, at the same time, being more than willing to talk about the issue of floating plastics in our oceans:
“We cannot allow our seas and oceans to be littered by endless fields of floating plastic. Here, too, our active commitment is needed to confront this emergency.” The battle against plastic litter must be fought “as if everything depended on us.”
A dictatorial leadership style became obvious:
The pope told Cardinal Gerhard Müller to stop investigating the British cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who was alleged to have sexually abused a girl when she was 13- or 14-years-old. Murphy-O’Connor, a member of the infamous “St. Gallen Mafia,” played a major role in getting Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio elected pope in 2013.
Raymond Arroyo on The World Over on EWTN cited Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, who reported that Francis, through his Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, quietly told American bishops not to invite Cardinal Raymond Burke to speak at their dioceses. Burke should be used to such maltreatment by now after the pontiff removed him from both the Vatican Supreme Court and the influential Congregation for Bishops.
It was also reported by Tosatti that Athanasius Schneider, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, has been ordered not to travel outside his native country without first talking to Francis. This entire episode has a 1985 East Germany meets the Vatican feeling.
Putting Francis On the Couch Because the human heart is so complex, it is often unwise to get too specific in identifying the psychological roots of such authoritarianism, especially when we don’t have many details about Francis’s family and upbringing. We do know that Bergoglio was the son of a struggling accountant and has said very little publicly about his parents.
We also know that his mother temporarily became an invalid and that a woman named Concepción became his primary caregiver. Jorge liked his surrogate but, as Henry Sirewrites, “he admitted to treating her badly when, years later, she came to him to ask for his help as bishop of Buenos Aires and he sent her away, in his own words, ‘quickly and in a very bad way.’”
Such scant details still suggest unmet emotional needs (e.g., feeling loved, accepted, and not alone) in his family of origin. As someone who has rubbed shoulders with more than one dictatorial personality in my years in evangelical and evangelical-charismatic circles, I’d bet the house on it.
It’s more common than the laity realizes for clergy who grow up with unmet emotional needs to look to their ministry, local parish, or episcopacy to meet those needs. Their ministry, rather than being a healthy resource that feeds their soul and spirit as they imitate Christ’s Passion of self-donation, becomes a Source often akin to a Deity.
They are not there to serve the people; the people are there to serve them. They aren’t building the kingdom of God; they’re building their own little kingdom.
The true litmus test for priests and prelates is how they answer this question: “Could you be happy if you knew that you would be laboring in complete obscurity for the rest of your life in a ministry completely devoid of honor and power? Would you be okay if your gifts and wisdom were only appreciated by an Audience of One?
Religious idols are often more difficult to recognize and criticize than the profligate lifestyle of a Hugh Hefner or the deceit and greed of a Bernie Madoff. After all, what’s being done is in the name of God and can hide behind religious vestments, language, and liturgy.
The anger of a pope can be likened to that of Christ cleansing the temple or one of the Old Testament prophets. And, remember, Catholic ecclesiology is not democratic; sometimes measures that look autocratic are just and must be pursued for the greater good.
However, the Idols of Power and Honor are difficult to placate, and such an endeavor results in many of the works of the flesh that Paul identifies: enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, and envy (Gal. 5:20). Historian Henry Sire, who spent four years in residence in Rome researching The Dictator Pope, has many contacts inside the Vatican who lament the pontiff’s explosive temper and vulgar language.
This is in striking contrast to Mother Angelica, who, although she suffered great material and emotional privation in her childhood, eventually was able, by God’s grace, to get her emotional needs met through her relationship to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Mother of God, intimate friends, and in sacrificial service to the Church. Rather than trying to control and manipulate the people around her to accomplish some selfish agenda, she was able, as de Caussade exhorts, to abandon her concerns to divine providence.
Being Mary’s Heel in the Day of the Francis Effect The laity has received much advice in recent months on what to do in our day of scandal and crisis. The three most important things are pray the Rosary, pray the Rosary, and pray the Rosary.
Petitions can be started that strongly urge certain prelates to resign, money can be denied their corrupt dioceses, articles can be written and investigative shows broadcast that expose their malfeasance, and protests can be held outside certain events like the recent sex abuse summit. The reader can furnish many more examples.
One more thing can be added to the list that has been mostly overlooked: manifest the opposite spirit of the Francis Effect. We see this general principle at work in the Gospel Reading for Sunday, February 24, 2019 (Luke 6: 27-38).
Jesus tells us to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us. In applying this passage to our day, it means that when the Francis Effect is autocratic, controlling, manipulative, and seeks to instill fear, we need to manifest humility in its myriad dimensions to counteract it.
This is spiritual warfare; it’s in humility that powers, principalities, and wickedness in high places are brought to nothing. It’s in a humiliated Son of Man being crucified on a tree that the works of the devil are destroyed.
In this we follow the Mother of God who rejoiced in God her Savior “because he regarded the lowliness of his handmaid.” In this we follow her Son who washed the feet of his disciples.
When we are humble, we show the watching world the heart of Christ. In Day Six of the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy Novena, Christ asks us to pray for “the meek and humble souls and the souls of little children, and immerse them in my mercy. These souls most closely resemble my heart” (emphasis mine).
This spirit of humility can neutralize its opposite spirit. We see this with the soldier at the cross: “And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’”
Mother Teresa’s humility played a role in Malcolm Muggeridge’s conversion to the Catholic faith. He was a man of the world and her lowliness disarmed him: it wasn’t so much what was taught but what was caught.
In Les Misérables, the kind and generous Bishop Myriel gives the hardened and embittered Jean Valjean shelter and Valjean runs off with his silverware that night. The police capture Valjean but Myriel pretends to have given the goods to him and two silver candlesticks as well.
The police buy the story and leave. Myriel uses this episode as a teachable moment, telling him that because God has spared his life, he should seek to make an honest living. Valjean did just that and more.
The faithful Catholic laity becomes Mary’s Heel when it manifests this spirit of humility in these days of the Francis Effect. The temptation is to become a monster in order to slay the monster.
Sadly, in doing this, you end up with one dead monster, one live one, and the kingdom has not come on earth as it is in heaven. May God give this generation the grace to rebuild the waste places (Is. 58:12) and not kick the can down the road to our children.
(Photo credit: Pope Francis at “The Protection of Minors in the Church” conference, February 22; Vatican Media / CNA)
Jonathan B. Coe is a graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Before being received into the Catholic Church in 2004, he served in pastoral ministry in rural Alaska, and in campus ministry at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He has written for Catholic Exchange and The Imaginative Conservative. He is the author of Letters from Fawn Creek, a volume of spiritual direction, and lives in the Pacific Northwest.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS SOUND ADVICE FROM A MAN WHO CONVERTED TO THE CHURCH FROM PROTESTANTISM IN 2004. HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE DISILLUSIONED, NEGATIVE AND REGRET HIS CONVERSION BUT HE HAS FOUND CHRIST IN THE Catholic Church AND HE OFFERS SOUND ADVICE TO ALL CATHOLICS ON HOW TO COPE WITH THE DAMAGE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS DOING TO THE FAITH OF MANY CATHOLICS
Last night, Democrats filibustered a bill to stop infanticide.
Infanticide!
44 Democrats voted to filibuster a bill that would have protected a living, breathing child, outside of its mother’s womb — innocent, defenseless children that survive the grisly tools of an abortionist.
REMEMBER: It takes a supermajority (60 of 100 senators) to advance regular order legislation. That’s why even with a slim pro-life majority in the Senate, it remains difficult to pass these types of bills. The final vote tally last night was 53 votes FOR the bill (against infanticide) and 44 against the bill (for infanticide). 60 votes were needed. And so it failed (plane delays kept three Senate Republicans from voting).
Not a single Republican voted NO on this bill. Even pro-abortion Republican Susan Collins voted Yes. Democrats Bob Casey (PA), Joe Manchin (WV), and Doug Jones (AL) all voted to protect these children. Click here to see how every Senator voted.
KEY: Every Senate Democrat running for president voted against protecting fully born babies: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar.
How far outside the mainstream are these presidential candidates?
Consider again that this legislation would not change a single thing about current abortion law. You could fully support abortion and still vote for this legislation.
For decades, Democrats have hidden behind euphemisms to mask their strident support of abortion. First they were merely “personally opposed” and “didn’t want to impose their views” on the rest of America. Then they championed the idea of abortion being “safe, legal, and rare.”
But they aren’t hiding anymore.
The Democratic Party is now firmly in the grasp of the hard left– the same people who promote “Shout my abortion!” all over social media.
Which is why they support abortion in all 9 months, without hesitation.
And now they won’t even offer medical care to newborn babies born alive.
A recent poll from the SBA List found that 77% of Americans support protecting babies who survive abortion. And yet, only 3 of the 47 Democrats in the Senate stood up to protect these babies. In fact, a recent Marist poll showed that the wave of abortion extremism is now turning off even Democrats!
These politicians cannot hide!
OUR JOB: Catholics must lead the charge to hold politicians that support infanticide accountable. No doubt they are hoping this issue will disappear. But we will not let them — or the voters — forget.
Thanks to your continued support of CV, we have a wave of new ads that will begin running regularly in key states from now into next year — and through November 2020.
“Members of the armed forces and other persons… who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria.
“Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care…”
Vote Summary
Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: The Motion to Proceed to S. 311 )
Vote Number: 27 Vote Date: February 25, 2019, 05:42 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: S. 311 (Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act )
Measure Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Vote Counts: YEAs53
NAYs44
Not Voting3
*Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blackburn (R-TN), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Braun (R-IN), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cortez Masto (D-NV), Nay
Cotton (R-AR), Yea
Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Hassan (D-NH), Nay
Hawley (R-MO), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Jones (D-AL), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
McSally (R-AZ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Romney (R-UT), Yea
Rosen (D-NV), Nay
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-FL), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Not Voting
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Sinema (D-AZ), Nay
Smith (D-MN), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Young (R-IN), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
McSally (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Romney (R-UT)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-FL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
NAYs —44
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Rosen (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 3
Cramer (R-ND)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Scott (R-SC)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Jones (D-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Arizona: McSally (R-AZ), Yea Sinema (D-AZ), Nay Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea California: Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Harris (D-CA), Nay Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay Florida: Rubio (R-FL), Yea Scott (R-FL), Yea Georgia: Isakson (R-GA), Yea Perdue (R-GA), Yea Hawaii: Hirono (D-HI), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Nay Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea Illinois: Duckworth (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Indiana: Braun (R-IN), Yea Young (R-IN), Yea Iowa: Ernst (R-IA), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Yea Louisiana: Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Kennedy (R-LA), Yea Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay Massachusetts: Markey (D-MA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay Michigan: Peters (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Smith (D-MN), Nay Mississippi: Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea Hawley (R-MO), Yea Montana: Daines (R-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Nebraska: Fischer (R-NE), Yea Sasse (R-NE), Yea Nevada: Cortez Masto (D-NV), Nay Rosen (D-NV), Nay New Hampshire: Hassan (D-NH), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Nay New Jersey: Booker (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay New Mexico: Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea North Dakota: Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Lankford (R-OK), Yea Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Scott (R-SC), Not Voting South Dakota: Rounds (R-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Blackburn (R-TN), Yea Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Utah: Lee (R-UT), Yea Romney (R-UT), Yea Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay Virginia: Kaine (D-VA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Nay Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay West Virginia: Capito (R-WV), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Yea Wisconsin: Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Yea Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Votes
Nominations
Calendars & Schedules
Congressional Record
Treaties
Bills & Resolutions
Appropriations Bills
Legislative Process
Public Disclosure
Active Legislation
Find Votes
Find out about congressional voting with this How to guide.
Find Bills
Use this guide to help you find the full text of recent bills and resolutions on the Web, or order them from the Senate or House Document Rooms, or you can find them in a library.
Find bills
You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the Congress.gov website. Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on Congress.gov.
Virtual Reference Desk
The Votes page of the Virtual Reference Desk provides voting procedure information, research guides, and essays about historic votes.
Vote Statistics
The Votes category on the Statistics page features facts and figures about votes made by Senators.
His 8 years of living in the White House is over. He’s (mostly ) gone … but questions remain . .
This came from a union guy in Chicago who didn’t vote for Obama. Very interesting perspective!
It will be interesting to see what they put in his “Library” about his early years now that he is out of office.
In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t it seem odd that there’s so little we know about Barack Obama?
As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our news makers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own ex-president.
We are all aware of the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama; that “document managing “ has been spectacularly successful.
There are however, several additional oddities in Obama’s history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.
One other interesting thing… There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found?
It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK’s magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess, Joe Biden’s aneurysms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton’s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer..”
It’s virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow. Who was best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn’t this make you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc?? Not one person has ever come forward from his past.
It certainly is very, very strange…
This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named “The Manchurian Candidate” ?
As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign.
He questions why no one has acknowledged he was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
He is such a great orator; why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University.
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever.”
Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of ’83 Political Science, and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!
And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbooks and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
Some other interesting questions:
1.Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002? It is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.
2…Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order? We understand that it was forced to avoid fraud charges
It is circulating that according to the U.S Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias’ are connected to him.
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is reported to have never lived. And was originally registered to another man (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, who died in Hawaii while on vacation there.
As we all know Social Security Numbers are only issued ‘once, they are not reused. No wonder all his records are sealed…
Please continue sending this out. Somewhere, someone has to know SOMETHING, before he reorganized Chicago?.. SOMETHING!!! He just seemed to burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention. ANYONE??? ANYWHERE??? ANYTHING???
I think soon much is going to come to light about this highly unqualified person who was President of the United States for 8 years. Soon, we will know how badly we were all doped and duped by this impostor who has basically, with much help from his minions, almost brought the greatest nation in history to its knees in ruins.
That will be his legacy.
He totally destroyed the Integrity, morals and Christian heritage of our once great country.
“Glorious News: The United Methodists Voted Against LGBTQ, Will Stick with the Bible”
By Donna Garner
2.26.19
Today the United Methodist Church (UMC) delegates to the General Conference voted for the Traditional Plan which relates to human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. The Traditional Plan won 438 to 384. The delegates were divided equally among clergy and lay people. The Traditional PlanThis plan maintains the current language in the Book of Discipline related to human sexuality, marriage, and ordination. It also maintains the current structure of the United Methodist Church. There are three main components of this plan that are important to note:1. There is no change to the current language of the Book of Discipline related to human sexuality, marriage, and ordination.2. Provisions are added to the Book of Discipline which enhance accountability of bishops, annual conferences, pastors, and local churches by stipulating stricter enforcement provisions related to the acts of disobedience to the Book of Discipline.3. It allows annual conferences or any group of 50 congregations the freedom to form a self-governing church if they are in irreconcilable conflict with the Book of Discipline. From a long-serving Methodist pastor leading up to the very important vote today: The UMC is facing the same issues of human sexuality and specifically homosexuality that we are facing in our culture, and every organization or institution that takes a stand against the progressive attitude in our culture will be attacked. The LGBTQ activists are on the attack to tear down any and every group that opposes their agenda, and the UMC Discipline says that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. But it’s not just the United Methodist Church that’s under attack. It’s happening in the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Disciples, and Baptist churches. Some denominations have already compromised their stand, but the United Methodists have not. So we are being attacked and many of the activists who are waging the attack are not members of the United Methodist Church and they are not professing Christians. They are secular humanists who are out to destroy every organization that disagrees with their agenda. …there are liberal/progressive clergy and laity in the United Methodist Church who have been trying to change our Discipline for 30+ years, but their efforts have been rejected every time at every general conference for 30 years…it would be naive for us to think that even if the Traditional Plan is approved (which it was today on 2.26.19), the controversy will not be over. That Plan includes a way for liberal individuals and churches to leave the denomination, but that isn’t their objective. The LBGTQ activists don’t want to leave our denomination. They want to change our denomination; and they know if they are defeated this time and get out, they won’t have a voice to attack us at the next general conference and the next and next until they finally win. They believe they will eventually win because of the changing attitude in our nation toward the homosexual lifestyle. They may never win, but they will keep trying and creating controversy and doing everything they can to disrupt or destroy the UMC or any church or any organization who stands against their agenda. The General Conference is composed of an equal number of lay and clergy delegates from United Methodist annual conferences throughout the world. The most recent General Conference (2016) was attended by 864 delegates. The General Conference meets every 4 years to receive, discuss, and vote on petitions and resolutions that result in a revised edition of the United Methodist Book of Discipline (our denomination’s book of law), and The Book of Resolutions (our denominations policies related to current social issues).=====================IMPORTANT RESOURCE ARTICLES:11.11.19 — “Open Letter to Texas House Member Garnet Coleman: Medical Facts About LGBTQ Lifestyle” — By Donna Garner – EdViews.org — http://www.educationviews.org/open-letter-to-texas-house-member-garnet-coleman-medical-facts-about-lgbtq-lifestyle/ 1.29.19 – “Texas Mother To Force Healthy 6-Yr-Old Son To Undergo Chemical Castration” — By Chief Editor, Explain Life — http://www.educationviews.org/texas-mother-to-force-healthy-6-yr-old-son-to-undergo-chemical-castration/ 1.26.19 – “Texas transgender bills to ‘ban Christianity’ in Texas? — By Michael F. Haverluck – OneNewsNow — http://www.educationviews.org/transgender-bills-to-ban-christianity-in-texas/ Donna GarnerWgarner1@hot.rr.com
Caution: This email will force you to think about our country
Dr. Jack Minzey on Civil War in U.S. Today ….Jack passed away Sunday, 8 April 2018.
Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.
This is the last of his works: Civil War
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country.
When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That’s a civil war.
There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government
This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election.
When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship .
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has ‘discretion’ to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission but, under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him. Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them, and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down. That’s not a free country.
It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
Australian Cardinal George Pell, 77,has been found guilty in an Australian court on charges that he sexually abused two 13-year-old choir boys (one now deceased) 22 years ago, in December of 1996, in a Melbourne cathedral church corridor, where Pell had just become archbishop, after a Sunday Mass, and in another incident in February of 1997
The decision was handed down by an Australian jury in December, but kept under a strict press embargo until today because a second trial was foreseen on separate charges. But that second trial has been dropped.
One of Pell’s victims issued a statement through his lawyers. “Like many survivors it has taken me years to understand the impact upon on my life,” he said as quoted by The Washington Post. “At some point we realize that we trusted someone we should have feared and we fear those genuine relationships that we should trust.
“But Pell denied the charges from the outset, entered a plea of “not guilty,” and he still maintains his innocence. He was arrested in June of 2017, at which time he held a news conference and said: “There’s been relentless character assassination. I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court. I’m innocent of these charges. They are false.”
His lawyer has said the charges were “just nonsense” and “ultimately based on some kind of fantasy, or a fiction, or an invention,” adding that Pell would appeal the conviction. Here below are three reports on this matter, one from the Associated Press, one based on a report in The Australian in April 2015, and one a comment from the traditional Catholic website OnePeterFive. (See also: link to BBC story and link.)
One curious point: these grave charges were seemingly not brought against Pell until after he had been appointed by Pope Francis in 2014 to take a key financial post in Rome, in the Vatican. Francis tasked Pell to lead an effort to bring greater transparency to certain aspects of the Vatican’s finances. During this process, Pell announced publicly that he had discovered $1 billion in funds kept in accounts that were not part of any public balance sheet. Pell promised to make a full report on those funds, but in 2017 Pope Francis removed Pell from his post afterhis financial reforms had met with considerable internal resistance.
(1) Differences between Cardinal Pell’s prosecution and defense (link)Key points of difference between the prosecution and defense cases in the trial that convicted Cardinal George Pell on child sex abuse chargesBy ROD McGUIRK, Associated PressTuesday, February 26, 2019MELBOURNE, Australia — 3h ago
The lawyers representing Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic cleric ever charged with child sex abuse, and those prosecuting the case painted very different pictures of the events that led to his conviction.Pell was found guilty in December of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choirboys in the sacristy of a cathedral and weeks later of indecently assaulting one of the choirboys in a cathedral corridor.
Reporting on the case in Melbourne, Australia on had been forbidden by the Victoria state County Court until Tuesday.The prosecution said Pell had opportunity to commit the crimes. The defense said it was impossible for the crimes to have gone unnoticed in the busy cathedral moments after masses.The following are key points of difference between the prosecution and defense cases:*Sacristy Episode
The defense said the allegation in which Pell caught two choirboys in a change room known as a priests’ sacristy at the rear of the cathedral and sexually abused them would have taken at least six minutes and could not have happened undetected.The defense said that the sacristy was a “hive of activity” after mass, where an altar server testified that 30 seconds did not pass without a priest, altar server or church official being inside the room returning chalices and the missal from the altar and helping the archbishop disrobe or disrobing themselves.
The defense also said Pell would have been standing on the front steps of the cathedral chatting to worshippers during the first two Sunday Solemn Masses he said as archbishop at the cathedral in the moments after services when the complainant testified he was molested. Records show that the sacristy episode could only have happened on Dec. 15 or 22, 1996.The defense said church protocols dating back to the 15th century require that a bishop is never unattended while robed and Pell had been dressed in full archbishop’s regalia except for the crosier (shepherd’s crook) and the miter (pointed hat) when the offending occurred.
Cathedral Master of Ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli testified that he recalled accompanying Pell and helping the archbishop robe and disrobe during Pell’s first two Sunday masses at the cathedral.The prosecution said Portelli smoked 20 cigarettes a day at the time and suggested he might have left Pell at the sacristy door while going outside to smoke. But Portelli denied leaving Pell for a cigarette and the prosecution told the jury they should disregard the smoking-break theory as speculation.
The prosecution argued that there was an opportunity for the offending to take place, with altar servers allowing worshippers a few minutes of “the privacy of prayer” after mass before moving in to clear the altar space of sacred items and returning them to the sacristy.The prosecution also said Pell did not always spend time conversing with parishioners on the cathedral steps after mass.
*Archbishop’s GarmentsThe defense argued that Pell could not have parted his garments to expose his penis as the complainant had alleged to police, with defense lawyer Robert Richter calling such a scenario “nonsense” and “laughable.” The defense accused the complainant of altering his evidence in later testimony after discovering that the garments did not open along the middle.The jury was given the cumbersome garments to examine in the jury room during their deliberations.The prosecution argued that the full length robe known as an alb was “not like a straight jacket,” and there was “little difference” between the complainant’s police statements and his court testimony.
*Corridor EpisodeThe defense said Pell could not have shoved a choirboy against a corridor wall and painfully squeezed his genitals following a mass on Feb. 23, 1997 without being noticed, even if they were partially obscured by a pillar.”Whether or not he’s hiding behind a pillar doesn’t matter because this gentleman, George Pell, … all six foot four (193 centimeters) of him, wouldn’t be hiding behind any pillar anyway. He would be seen by whoever was in the corridor to be violently pushing someone against the wall and reaching for their nether parts. And so we say that is just nonsense,” Richter said.The prosecution said the indecent assault was brief, Pell would have had reason to be heading to his sacristy via that corridor and might not have lingered out the front of the cathedral chatting with the congregation that day because he had to say another mass that afternoon at a church in the Melbourne suburb of Maidstone.
*The complainant’s credibilityThe defense said no other witness corroborated the 34-year-old complainant’s allegations and the other alleged victim had told his parents before he died of an accidental drug overdose in 2014 that he had never been molested while he was a chorister. The defense says the complainant’s evidence was full of “improbabilities and impossibilities.””His account is ultimately based on some kind of fantasy, or a fiction, or an invention. I would like to think that it’s not an outright altogether invention, that it was based in some way on some fantasy that has morphed over the years into him believing that he’d been assaulted,”
Richter said.The prosecution described the complainant’s testimony as “powerful and persuasive.” The evidence of other witnesses supported several aspects of his evidence, prosecutors said.*The choir’s procession from the cathedralThe defense argued that none of the choristers recalled seeing two choirboys break from a procession from the cathedral front door to the choir change room after mass in December 1996 because it never happened.The complainant testified that he and his fellow victim had peeled away from a procession and returned to the cathedral through a side door before Pell caught them in the sacristy and abused them.The prosecution said whether the boys had been able to break away from the procession was a key issue for the jury in determining Pell’s guilt, along with whether Pell had stayed on the cathedral front steps chatting with the congregation after mass and whether he returned to the sacristy alone.
The defense said the pair, as sopranos, would have been toward the front of the procession with older boys and adult choristers behind them. The older choristers would have enforced a high degree of discipline.The prosecution argued the procession did not operate with “military precision” and with 61 choristers in the procession plus altar servers and priests, it was probable that the pair could have slipped away without being noticed.
*Altar WineThe complainant testified that the wine Pell caught him swigging was red, while there was evidence that the cathedral used white altar wine at the time.The defense points to Sacristan Max Potter’s evidence that the wine was always locked in a sacristy safe after Sunday Solemn Mass.The prosecution says as a 13 year-old boy, the complainant could be expected to be inexperienced in varieties of wine.=======
(2) Cardinal Pell discovers a billion lost euros at Vatican (link)Published: 13 April 2015Cardinal Pell discoveryMore than a billion euros in previously “hidden” Church funds will be revealed in new Vatican budget audit. But the funds have not been misused and are not part of corruption and scandal that have previously shamed the Vatican, reports The Australian.The vast sums of undeclared money have been hidden in various bank accounts by organisations and groups within the Holy See in Rome.Although the funds have not been misused, the money has not been properly disclosed or available for the full use of the Vatican because it has been hidden away in an Italian practice of keeping aside undeclared finds.It is now expected that Cardinal George Pell, appointed by the Pope a year ago as the Vatican treasurer, will disclose in his audit of Vatican funds as part of next month’s budget that more than a billion euros have been hidden away.
Cardinal Pell, who is introducing tough, modern financial rules for the Vatican, said previously he found hundreds of thousands of hidden euros as he applied his new audit standards to the Holy See.Shortly after taking over the role last year, he said he would be aiming for “substantial transparency” for the Vatican’s finances. “We are working so that international financial standards will be followed in all the dicasteries (departments) and sections of the Holy See,” he said. “Our ambition is to become… a model of financial management, rather than cause for occasional scandal.”==========
(3) Cardinal Pell’s Conviction Announced After New Trial Falls Apart (link)By Steve Skojec
February 25, 2019I’m not even going to attempt to present this one as a straight news piece. The inescapable feeling one gets when looking at the story is that it’s a farce.After months under an Australian court’s gag order, the December conviction of Cardinal George Pell on decades-old sex abuse allegations has just been announced. The news comes after another trial scheduled to happen this month has fallen apart. The question of whether the cardinal is guilty or innocent remains.
It’s currently breaking news pretty much everywhere.Cardinal George Pell isn’t a man I have a particular affinity for. He’s known as a “conservative,” which means only so much to a traditionalist like me. He’s a politician, like most bishops of note, if a little more rough around the edges. But he was brought into the Vatican to do a job — audit and reform the Vatican bank — and when he found over a billion Euros in the Vatican mattresses, he was suddenly called back to Australia on decades-old sexual abuse allegations as papal hatchet man Archbishop (Giovanni Angelo) Becciu swooped in to put a stop to any momentum the financial reforms might have.
In July of 2017, I wrote a piece entitled “The Destruction of Cardinal Pell.” In it, I noted that he had fallen from the good graces of Francis when he signed the 13 Cardinals Letter, and that as soon as the years-old allegations of decades-old sexual abuse against him became formal, there were signs of it being a witch hunt. As I wrote at the time:One can’t help but wonder whether decades-old allegations — usually impossible to prove — will do anything but leave Pell a man with a ruined reputation. Certainly, a guilty verdict under such circumstances seems unlikely. But with headlines like “The Pope’s Pedophile?” now circulating in the mainstream press, even an complete acquittal will never restore his good name.
Apparently, I underestimated the Australian courts.Despite the Australian media gag order, the Catholic News Agency under the helm of J.D. Flynn went ahead with stories last December about Pell’s conviction — even after they received a cease and desist order from an Australian judge. In a piece by Ed Condon, the verdict was described in terms that very much called into question whether justice was even attempted.
Allow me to quote from it at some length:CNA has spoken to several sources familiar with the Pell case, all of whom expressed disbelief at the verdict. The sources spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the legal gag order imposed by the court.“They have convicted an innocent man,” one source directly familiar with the evidence told CNA. “What’s worse is that they know they have.”An individual who attended the entire trial in person but is unconnected with Pell’s legal team, told CNA that Pell’s lawyers had made an “unanswerable defense.”“It was absolutely clear to everyone in that court that the accusations were baseless. It wasn’t that Pell didn’t do what he’s accused of – he clearly couldn’t have done it.
”The allegations are understood to concern Pell assaulting the two choristers in the sacristy of Melbourne cathedral on several occasions immediately following Sunday Mass.The defense presented a range of witnesses who testified that the cardinal was never alone in the sacristy with altar servers or members of the choir, and that in all the circumstances under which the allegations are alleged to have taken place, several people would have been present in the room.The sacristy in Melbourne’s Cathedral has large open-plan rooms, each with open arches and halls, and multiple entrances and exits, the defense noted.
Defense attorneys also produced a range of witnesses who testified that Pell was constantly surrounded by priests, other clergy, and guests following Sunday Masses in the cathedral, and that choristers had a room entirely separate from the sacristy in which they changed as a group, before and after Mass.
Observers also questioned whether some courtroom tactics used by state prosecutors were intended to stoke anti-clerical feelings in jury members.One priest, a Jesuit, was called as an expert witness by the defense, but was consistently referred to as a “Christian Brother” by prosecutors – a move, the court observer told CNA, that seemed calculated to invoke the religious order at the center of a widely known clerical sexual abuse scandal in the country.“It was a blatant move, but it sums up the sort of anti-Catholic, anti-clerical drift of the whole trial,” CNA’s courtroom source said. “The jury were being winked at.”Full discussion of the charges and the evidence laid against Pell remains impossible because of the media blackout.
The gag order was imposed at the request of prosecutors in June, who argued that media attention could bias the case.“It’s absurd,” another source directly familiar with the trial told CNA. “Any Catholic in Victoria can tell you that our media has been steeped in anti-Catholic, anti-clerical and especially anti-Pell coverage for more than two decades. The prosecutors were perfectly happy with all of that leading up to the trial, and for it to carry on now.”“The only thing you can’t talk about are the facts of the case,” the source said.
Of course, we will never know for certain the truth of Pell’s innocence or guilt. It’s my understanding that this is why the 8th Commandment is meant to be taken seriously. But despite the Church revisiting the clerical sex abuse crisis in all its debauchery these days, there are reasons to question Pell’s guilt.He was seen as an enemy by the Australian media, who disliked his conservatism.He was seen as an enemy by the entrenched powers within the Vatican, who resisted and resented his financial reforms.He makes a convenient scapegoat for media and anti-Catholics of all kinds in the kind of trial that, by nature, can provide zero physical evidence, and only testimony against testimony — testimony from a single accuser — in a moment where public sentiment against the Catholic Church and its abusers is at an all-time-low.
To the last point, a quote from The New York Times’ piece on the conviction says a great deal:“There are no winners,” said Andrew Collins, a clergy sexual abuse survivor from Ballarat. But, he said, “It’s part of the bloodletting that’s needed to happen for the Catholic church.”Part of the bloodletting that’s needed to happen. I suppose it doesn’t matter if it’s symbolic, then.Pope Francis expelled Pell from his C9 in December, at the same time as he dispensed with Cardinal Errazuriz of Chile — himself accused of covering up the abuse of Fr. Fernando Karadima. Two other cardinals said to have failed to deal appropriately with clerical abuse in their dioceses — Marx and Maradiaga — remain in the pope’s council of advisors.
As for Pell, he is expected to be sentenced despite concerns over the injustice of his treatment and an appeal against the verdict. He faces a maximum 50-year prison sentence. The cardinal is 77 years old. .(end, OnePeterFive piece)
Cardinal Pell’s Appeal Is Justified February 26, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the conviction of Cardinal George Pell:
Australian Cardinal George Pell was convicted in December of molesting two choirboys in the 1990s, but it was not until yesterday that the details were disclosed; charges against Pell that would require a second trial over other allegations were dropped. Pell’s lawyers are appealing the conviction.
There are many holes in the story that led to Pell’s conviction. To begin with, one of the boys who was alleged to have registered a complaint overdosed on drugs and died. More important, the boy’s mother said her son admitted, on two occasions, that Pell never abused him. This does not matter to the boy’s father: He says he is going to sue the Church or Pell once the appeal is resolved. Let him. And let him sue his wife for libeling their son.
Regarding the other boy, the sole complainant, he said that Pell made him perform oral sex on him after saying Mass at Melbourne’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral two decades ago. I have already written extensively about this, so I will not repeat it here.
However, I will offer a good summary of what this one boy alleges to have happened. The quoted parts are taken from a well-researched news story published today by Rod McGuirk of the Associated Press; he writes from Melbourne.
“The jury convicted Pell of abusing two boys whom he had caught swigging sacramental wine in a rear room of Melbourne’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in late 1996, as hundreds of worshippers were streaming out of Sunday services.
“[Robert] Richter, his lawyer, had told the jury that only a ‘mad man’ would take the risk of abusing boys in such a public place. He said it was ‘laughable’ that Pell would have been able to expose his penis and force the victim to take it in his mouth, given the cumbersome robes he was wearing.
“The jury was handed the actual cumbersome robes Pell wore as. archbishop. Over his regular clothes, Pell would wear a full-length white robe called an alb that was tied around his waist with a rope-like cincture. Over that, he would drape a 3-meter (10-foot) band of cloth called a stole around his neck. The outermost garment was the long poncho-like chasuble.
“More than 20 witnesses, including clerics, choristers and altar servers, testified during the trial. None recalled ever seeing the complainant and the other victim break from a procession of choristers, altar servers and clerics to go to the back room.
“The complainant testified that he and his friend had run from the procession and back into the cathedral through a side door to, as [Mark] Gibson, the prosecutor, said, ‘have some fun.’
“Monsignor Charles Portelli, who was the cathedral’s master of ceremonies in the 1990s, testified that he was always with Pell after Mass to help him disrobe in the sacristy.” He maintains the charges are totally false.
In other words, one of the alleged victims says he was never a victim, and the other can find no one—not one among over 20 who were with him that day—to support his story.
Keep Cardinal George Pell in your prayers. It is not easy for any priest, never mind a high-ranking one, to get a fair trial today. The hysteria and the animus that exist makes for a toxic environment.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE LEGAL ABUSE OF JUSTICE IN THE CONVICTION OF CARDINAL PELL IN AUSTRALIA CRIES OUT TO HEAVEN FOR RECTIFICATION ON APPEAL
The suppression order in relation to Cardinal George Pell has been lifted. In December, a jury of 12 of his fellow citizens found him guilty of five offences of child sexual abuse. No other charges are to proceed. Cardinal Pell has appealed the convictions. The verdict was unanimous. The jury took three days to deliberate after a four-week trial. The trial was in fact a re-run. At the first trial, the jury could not agree. The trial related to two alleged victims, one of whom had died.
Members of the public could attend those proceedings if they knew where to go in the Melbourne County Court. Members of the public could hear all the evidence except a recording of the complainant’s evidence from the first trial. The complainant, who cannot be identified, did not give evidence at the retrial; the recording from the first trial was admitted as the complainant’s evidence. The recording was available to the public only insofar as it was quoted by the barristers in their examination of other witnesses or in their final addresses to the jury, and by the judge in his charge to the jury. So, no member of the public has a complete picture of the evidence and no member of the public is able to make an assessment of the complainant’s demeanour.
The complainant’s evidence at the first trial lasted two and a half days. He had been cross-examined for more than a day by Pell’s defence barrister, Robert Richter QC, who has a reputation for being one of the best and one of the toughest cross-examiners in the legal profession. Pell did not give evidence, but a record of his police interview, denying the allegations, was in evidence.
The complainant’s evidence related to events that occurred back in 1996 or 1997 when he was a 13-year-old choir boy at St Patrick’s Cathedral Melbourne. Most other witnesses had been choir boys, altar servers or Cathedral officials in 1996 when Pell first became archbishop of Melbourne. The complainant claimed that the first event, involving four charges, occurred after a solemn Sunday Mass celebrated by Pell in the second half of 1996. It was common ground between the prosecution and the defence that the dates to which these four charges must be attributed were 15 December 1996 or 22 December 1996. These were the dates on which the first and second solemn Sunday Masses were celebrated by Pell in the Cathedral after he had become archbishop in August 1996. The Cathedral had been undergoing renovations and thus was not used for Sunday Masses during earlier months of 1996.
The complainant said that he and another choir boy left the liturgical procession at the end of one Sunday Mass and went fossicking in the off-limits sacristy where they started swilling altar wine. The archbishop arrived unaccompanied, castigated them, and then, while fully robed in his copious liturgical vestments, proceeded to commit three vile sexual acts including oral penetration of the complainant. The complainant said that the sacristy door was wide open and altar servers were passing along the corridor. The complainant said that he and the other boy then returned to choir practice. The choir was making a Christmas recording at that time.
These two choir boys stayed in the choir another year but, the complainant said, they never spoke about the matter to each other, even though they sometimes had sleepovers at each other’s homes. The second boy was once asked by his mother if he had ever been abused by anybody and he said he had not.
The complainant claimed that a month or so later, after a Sunday Mass when the archbishop was presiding (but not celebrating the Mass), Pell came along the corridor outside the sacristy where many choristers and others were milling about. He claimed that Pell grabbed him briefly, put him against the wall, and firmly grasped his genitalia. This was the subject of the fifth charge. Pell knew neither boy and had no contact with either of them thereafter.
“Anyone familiar with the conduct of a solemn Cathedral Mass with full choir would find it most unlikely that a bishop would, without grave reason, leave a recessional procession and retreat to the sacristy unaccompanied.”
The prosecution case was that Pell at his first or second solemn Sunday Mass as archbishop decided for some unknown reason to abandon the procession and his liturgical assistants and hasten from the Cathedral entrance to the sacristy unaccompanied by his Master of Ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli while the liturgical procession was still concluding. Portelli and the long time sacristan Max Potter described how the archbishop would be invariably accompanied after a solemn Mass with procession until one of them had assisted the archbishop to divest in the sacristy. There was ample evidence that the Archbishop was a stickler for liturgical form and that he developed strict protocols in his time as archbishop, stopping at the entrance to the Cathedral after Mass to greet parishioners usually for 10 to 20 minutes, before returning to the sacristy to disrobe in company with his Master of Ceremonies. The prosecution suggested that these procedures might not have been in place when Pell first became archbishop. The suggestion was that other liturgical arrangements might have been under consideration.
In his final address, Richter criticised inherent contradictions and improbabilities of many of the details of this narrative. I heard some of the publicly available evidence and have read most of the transcript. I found many of Richter’s criticisms of the narrative very compelling. Anyone familiar with the conduct of a solemn Cathedral Mass with full choir would find it most unlikely that a bishop would, without grave reason, leave a recessional procession and retreat to the sacristy unaccompanied.
Witnesses familiar with liturgical vestments had been called who gave compelling evidence that it was impossible to produce an erect penis through a seamless alb. An alb is a long robe, worn under a heavier chasuble. It is secured and set in place by a cincture which is like a tightly drawn belt. An alb cannot be unbuttoned or unzipped, the only openings being small slits on the side to allow access to trouser pockets underneath. The complainant’s initial claim to police was that Pell had parted his vestments, but an alb cannot be parted; it is like a seamless dress. Later the complainant said that Pell moved the vestments to the side. An alb secured with a cincture cannot be moved to the side. The police never inspected the vestments during their investigations, nor did the prosecution show that the vestments could be parted or moved to the side as the complainant had alleged. The proposition that the offences charged were committed immediately after Mass by a fully robed archbishop in the sacristy with an open door and in full view from the corridor seemed incredible to my mind.
I was very surprised by the verdict. In fact, I was devastated. My only conclusion is that the jury must have disregarded many of the criticisms so tellingly made by Richter of the complainant’s evidence and that, despite the complainant being confused about all manner of things, the jury must nevertheless have thought — as the recent royal commission discussed — that children who are sexually violated do not always remember details of time, place, dress and posture. Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him. The jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.
Pell has been in the public spotlight for a very long time. There are some who would convict him of all manner of things in the court of public opinion no matter what the evidence. There are others who would never convict him of anything, holding him in the highest regard. The criminal justice system is intended to withstand these preconceptions. The system is under serious strain, however, when it comes to Cardinal Pell.
The events of the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, the federal royal commission, the publication of Louise Milligan’s book Cardinal and Tim Minchin’s song Come Home (Cardinal Pell) were followed, just two weeks before the trial commenced, by the parliamentary apology to the victims of child sexual abuse. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, ‘Not just as a father, but as a prime minister, I am angry too at the calculating destruction of lives and the abuse of trust, including those who have abused the shield of faith and religion to hide their crimes, a shield that is supposed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. They stand condemned … on behalf of the Australian people, this Parliament and our government … I simply say I believe you, we believe you, your country believes you.’ Such things tend to shift not the legal, but the reputational, burden upon an accused person to prove innocence rather than the prosecution to prove guilt.
Would the verdict have been different if Pell had given evidence? Who can tell? All one can say is that, although the defence seemed to be on strong ground in submitting that the circumstances made the narrative advanced by the prosecution manifestly improbable, that failed to secure the acquittal.
Was the verdict unreasonable? Can it be supported having regard to the evidence? Those are questions for the appeal court. I can only hope and pray that the complainant can find some peace, able to get on with his life, whichever way the appeal goes. Should the appeal fail, I hope and pray that Cardinal Pell, heading for prison, is not the unwitting victim of a wounded nation in search of a scapegoat. Should the appeal succeed, the Victoria Police should review the adequacy of the police investigation of these serious criminal charges.
When the committal proceedings against Pell first commenced in July 2017, Fran Kelly asked me on ABC Radio National Breakfast: ‘Do you have concerns about this case, regardless of the outcome, and how it’s going to affect the Church?’ I answered: ‘Fran, I think this case will be a test of all individuals and all institutions involved. And all we can do is hope that the outcome will be marked by truth, justice, healing, reconciliation and transparency. A huge challenge for my church, and yes a lot will ride on this case. But what is absolutely essential is that the law be allowed to do its work. And let’s wait and see the evidence, and let’s wait and see how it plays out. And let’s hope there can be truth and justice for all individuals involved in these proceedings.’ And that is still my hope.
Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest who attended some of the Pell proceedings. This article was first published in The Australian.
=======
And yet, there is another side to this story.
And that is Cardinal Pell’s side.
I wrote in my previous letter:
But Pell denied the charges from the outset, entered a plea of “not guilty,” and he still maintains his innocence. He was arrested in June of 2017, at which time he held a news conference and said: “There’s been relentless character assassination. I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court. I’m innocent of these charges. They are false.” His lawyer has said the charges were “just nonsense” and “ultimately based on some kind of fantasy, or a fiction, or an invention,” adding that Pell would appeal the conviction.
And there are so many factors, and facts, that must be taken into consideration, in order to look on this judgment, and these events, in a fair and honest way.
For example, this trial took four weeks, followed by three days of jury deliberations, and ended with a unanimous “Guilty” judgment on December 11, 2018.
But it was not the only trial on these charges.
As the article below states, “The trial was in fact a re-run. At the first trial, the jury could not agree.”
That first trial ended in a “hung jury.”
In fact, at that first trial, the 12 jurors voted 10-2 to acquit Pell.
And, in some parts of Australia, that vote would have been sufficient to end the matter. Pell would have been judged “Not guilty.”
The case would have been over.
But in Melbourne, the law allowed a re-trial. Which was held, and which ended in Pell’s conviction.
So, as others have noted, and as is noted in the article below, 24 jurors have heard the evidence in two trials, with 14 judging Pell “Guilty” and 10 judging him “Not guilty.”
Then there is the social, societal context.
Pell has been for years been attacked by the secular and often anti-Catholic press in Australia, which has depicted him as an aloof, intransigent, “by-the-book” Church leader.
This has created a general climate of public opinion negatively disposed toward Pell.
So the question does arise: did Pell receive a fair trial, and a fair judgement?
The article published below was written by a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who attended the trial, and who listened to the evidence presented. He raises a number of questions about the trial.
And the comments of readers, included below the article, consider many of the “pros” and “cons” of his argument in an almost dizzying way.
The pain and sorrow of innocent victims of sexual abuse is profound, horrific.
The pain and sorrow of a false charge against an innocent man is also profound and horrific.
Our various national and ecclesial justice systems require continual vigilance to ensure that they function equitably, and issue in just judgments.
The article and comments below are published in the hope of contributing to this effort.
==========
Main image: Cardinal George Pell attends court in May 2018 (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
From INSIDE THE VATICAN:
=======
And yet, there is another side to this story.
And that is Cardinal Pell’s side.
I wrote in my previous letter:
But Pell denied the charges from the outset, entered a plea of “not guilty,” and he still maintains his innocence. He was arrested in June of 2017, at which time he held a news conference and said: “There’s been relentless character assassination. I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court. I’m innocent of these charges. They are false.” His lawyer has said the charges were “just nonsense” and “ultimately based on some kind of fantasy, or a fiction, or an invention,” adding that Pell would appeal the conviction.
And there are so many factors, and facts, that must be taken into consideration, in order to look on this judgment, and these events, in a fair and honest way.
For example, this trial took four weeks, followed by three days of jury deliberations, and ended with a unanimous “Guilty” judgment on December 11, 2018.
But it was not the only trial on these charges.
As the article below states, “The trial was in fact a re-run. At the first trial, the jury could not agree.”
That first trial ended in a “hung jury.”
In fact, at that first trial, the 12 jurors voted 10-2 to acquit Pell.
And, in some parts of Australia, that vote would have been sufficient to end the matter. Pell would have been judged “Not guilty.”
The case would have been over.
But in Melbourne, the law allowed a re-trial. Which was held, and which ended in Pell’s conviction.
So, as others have noted, and as is noted in the article below, 24 jurors have heard the evidence in two trials, with 14 judging Pell “Guilty” and 10 judging him “Not guilty.”
Then there is the social, societal context.
Pell has been for years been attacked by the secular and often anti-Catholic press in Australia, which has depicted him as an aloof, intransigent, “by-the-book” Church leader.
This has created a general climate of public opinion negatively disposed toward Pell.
So the question does arise: did Pell receive a fair trial, and a fair judgement?
The article published below was written by a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who attended the trial, and who listened to the evidence presented. He raises a number of questions about the trial.
And the comments of readers, included below the article, consider many of the “pros” and “cons” of his argument in an almost dizzying way.
The pain and sorrow of innocent victims of sexual abuse is profound, horrific.
The pain and sorrow of a false charge against an innocent man is also profound and horrific.
Our various national and ecclesial justice systems require continual vigilance to ensure that they function equitably, and issue in just judgments.
==========
=======
And yet, there is another side to this story.
And that is Cardinal Pell’s side.
I wrote in my previous letter:
But Pell denied the charges from the outset, entered a plea of “not guilty,” and he still maintains his innocence. He was arrested in June of 2017, at which time he held a news conference and said: “There’s been relentless character assassination. I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court. I’m innocent of these charges. They are false.” His lawyer has said the charges were “just nonsense” and “ultimately based on some kind of fantasy, or a fiction, or an invention,” adding that Pell would appeal the conviction.
And there are so many factors, and facts, that must be taken into consideration, in order to look on this judgment, and these events, in a fair and honest way.
For example, this trial took four weeks, followed by three days of jury deliberations, and ended with a unanimous “Guilty” judgment on December 11, 2018.
But it was not the only trial on these charges.
As the article below states, “The trial was in fact a re-run. At the first trial, the jury could not agree.”
That first trial ended in a “hung jury.”
In fact, at that first trial, the 12 jurors voted 10-2 to acquit Pell.
And, in some parts of Australia, that vote would have been sufficient to end the matter. Pell would have been judged “Not guilty.”
The case would have been over.
But in Melbourne, the law allowed a re-trial. Which was held, and which ended in Pell’s conviction.
So, as others have noted, and as is noted in the article below, 24 jurors have heard the evidence in two trials, with 14 judging Pell “Guilty” and 10 judging him “Not guilty.”
Then there is the social, societal context.
Pell has been for years been attacked by the secular and often anti-Catholic press in Australia, which has depicted him as an aloof, intransigent, “by-the-book” Church leader.
This has created a general climate of public opinion negatively disposed toward Pell.
So the question does arise: did Pell receive a fair trial, and a fair judgement?
The article published below was written by a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who attended the trial, and who listened to the evidence presented. He raises a number of questions about the trial.
And the comments of readers, included below the article, consider many of the “pros” and “cons” of his argument in an almost dizzying way.
The pain and sorrow of innocent victims of sexual abuse is profound, horrific.
The pain and sorrow of a false charge against an innocent man is also profound and horrific.
Our various national and ecclesial justice systems require continual vigilance to ensure that they function equitably, and issue in just judgments.
The article and comments below are published in the hope of contributing to this effort.
==========
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE TRAVESTY OF THE CONVICTION OF CARDINAL PELL IS DESCRIBED BY A JESUIT PRIEST (NOT FATHER JAMES MARTIN) WHO KNOWS WELL THAT THE CARDINAL FULLY VESTED FOR PONTIFICAL MASS COULD NOT HAVE EXPOSED HIMSELF AS THE PROSECUTION ALLEGED.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.