IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SHEEP WILL SUCCEED IN PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM THE WOLVES IN PURPLE?

CATHOLIC HEAVYWEIGHTS DEMAND BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

NEWS: US NEWS

Print Friendly and PDF

 

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  July 26, 2018   18 Comments

For some, the Cdl. McCarrick scandal is the last straw

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Fed up with systemic corruption and cover-up in the Church, Catholic leaders are demanding a reckoning from the bishops.

Image
Cdl. Theodore McCarrick

Revelations that Cdl. Theodore McCarrick — one of America’s highest-ranking prelates — preyed on young seminarians while bishop in New Jersey, and, worse, that he was able to advance in his clerical career in spite of leaders’ widespread knowledge of his misconduct, have provoked strong reactions from Catholics.

“The McCarrick revelations not only exemplify the toxic and deforming influence of homosexuality in the higher echelons of the Church, but expose the mournful reality that the American Catholic hierarchy is institutionally corrupt,” C.J. Doyle, head of Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told Church Militant.

C.J. Doyle: The McCarrick revelations … expose the mournful reality that the American Catholic hierarchy is institutionally corrupt.Tweet

“I am among those who heard these stories years ago but was told that the victims were not willing to be named,” said Deal Hudson, editor at The Christian Review. “You can imagine what I, and many others, were thinking when we read the story in the Washington Post calling McCarrick the ‘Vatican’s Man of the Hour.'”

Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family and Human Rights, told Church Militant, “Pressure must be put on the bishops. The problem is that some of us really appreciate our bishops, and so we are not sure what to do, or where to put the pressure. Clearly, something drastic has to happen.”

Author Matt Abbott, who writes at RenewAmerica and reported on the prelate’s misdeeds more than a decade ago, said, “When I first wrote about McCarrick’s abuse of power in 2005 and 2006, not many people seemed interested — certainly not the Catholic establishment or the mainstream media, although they knew about McCarrick. … [T]he moral corruption runs deep and only Divine Intervention will correct it — in God’s time.”

John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews told Church Militant it was no surprise to learn that McCarrick was an abuser, but “what was very disconcerting is that there were other bishops who were aware of his crimes and nevertheless allowed him to destroy the Church in America — that too is a crime deserving punishment.”

“And it is for the benefit of those bishops who knew and remained silent that their punishment comes this side of Heaven,” he added. “It would be just that those found to be involved in these types of scandals would step down from their exalted positions and spend the remainder of their days praying for the good of the Church.”

Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute, said:

I was absolutely appalled when I first learned about Cdl. McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians, and the fact that this was well known by high-ranking bishops. If those bishops covered up something this egregious, what else are they hiding? Even more to the point, one is forced to ask how many of those bishops in the know about McCarrick approved or even participated in similar activities?

Image
“Vice Pope” Cdl. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (L) is accusedof protecting Bp. Juan José Pineda Fasquelle (R),  who recently

stepped down after claims of sexually assaulting seminarians.

Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews also weighed in. “The McCarrick scandal has shone a bright spotlight on the deep rot that still exists in our Church,” he noted. “The Church absolutely needs greater accountability for our bishops. Their misdeeds need to come to light, and they cannot be allowed to resign quietly, as we saw happen last week with Bp. Juan José Pineda Fasquelle in Honduras.”

Fasquelle, a close associate of Cdl. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (nicknamed the “Vice Pope” for his level of influence over Pope Francis), submitted his resignation at the early age of 57 after allegations that he’d embezzled diocesan money and sexually assaulted seminarians.

In response to Church Militant’s comparison between McCarrick and disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Stephen Herreid, managing editor at CatholicVote.org, tweeted, “A chilling analogy when you remember Weinstein isn’t some rare exception. He’s reportedly the EPITOME of a mainstream Hollywood big-wig. And as his lawyer said at trial: “He didn’t invent the casting couch.” What if McCarrick isn’t egregious, but typical? What if he’s a FALL-GUY?”

Cutting Off Funding

There are growing calls for laity to close their wallets to the bishops’ appeals.

“We need to cut off the money,” author John Zmirak, senior editor of The Stream, told Church Militant. “Big Catholic donors should create a ‘St. Escrow’ movement, with escrow accounts for each diocese, where all gifts go instead of to the bishop. Let the money pile up, and have committees of faithful laymen hold bishops accountable, if they want a single dime.”

Beverly Stevens, editor-in-chief of Regina Magazine, is thinking along the same lines.

“Stop donating to corrupt bishops and clerics,” she insisted. “Why? Because you are enabling them. … Set up a 501(c)3 laity-controlled fund. When your priest needs his electric bill paid or his roof fixed, the fund then can pay for his needs directly.”

Calling it the “We Need a New Bishop” fund, she suggests notifying the papal nuncio and the media. “Since wealthy donors account for about 90 percent of the funds — leaving aside federal moneys, which is another big issue — this should concentrate the Vatican’s attention rather quickly,” she added.

“The laity should withhold their contributions from paying the obscene salaries of chancery officials and their lawyers and PR flacks,” Doyle commented. “Adverse publicity, exposing and denouncing their malfeasance, may have a salutary effect, but unlike politicians, bishops are not elected, and unlike professionals and businessmen, bishops don’t seem to care if they lose clients and customers. Perhaps, lawsuits, and where applicable, criminal prosecutions, might focus their attention.”

“There are two things bishops and cardinals like McCarrick fear: exposure and loss of funds,” said Hichborn. “If the laity are frustrated and fed-up with the abuse of power coming from these hierarchs, then the laity needs to be prepared to expose the corruption and put an end to the funding.”

“After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the Homeland Security slogan was, ‘If you see something, say something,'” he added. “Abusive cardinals and bishops like McCarrick are nothing short of ecclesial terrorists, so it’s time to expose them. If you see something, say something.”

Michael Hichborn: Abusive cardinals and bishops like McCarrick are nothing short of ecclesial terrorists, so it’s time to expose them.Tweet

LifeSiteNews‘ Westen notes that money will get the attention of the bishops in a way other appeals won’t.

“Unfortunately having the faithful withhold funds is one of the only ways they can make their voices heard,” Westen said, adding, “Good priests, though, should not be made to suffer. Most parishioners can designate their funds for building, heating or local parish costs rather then allowing them to be given to the diocese.”

Deal Hudson agrees.

“Money seems to be the only thing that influences many of the bishops to listen and to take active steps towards reform,” he said. “Yes, if the laity withholds its donation in big enough numbers, there will be change, and serious self-scrutiny, as a result. Any of the bishops with McCarrick-like backgrounds should resign before it’s brought to light.”

“They need to address the McCarrick situation, and all its implications, in a new report that includes independent lay involvement,” he added, “asking why so many of this nation’s leading bishops and other religious did nothing to bring McCarrick to justice.”

“We should not be putting money in the hands of bishops who have proven they cannot be trusted,” Craine said. “I don’t think any Catholic should be giving money to their national collections. Catholics have been raising the alarm about the use of these funds for years now, yet the problems remain.”

“For example, the international relief arms of the Church, like Catholic Relief Services and Canada’s Development and Peace, continue to fund pro-abortion groups in the developing world despite mounds of evidence,” he noted. “On the local level, if the bishop is not known for orthodoxy and courageous leadership, I would not be giving him money for his projects,” he added. “There are so many amazing apostolates doing real service for the Church that I would rather support.

A Failure in Leadership

“Any organization may be afflicted by egregious incidents of personal misconduct,” said Doyle. “When that organization is incapable of policing itself, when it is unable or unwilling to punish offenders, when it refuses to expel miscreants, and when it lacks the will to reform its corporate culture, then the institution is itself corrupt. Such is the case with American Catholicism today.”

Zmirak puzzles at the misplaced focus of the bishops. “Even as 40 percent of U.S. Catholics drift out of the Church, our bishops focus on opening the borders to import our replacements,” he commented. “Steve Bannon was absolutely right: Most of them have given up on us, and on preaching or teaching the Faith.”

“A constant influx of fresh faces to fill the pews (before they, too, get scandalized and leave) lets bishops dodge the need for root and branch reforms,” he went on. “They can leave their seminaries lavender, glad-hand pro-abort politicos, and keep seeming like leaders of consequential institutions instead of bumbling cowards, whose smarter and straighter brothers went to work for the United Auto Workers or Democratic National Committee.”

“We need to cut off the supply of fresh souls, by helping the president fix our immigration crisis,” Zmirak added. “Let the bishops know they can’t just wave us off and ignore us, because there won’t be millions showing up to replace us.”

John Zmirak: Let the bishops know they can’t just wave us off and ignore us, because there won’t be millions showing up to replace us.Tweet

“The pope and the hierarchy must reform themselves in their selection of candidates for bishops giving precedence to the purity of faith rather than looking for exalted academic degrees and worldly characteristics,” Westen remarked. “We must like Christ seek out the good fishermen rather than the power brokers of the world.”

Craine remarked, “Our first act of rebellion against the current apostasy must be to strive for sanctity ourselves, build up our domestic churches, and raise our children in virtue.”

“But the laity must also be willing to out every predator bishop, and every heretic bishop in our Church,” he said, adding:

And we need to call our priests and bishops to do the same. It’s essential that we always respect the office, but that can’t lead us into pusillanimity or human respect. Very frequently respect of the office requires calling out the sins of the office holder. The Code of Canon Law makes clear that calling out our prelates is a right of the lay faithful, but also can be a duty (Canon 212 §3). Nowadays it often is.

But some wonder if the bishops will respond.

“I am, frankly, pessimistic,” Doyle told Church Militant. “The Counter-Reformation began when a Pope who was serious about the reform of the Church, Paul III, began appointing men who were serious about the reform of the Church to the College of Cardinals and to the bench of bishops. There is no indication, none whatsoever, that we are even approaching that point.”

Church Militant is encouraging adult victims of clerical harassment to share your stories by writing to MeToo@churchmilitant.com.

Michael Voris adds:

Today: a call to action on two fronts. There is a groundswell now developing among faithful Catholics that something must be done, and done now, about sexually abusive bishops and their brother bishops covering all this up.

The recent revelations about Cdl. Theodore McCarrick have set off an explosion of comments and overall disgust at the role of so many members of the Establishment Church — particularly the hierarchy — in covering up this decades-long evil.

And let’s be clear, we are not talking about the child molestation cases, we are talking about adult men who are sexually harassed or advanced on by priests, bishops and even cardinals. There has been a lot of backroom discussion among faithful Catholics who have had it — and I do mean had it.

A number of faithful Catholic media have been in contact with each other and meeting quietly and sharing ideas. The resolution: The U.S. bishops must be held to account for the climate of sexual harassment and intimidation they have helped to create of seminarians, priests, parish workers, college students and so forth.

Right now, there is absolutely no channel for a victim to proceed to. He simply goes to whoever he thinks is best — and often times finds himself betrayed — tossed out of the seminary, or attacked by clergy in his own diocese, or railroaded out. It is a climate of intimidation owing to the bishops unwillingness to address the crisis of homosexual men in the clergy.

Since the title of this Vortex is #CatholicMeToo, allow me to go first.

When I was a sophomore at Notre Dame in 1981, a priest who was the rector of the summer school dorm — and who was also gay — made a series of sexual advances to me. He even wrote a number of letters to me through campus mail which he signed, “Your Secret Pal.” The letters were sexually explicit and disgusting. I was under this man’s authority in summer school because he was the rector of the dorm.

I reported him to university and religious authorities and a big meeting was suddenly held where I was dragged in and accused of lying about the priest and threatened with expulsion if I did not seek psychiatric help. The priest was allowed to remain in his post for at least five more years as a dorm rector. Only the very loud threat by my parents of going to the media made them back down. Nothing further happened.

I spent the next two years wondering — looking over my shoulder — was the university going to try and pull something again? Was the priest going to contact me again? I graduated two years later and the priest remained on campus in the dorms until he died about three years ago. There — that’s my story in sum.

We know that there are thousands of others — probably tens of thousands of stories very similar to this — where you were sexually harassed by a homosexual cleric and were doubly victimized by the institution trying to protect or cover-up for him.

What we want is to hear your story, and in concert with various other faithful Catholic media, we have established an email for you to tell us your story privately. If you’d like to go public with names and places, that’s fine. If you’d like to let us know your story but keep your identity private, that’s fine too.

The email address is on the screen right now: MeToo@ChurchMilitant.com. We’ll leave it up for the rest of The Vortex.

We know for many people, me as well, these are horrible thoughts to bring back to mind. But something has to be done. These stories that wicked clerics have spent careers trying to keep hidden must now be told. Please email us tell us your story.

We said at the beginning this is a call to action on two fronts. Emailing us your story is the first front. The second is this, we are asking all faithful Catholics to immediately cease any financial support of the bishop’s activities until they have taken decisive action to resolve this situation.

No Catholics should be supporting any diocesan appeal for money, no huge diocesan-wide campaigns, no national collections, no social justice efforts run by the bishops — nothing. Not a penny more for any of it. Money in the basket for the parish itself, and that’s it.

We have been lied to, abused, played for fools and our trust betrayed at the highest levels of the Church. Our donations and sacrifices have been used to grease the wheels of this wickedness, providing for a reckless clergy and episcopate who often times live lavish lifestyles with none of the concerns facing their flocks of health care, pensions, shelter, insurance, car payments, groceries — nothing.

We are calling for nothing less than a #CatholicMeToo uprising in the Church and demanding the bishops give an account of their actions, take decisive steps to provide a recourse for adult victims of their sexual harassment and where necessary, to resign their offices.

This evil has got to come to an end. They aren’t going to lift a finger, as the past has proven oh too well, so we must. The time has come. Let’s get it all out in the open, get justice for the victims. Exposure of the wicked. Fix this stinking mess. And until this is rectified and certain bishops are no longer in office, no more money for their causes.

Their only cause should be truth and justice in charity, and for decades, the entire Establishment has artfully sidestepped both. Past or present victims, lay and clergy, seminarians or college students, parish workers or chancery staff, email us your stories.

We place all this under the mantle of Our Blessed Mother.

Email us with your story: MeToo@churchmilitant.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

There is little evidence more convincing of the insanity of some Democrats than their support of the “Abolish ICE” movement.

Two Words Democrats May Regret

Two Words Democrats May Regret

 

If you vote Democratic, this is the commercial you don’t want to see:

“In 2017, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency stopped 7,000 pounds of heroin from entering America, as well as 2,300 pounds of fentanyl, a drug so deadly just a few grams can be lethal.

“To dismantle criminal gangs and keep America safe, ICE agents made more than 143,000 arrests, and 92 percent of those taken into custody were aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, or were immigration fugitives or illegal re-entrants.

“The agency also stopped 2,000 human traffickers from entering our borders, rescuing more than 900 abused children who were forced into virtual slavery.

“Now, one party in Congress is turning its back on this agency.

“In a recent vote, 9 out of 10 Democrats refused to support a simple measure in the House of Representatives that defends this crucial arm of law enforcement and admonishes efforts to abolish ICE.

“So, when you vote on Nov. 6, just ask yourself: Which party is more committed to keeping America safe?”

For voters who are neither hard-core Democratic nor Republican and therefore can be swayed, you can see how such a message can be lethal to Democratic hopes of regaining the House.

And yet, a growing movement is afoot among progressives to “Abolish ICE.” This movement has become so noisy it is spooking Democratic politicians who should know better. That may explain why on July 17, only 18 House Democrats voted to support ICE and admonish efforts to abolish the agency. Evidently, they didn’t want to alienate angry activists.

This movement has become so noisy it is spooking Democratic politicians who should know better.

In an analysis in The New York Times, Alexander Burns writes that this new faction is “increasingly rattling primary elections around the country, and they promise to grow as a disruptive force in national elections as younger voters reject the traditional boundary lines of Democratic politics.”

These voters, he adds, are also “seeking to remake their own party as a ferocious — and ferociously liberal — opposition force. And many appear as focused on forcing progressive policies into the midterm debate as they are on defeating Republicans.”

Abolishing ICE is not the only policy they’re forcing into the midterm debate (there are others, such as single-payer health care), but it is clearly their most emotional and visible cause. The images of migrant children being separated from parents as part of President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy were traumatizing. An angry response was to be expected, and ICE was an easy target.

This lashing out at ICE, however, is political suicide.

“Democrats are making a massive political mistake by calling for the end of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),” Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer writes on the CNN website. Why is it a blunder? Because “the strategy shifts attention away from Trump and his hardline policies and toward the issue of government reorganization.”

In other words, the “Abolish ICE” movement lets Trump off the hook. Instead of focusing on his radical and extreme ways, it allows Republicans to focus their message on law enforcement. Every “Abolish ICE” demonstration becomes a de facto commercial in favor of Republicans who value public safety.

The irony is that my biggest beef with the anti-Trump movement has been that it doesn’t offer ideas or solutions — it just bashes Trump. Finally, when it decides to champion a solution, it picks the one most likely to backfire. It sticks its neck out in front of a guillotine.

This blunder is more about strategy than policy. It may well be that abolishing ICE can be justified as part of comprehensive and reasonable immigration reform. But it is anger and extremism, not reason and compromise, that come across in the “Abolish ICE” movement. And the rhetoric is only getting worse: Just last week, in her new Netflix show, comedian Michelle Wolf compared ICE to ISIS.

The “Abolish ICE” movement lets Trump off the hook. Instead of focusing on his radical and extreme ways, it allows Republicans to focus their message on law enforcement.

Such merchants of hysteria, who seem to be feasting on all the media attention, are forgetting that their goal should be to win back the House, not turn off swing voters. It’s a sign of how these activists are losing their heads that, given the juicy target of Trump and his zero-tolerance policy, they picked ICE instead.

As Zelizer writes: “In 2018, Democrats who are angry about the ongoing attacks on undocumented immigrants, as well as legal immigration, don’t really need anything more to rally around. They already have Trump and his blistering rhetoric, and they have the extraordinarily harsh policy of separating children from their families — which, though the President has ended, still remains an issue since more than 2,000 immigrant kids remain in limbo.”

This is the problem with losing your head. You tend to lose voters and you tend to write great commercials — for the other side.


Follow David Suissa on Twitter: @suissatweets

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on There is little evidence more convincing of the insanity of some Democrats than their support of the “Abolish ICE” movement.

HERE IS YOUR LITTLE DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE PLAGUE OF MEDACITY THAT IS SPREADING FROM ROME

Eccles and Bosco is saved


“I’ve never even heard of McCarrick” says Cardinal Farrell

Posted: 25 Jul 2018 04:44 AM PDT

Today, in a new statement to journalist Cindy Wooden (“Wooden by name, wooden by nature”), Cardinal Kevin Farrell announced, “I’ve never even heard of Cardinal McCarrick.””But you lived with him for six years. Er, not in the ‘Biblical’ sense, of course…”

“No, it’s all lies. I may technically have been ordained by him, but I really don’t remember him. I was too busy trying to look holy.”

Looking holy.

“Isn’t that a Father Ted joke?”

“Look, I never met Father Ted. Or Uncle Ted.”

“But you served as his auxiliary bishop.”

“Did I really? That seems very improbable.”

“You have no memory of Uncle Ted at all?”

“No, you know how is it when you’re a priest, you get to meet all sorts of people, even your own bishop, but you can’t be expected to remember names and faces.”

“So when Cardinal McCarrick was having carnal relations with half of the young men in Washington, you were totally unware of what was going on?”

“That’s right. I never heard any gossip. Or mysterious screams in the night. Or complaints.”

“Thank you, Cardinal Farrell, I’m so glad we’ve cleared that up.”

“Can we talk about my new discovery that priests have no credibility? Anything to change the subject…”

“So you’ve never met Cardinal Farrell, Holy Father?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HERE IS YOUR LITTLE DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE PLAGUE OF MEDACITY THAT IS SPREADING FROM ROME

Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis The Merciful has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes. Pope Benedict ‘had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests, his reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers. These reforms, and removals by comparison have practically ceased under Francis and his Cardinal in charge of sex-abuse cases, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston

pope1

Cardinals Jorge Bergolio and Sean O’Malley

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/07/pope-francis-and-cardinal-omalley-have.html?m=1

Pope Francis and Cardinal O’Malley have Mishandled the Sex Abuse Crisis

Pope Francis and Cardinal Seán O’Malley appear to handle the sex abuse crisis in the same way.

It appears that Francis and O’Malley don’t receive letters when it’s about sex abuse of minors.

Pope Francis’s own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters and president of the Commission for the Protection of Minors Cardinal O’Malley personally gave a sex abuse victim letter to Francis that he never received.

Now, O’ Malley received a letter from a priest that one of the most influential Cardinals in the United States was a sex abuser and he never received it.
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/cardinal-omalley-says-more-than-apologies-needed-in-cardinal-mccarrick-scan?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When%3A2018-07-24+22%3A24%3A01]

O’ Malley’s record as Francis’s own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters shows according to
journalist Hilary White that Francis and O’ Malley have “all but completely dismantled” the “effective” reforms instituted against clerical sex abuse by Benedict:

“Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis… has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes… Benedict ‘had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012’… His reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers… ‘This Pope has removed two to three bishops per month’… These reforms – and – removals – have ceased entirely under Francis [and O’Malley].” (Remnant, “Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases, January 25, 2017)

What is O’ Malley’s record in his diocese according the Bishop Accountability website (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm):

Six Ways Cardinal Sean O’Malley Has Mishandled the Abuse Crisis

March 13, 2013

When Cardinal O’Malley is described as papabile, his work on sexual abuse cases as a bishop is often cited.  While O’Malley has considerable experience as a “fixer” in the troubled dioceses of Fall River MA, Palm Beach FL, and Boston, his performance in that role raises concerns.  A close look at the cardinal reveals a career-long pattern of resisting disclosure of information, reinstating priests of dubious suitability, and negotiating mass settlements that are among the least generous in the history of the crisis.
See also a PDF of this Fact Sheet.

1. Cardinal O’Malley omitted at least 161 names from his published list of accused Boston priests.

As Boston archbishop, Cardinal O’Malley has disclosed minimal information about accused priests. He did not release a list of accused priests until August 2011, years after committing to do so, and then he re-packaged information that was already public: his list did not reveal the name of even one accused priest who was not already known. In fact, he admitted to withholding the names of 91 accused archdiocesan priests – even though the archdiocese had settled with some of their victims and regarded the allegations as ‘compelling and credible.’ [See O’Malley’s August 25, 2011 letter.]
And unlike at least 10 of more than 25 other US bishops who have released lists, O’Malley refused also to name accused religious order clerics. According to a Boston Globe investigation, at least 70 accused order clerics – including some who have gone to prison for child sexual abuse – are missing from the cardinal’s list.

With only 159 names, O’Malley’s long-awaited list was far shorter than expected. In a secret report by the archdiocese’s abuse delegate in 2000 – two years before the crisis broke in Boston – the archdiocese cited a total of 191 accused priests. In his 2003 report, Massachusetts Attorney General Reilly stated that 237 Boston priests had been accused.

2. Cardinal O’Malley has “cleared” a high percentage of accused priests – four times the national average.

According to a largely overlooked archdiocesan report released in April 2006, Cardinal O’Malley’s Review Board “cleared” 45% of priests (32 of 71) investigated for child sexual abuse from July 2003 through December 2005. In these 32 cases, the Board “did not find probable cause that sexual abuse of a minor had occurred.” The names of most of these cleared priests still are not known.

Cardinal O’Malley’s 45% clearance rate of accused priests is much higher than the national average. Catholic Church officials nationwide in 2005 deemed only 10% of allegations false or unsubstantiated.

3. Under O’Malley, the Boston archdiocese has a double standard for employees accused of sexual misconduct. Accused priests may remain in place; accused laypeople are suspended immediately.

The Archdiocese’s published policy indicates that the removal of a priest who is under investigation is not mandatory: “For the period of the preliminary investigation, the Archbishop may request that an accused cleric voluntarily refrain from the public exercise of sacred ministry …” However, if the accused is a lay employee, the Archdiocese’s response is unambiguous and strict: “[T]he supervisor will immediately place the accused person on administrative leave.”



4. Troubling questions remain about certain accused priests cleared by O’Malley.

Rev. Jerome Gillespie was accused in 2005 of soliciting oral sex from a woman and her 12-year-old daughter.  Although most charges against him were dismissed, the priest agreed to “sufficient facts” to a charge of annoying and accosting a member of the opposite sex, and a judge ordered him to be evaluated for sex offender treatment and to have no contact with minors for two years without first disclosing his case to guardians. In 2008, it was discovered that O’Malley had quietly returned Gillespie to ministry. After SNAP publicized Gillespie’s reinstatement, O’Malley again withdrew the priest from ministry.

Rev. Thomas Curran was removed from ministry by Cardinal Law in 2002 after a convicted child rapist accused Curran and Rev. Paul Shanley of raping him repeatedly as a boy.  In 2007, Cardinal O’Malley announced that Curran had been cleared of all charges and assigned “permanent disability” status. In 2010, another victim of Curran came forward, and the priest was placed on leave again.
Rev. James Power was accused in 1993 of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy in 1980. In 1996, the archdiocese settled with the victim for $35,000. In 2002, Cardinal Law removed Power from ministry and a second victim came forward. The priest’s personnel file, made public in 2002, included an unsigned note, dated August 27, 1993, saying “100% positive other kids.”  In 2009, Cardinal O’Malley announced the archdiocese was “unable to substantiate“ either allegation and that Power was removed from leave and assigned senior priest status.

5. As bishop of Fall River MA, O’Malley was accused by the local prosecutor of concealing offenders’ names until the statute of limitations had expired.

As Bishop O’Malley was leaving the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, in 2002, the local prosecutor, Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh, took the extraordinary step of publicly rebuking the bishop for a decade-long delay in submitting to him the names of 21 accused priests. “Why didn’t he release these names to us 10 years ago?” the DA said. By the time O’Malley gave DA Walsh the priests’ names in 2002, the time window for prosecuting had closed for all but one of the cases.

6. Compared to other bishops, Cardinal O’Malley has not been financially generous or fair to victims of clergy abuse.
In terms of per-survivor amounts, the mass settlements O’Malley negotiated in Fall River in 1992 and in Boston in 2003 have been ungenerous – both rank in the lower 50%.

Anne Barrett Doyle, BishopAccountability.org, barrett.doyle@comcast.net, 001 781 439 5208, or 001 (39) 781 439 5208
[http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

“The Church’s faithful are challenged to contemplate the possibility that they have as pope a figure who falls short of the standards of integrity that we have come to assume in that office, and who has conducted a careful and highly successful whitewashing campaign to present himself as a limpid spiritual figure, first to the Argentine public and then to the world as a whole.””

OnePeterFive

The following is a summary of an article that was published by Horacio Verbitsky in Salta, on 12 April 2010, while Bergoglio was cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires. The title is: “‘Mentiras y Calumnias’. Acusaciones de Yorio y Jalics contra el Cardenal Bergoglio” – “‘Lies and Calumnies’. Accusations by Yorio and Jalics against Cardinal Bergoglio”. The article can be read here.

The background to the story is as follows: in 1976, while Fr. Jorge Bergoglio was Jesuit provincial, a coup d’état established a military dictatorship in Argentina. Two of Fr. Bergoglio’s Jesuit subjects, Fr. Orlando Yorio and Fr. Francisco Jalics, were left-wing priests pursuing a mission in the country’s shantytowns, where terrorist actions took place in the early days of the regime. They were kidnapped by the military and tortured before being released. In 1995, after the fall of the military regime, Fr. Jalics wrote a book, Ejercicios de meditación, in which he made strong accusations against Bergoglio without naming him openly. As a background to his arrest, he notes that when the left-wing priests worked in the shantytowns, sympathizers with the military regime wanted to denounce them as terrorists.

Moreover:

We knew where the wind was blowing from and who was responsible for these calumnies. I therefore went to speak with the person in question and I explained that he was playing with our lives. The man promised me that he would let the military know that we were not terrorists. By later declarations of an officer and by thirty documents to which we subsequently had access we were able to discover without the slightest doubt that that man had not kept his promise but on the contrary had presented a false denunciation to the military.

In another part of the book, Jalics adds that that person “made the calumny credible, using his authority” and “gave witness to the officers who kidnapped us that we had worked on the scene of the terrorist action. Shortly before, I had told that person that he was playing with our lives. He must have been aware that he was sending us to certain death with his declarations.”

For the identification of the anonymous person, Verbitsky referred to a letter that Fr. Orlando Yorio wrote in November 1977, soon after the events, to Fr. Moura, the assistant to the general of the Society of Jesus in Rome. Yorio’s narrative is obviously parallel to Jalics’s; he relates that Fr. Bergoglio, as provincial, told him in conversation that he had received adverse reports about him, and he named three fellow Jesuits, Fathers Oliva, Vicentini, and Scannone, as the source of them. However, when Fr. Yorio spoke to these three, they told him they had given opinions not against him, but in his favor. Yorio states in his letter that Fr. Bergoglio had promised to rein in rumors within the Society of Jesus and to speak to the military to assure them of Fr. Yorio’s and Fr. Jalics’s innocence, but as the provincial, he did nothing to defend them, and “we began to have suspicions about his honesty.” Yorio asserts that for years, Fr. Bergoglio subjected them to a covert harassment, never openly adopting the accusations against them, which he always attributed to other priests or bishops. These clergymen denied such accusations when confronted.

According to Yorio, Fr. Bergoglio had guaranteed him and Fr. Jalics three years’ work in the district of Bajo Flores, but to Archbishop Juan Carlos Aramburu, Bergoglio declared that they were there without authorization.  They were told this by Fr. Rodolfo Ricciardelli, who heard it from Archbishop Aramburu himself. Fr. Yorio therefore challenged Fr. Bergoglio, who replied by saying Archbishop Aramburu was a liar.

The circumstances surrounding their kidnap by the military authorities were explained by Fathers Yorio and Jalics as follows: Fr. Bergoglio advised them, once they left the Society of Jesus, to go to see the bishop of Morón, Miguel Raspanti, in whose diocese they might keep their priesthood and their lives, and he offered to send a favorable report so that they might be accepted. But Fathers Yorio and Jalics heard from the vicar and various priests of the diocese of Morón that Fr. Bergoglio’s letter to Bishop Raspanti contained accusations “sufficient to ensure that we should not continue exercising the priesthood.” Replying to Fr. Yorio, the provincial declared, “It’s not true. My report was favorable. The trouble is that Raspanti is an aged person who sometimes gets muddled.” Yet Bergoglio repeated his accusations to Bishop Raspanti in a further meeting that he had with him, as the latter himself revealed to another priest of Bajo Flores, Fr. Dourrón. Fr. Yorio therefore challenged Bergoglio again, and this time the provincial replied, “Raspanti says that his priests object to your coming into the diocese.”

The alternative was then proposed that Fathers Yorio and Jalics join a pastoral team in the archdiocese of Buenos Aires. The leader of the team put this to Archbishop Aramburu, whose answer was “Impossible. There are very grave accusations against them. I don’t even want to see them.” One of the priests of the team complained to the episcopal vicar in the Flores district, Fr. Serra, who replied, “The accusations come from the Provincial,” and he told Fr. Yorio that he was being deprived of his license to exercise the priesthood in the archdiocese because the provincial had told him that he was leaving the Society of Jesus.

When questioned about this, Fr. Bergoglio replied, “They didn’t need to take your license away. This is Aramburu’s doing. I am giving you a license to continue saying Mass in private, until you find a bishop.”

The final attempt to find a bishop to incardinate the two priests was made by the Rev. Eduardo González, who in May 1976 approached the archbishop of Santa Fe, Vicente Zazpe. The archbishop replied, “It is not possible to accept them because the Provincial says that he is dismissing them from the Society of Jesus.” Upon this, the pastoral team sent a letter of protest to Fr. Bergoglio, with copies to Archbishop Aramburu; Bishop Raspanti; and the nuncio, Pio Laghi, but they received no reply.

A few days later, Fathers Yorio and Jalics were kidnapped and tortured by the military forces.  They were later released after the negotiation of an agreement between the government and the Church.  The question then arose of getting them out of the country. Fr. Bergoglio, as Jesuit provincial, did not want to send them to Rome. Fr. Yorio was sheltered by a nun, Norma Gorriarán, until Fr. Bergoglio demanded that she tell him where Fr. Yorio was, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting him. Sister Gorriarán was not convinced and refused. Bergoglio, she related, “trembled with fury that an insignificant nun should stand up to him. He pointed his finger at me and said, ‘You are responsible for whatever risks Orlando runs, wherever he may be.’” Finally, the nuncio obtained papers for Fr. Yorio, and Fr. Bergoglio authorized payment for his journey to Rome.

On reaching Rome, Fr. Yorio heard from Fr. Gaviña, the secretary of the Jesuit general, the news that he had been dismissed from the Society of Jesus and also that the reason why he and Fr. Jalics had been captured by the military was that the Argentine government had been informed by their religious superiors that at least one of them was a guerrilla fighter. This information was provided by the Argentine ambassador, who confirmed it in writing.

As to Fr. Jalics, he declared that after his release from detention, Fr. Bergoglio opposed his remaining in Argentina and spoke with the bishops so they would not accept him as a priest in their dioceses. Fr. Jalics gave this account in later years, when Bergoglio had become a bishop and archbishop, and he noted that Bergoglio now made a practice of seeking him out and talking to him as part of the whitewashing operation he was perfecting at the time.

Information was also given to Verbitsky by the brother of Fr. Yorio, Rodolfo, who was able to tell the writer from his own knowledge that Fr. Bergoglio had personal contacts with the military regime. He recalled a meeting with the provincial, who told him he was about to receive a visit from the military, and after he left the house, he saw a car draw up outside the door and three officers get out of it. Rodolfo Yorio added that Fr. Bergoglio sometimes used these contacts to protect people: “I know people whom he helped. That shows his two faces and his closeness to the military authorities. His way of managing ambiguity is masterly. If they were killed he was rid of them, if they were saved he was the one who had saved them. That’s why there are people who consider him a saint and others who are terrified of him.”

As I began by saying, it is not my purpose to discuss whether Fr. Bergoglio did in fact betray Fathers Yorio and Jalics to the military regime. It is generally agreed that Verbitsky failed to prove his accusations, although neither were they conclusively disproved. What I am concerned with here is the picture of Bergoglio’s character that emerges from the above narrative. A politically motivated accusation that he collaborated with the military regime would be easy to invent, but it would be difficult to manufacture out of nothing the pervasive impression of duplicity and the charges and counter-charges of untruthfulness that mark the story told by Fathers Yorio and Jalics. Moreover, they correspond closely with the accounts of Bergoglio that come from other sources. The Church’s faithful are thus challenged to contemplate the possibility that they have as pope a figure who falls short of the standards of integrity that we have come to assume in that office, and who has conducted a careful and highly successful whitewashing campaign to present himself as a limpid spiritual figure, first to the Argentine public and then to the world as a whole.

Editor’s note: This article was written as an appendix to the foreign-language editions of The Dictator Pope. It is published here with the author’s permission.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE CATHOLIC LAITY ARE NOT POWERLESS, THEY HAVE THE ‘POWER OF THE PURSE’ WHICH IS SECOND ONLY TO THEIR SPIRITUAL POWER. THROUGH THEIR GIVING OR NOT GIVING THE LAITY EMPOWER BISHOPS AND CARDINALS TO EITHER DO GOOD OR EVIL WITH THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

8x1000

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

The Citizen’s Farthing for the Church. Highs and Lows of the Last Three Popes

8x1000

 

*

Every year the Italian state allocates 8%  of its tax revenue to the religious confessions that have entered an agreement to benefit from it.

Among these the Catholic Church gets the lion’s share. The state allocates around a billion euro to it each year. That is a lot, but it must be kept in mind that the Catholic Church in Germany, which is half the size of the Italian Church, receives five times as much from the state every year by virtue of the “Kirchensteuer,” the tax on religious affiliation in effect in that country.

In Italy, on the other hand, the allocation of the combined total of the 8% among the various religious denominations is decided every year by the taxpayers, who are free to indicate or not, with a signature, to whom they want the contribution to be given. And from 1985 until now, or in other words ever since this mechanism has been introduced, the signatures in favor of the Catholic Church have been in an overwhelming majority, reaching in the record year of 2005 nearly 90 percent of the signatories, or 89.82 percent to be exact.

2005 was the last year in which John Paul II was pope. And various commentators associated with his popularity the peak that was reached by the 8%.

Just as in 2013, the final year of Benedict XVI, it was easy to associate with the unpopularity of this other pope the drop to 80.91 percent of the signatures in favor of the Catholic Church.

But today, after five years of the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, once again extremely popular, how do things stand?

After a timid upturn to 81.23 percent of signatures in 2014, the follow-up has been entirely on the decline:

– 81.09 percent in 2015;
– 79.94 percent in 2016;
– 79.36 percent in 2017, the last known figure and a negative record in the history of the 8%.

But take care. If instead of the percent of votes one looks at the absolute figures, meaning the number of signatures in favor of the Catholic Church, the tune changes.

One discovers, for example, that the all-time record in the number of signatures was reached during the pontificate not of John Paul II but of Benedict XVI: in 2011, with 15,604,034 signatures.

Not only that. In all the last six years of Benedict XVI, the signatures in favor of the Catholic Church were above 15 million, which had never happened in the pontificate of John Paul II.

And the same happened in the first two years of Pope Francis. Followed, however, by a clear and continuous drop:

– 14,437,694 in 2015;
– 13,944,967 in 2016;
– 13,762,498 in 2017.

It is dicey to use these figures to measure the success or failure of a pontificate. Nor is it straightforward to connect these data to the general advance of secularization in a country labeled “Catholic,” like Italy.

Instead, what is unusual in Italy is the favor garnered by the Methodist and Waldensian Churches, in second place among the various religious denominations in the allocation of the 8 per thousand, with a number of signatures a dozen times higher than their actual presence in the country:

– 469,071 in 2015;
– 523,504 in 2016;
– 515,829 in 2017.

Also steadily on the rise in recent years is the number of signatures in favor of the Italian Buddhist Union:

– 125,786 in 2015;
– 173,023 in 2016;
– 164,934 in 2017, to which must be added the 52,777 signatures for the Soka Gakkai Buddhists, which also entered the allocation.

Taxpayers can also sign to have a portion of the 8% remain with the Italian state. And for a few years these signatures have also been slightly on the rise:

– 2,493,431 in 2015, 14.03 percent of signatures;
– 2,535,404 in 2016, 14.54 percent;
– 2,576,882 in 2017, 14.86 percent.

The statistical breakdown of the mechanism of the 8% in Italy can be found on this webpage of the ministry of the economy, finance department:

> Analisi statistiche 8 per mille, serie storiche

While on the proceeds of the 8% for the Catholic Church and how they are used, there is the “ad hoc” website of the Italian episcopal conference, full of constantly updated details and account statements:

> 8 per mille. Chiesa cattolica

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Cardinals: McCarrick, Cupich,Tobin, Farrell, Wuerl, O’Malley; birds of a feather flock together.

 

Rod Dreher

What Did The Cardinals Know?

The Washington Post writes about its retired hometown cardinal, Uncle Teddy McCarrick.

 

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE

Once a globe-trotting representative of the Catholic Church worldwide and one of the architects of the church’s policy on sexual abuse, McCarrick’s precipitous fall over the past month has shocked Catholics, especially in Washington, where he was a popular archbishop from 2001 to 2006.

McCarrick’s future now rests with Pope Francis, who as pontiff oversees the cardinals. Many church-watchers think this is a make-or-break moment for Francis because of McCarrick’s stature and the fact that Catholic clerical sex-abuse crises are exploding in Chile and Honduras.

It is, or ought to be. McCarrick has long been said to be close to Francis. As I wrote the other day, McCarrick’s longtime friend and protege, Bishop Kevin Farrell, was made a cardinal by Francis and made head of the Vatican’s office in charge of family policy for the worldwide church. Farrell has endorsed Father James Martin’s book advocating affirmation of LGBTs in the Catholic Church, and is overseeing next month’s world family meeting in Dublin, where Father Martin will give a keynote speech.

However innocent he may be of wrongdoing — and nobody has accused him of anything wrong — Cardinal Farrell cannot escape the shadow cast by the black McCarrick cloud. Here is Cardinal Farrell’s coat of arms:

Catholic bishops traditionally have a coat of arms designed for themselves. According to the Catholic Scouting site in Dallas, which posted this when Farrell was moved from an auxiliary role in the Archdiocese of Washington to run the Diocese of Dallas, here’s the explanation of the symbolism of Farrell’s coat of arms (the jargon here is terminology specific to heraldry):

 The lion rampant honors Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop emeritus of Washington, and the Irish sept of O’Farrell. In the upper portion of the shield, gold (yellow) and the lion (red) are derived from the Arms of Cardinal McCarrick, whom Bishop Farrell assisted as Auxiliary Bishop of Washington. [Emphasis mine — RD].

What did Cardinal Farrell know about Cardinal McCarrick’s past? Was he as shocked as everybody else to learn all this about his mentor and patron? I can’t see how Cardinal Farrell, given his closeness to McCarrick and his key role directing the family policy office for the Vatican, can avoid addressing these questions directly.

And what about Cardinal Tobin? As I wrote the other day, McCarrick’s influence with Francis is believed to have been behind the swift rise of Archbishop Joseph Tobin on Indianapolis, who was created a cardinal by Francis, then moved to Newark, McCarrick’s old see. Veteran Catholic journalist Rocco Palmo, who is not a partisan, wrote after Tobin’s move to Newark:

As reported at the top, multiple signs point to Newark’s fourth archbishop [McCarrick] as the lead architect behind the choice of his second successor. Having maintained an enduring devotion for and among the Jersey church since his transfer to the capital in 2000, McCarrick – who Francis is said to revere as “a hero” of his – made a direct appeal over recent weeks for Tobin to be named to Newark, according to two sources familiar with the cardinal’s thinking.

In the Post story, a church spokeswoman said:

Friedlander said the current Newark archbishop, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, “has expressed his intention to discuss this tragedy with the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to articulate standards that will assure high standards of respect by bishops, priests and deacons for all adults. We can confirm that the highest level of the Holy See is investigating a number of points raised in the ongoing questioning.”

You know what Cardinal Tobin is not saying? What, if anything, he knew about McCarrick before he took over in Newark. He surely knew about the 2004 and 2007 settlements made within his archdiocese. Why is Cardinal Tobin not demanding to seek justice for all those who have been abused by McCarrick? It’s repulsive that all he can talk about is jabbering with other bishops about “articulat[ing] standards that will assure high standards,” yadda yadda. Given the horror of what McCarrick did, this kind of bureaucratic rot is intolerable.

This came into my e-mail box tonight from a reader:

I am so repulsed by this entire situation.  I have known about this for well over 20 years.  Many years ago I had an acquaintance (the friend of a now-deceased friend) who was a seminarian at Seton Hall in the mid-late 90s.  By the time I knew him, he had already left the seminary and moved on to other opportunities.  But he was so deeply disturbed by the things that he had witnessed in seminary that he discussed them fairly openly.  While I believed he was telling the truth, I didn’t know what I could do with such information.  He felt the same way.  He knew all about “Uncle Teddy’s Funhouse”, the shared beds, the trips to the shore house, the unwanted touching, inappropriate comments, etc.  He himself had been invited to the shore house on a couple of occasions, although he didn’t actually sleep with McCarrick.  He told me that it was well known among the seminarians, and that you knew there was a reason you were even invited to the house.  Even so, none of them felt that he could refuse the invitation.

This young man told me stories both in person and in emails.  Unfortunately, the emails were sent to an old account of mine which has been deleted, and to which I no longer have access.  I haven’t spoken to the former seminarian since our mutual friend died some 18 years ago.

Even so, his words have stuck with me, and there have been many times when I’ve wondered if I should have spoken out.  I always opted not to because I had no proof and my acquaintance hadn’t been willing to speak on record.  But that’s just it–if someone like me has known about these abuses for 20 years, there have to be MANY people (both laity and in positions of authority) who have also known.

Readers, I heard that same kind of story many times about Cardinal McCarrick back in 2002, when I was working in New York and writing about it. People knew. One of my sources telling these stories was New Jersey priest Father Boniface Ramsey, whom I couldn’t persuade at the time to go public. He did go public in an interview with The New York Times a couple of weeks ago, and he also spoke to the Post for its story:

In March 2015,  Ramsey said he ran into McCarrick at the funeral of Cardinal Edward Egan of New York City and became upset that the cardinal was still out and about, he said. He wrote a letter a few months later to Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, one of Francis’s key advisers on preventing clerical abuse, saying the issue was about “a form of sexual abuse/harassment/intimidation or maybe simply high-jinks as practiced by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick with his seminarians and perhaps other young men” when McCarrick was in New Jersey.

Within a few days, Ramsey received a note back from the Rev. Robert Kickham, O’Malley’s secretary. O’Malley, Kickham clarified, as president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, is responsible for “evaluating child protection policies and procedures . . . and to offer recommendations to improve” those policies. Commission members don’t review individual cases that fall under local authorities, he wrote. “Please know of our appreciation for your care and concern for the good of the Church and the people of God.”

Ramsey provided copies of his letter to O’Malley and Kickham’s response to The Post. O’Malley and his spokesman declined to comment.

Unbelievable! Father Ramsey took the risk of telling a Cardinal — not just a cardinal, but the cardinal who is one of Pope Francis’s inner circle of advisers, and the chief cardinal in charge of protecting minors from sexual abuse — that Cardinal McCarrick is a rampant sexual abuser of seminarians and priests. And what is Cardinal O’Malley’s response? To say it’s not his responsibility.

These bureaucrats, I swear. Father Ramsey took a big risk to try to handle this within the Church, but the best he could get from Cardinal O’Malley is the clerical version of, “Sorry, that’s not my table.”

No wonder Father Ramsey got fed up with these red-hatted men, covering up for each other, and contacted the Times. God bless him.

Three cardinals — Farrell, Tobin, and O’Malley — have some explaining to do.

UPDATE: I took out a paragraph in the original post. It was a little too raw. I swear, nothing gets to me like this stuff. These men — these cardinals, these bishops — are supposed to be fathers, not butt-covering bureaucrats who care only about seeming to be something than actually being it. And the lives and fates, and the faith, of ordinary people — children, their families, seminarians, priests — get chewed up in the gears of the system. From today’s Washington Post story, these words from James, whose abuse at McCarrick’s hands started when he was 11 years old:

“What he did to me was he ruined my entire life. I couldn’t break the hold. I couldn’t live up to my ability — to stay employed, married, have children. I lost all those opportunities because of him,” James said. Breaking into tears, he said, “I try to be a really good kid every day.”

James is 60 years old. He’s still trying to be a good little boy — the boy he was before Father Theodore McCarrick stole his innocence.

UPDATE.2: Reader Augustinus writes:

Farrell, Tobin, and one more big one. Cupich. McCarrick is a main reason Cupich is in Chicago. The last three American cardinals all owe something to the patronage or intervention of McCarrick.

Reader Fiestamom:

Compare Cardinal Tobin’s milquetoast comment about McCarrick to his comments in June about illegal immigration.

“The latest developments are consistent with the sort of cardiosclerosis that has begun in our country, and it concerns across-the-board life issues,” said Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, who from the floor raised the idea of a bishop delegation to the border “as a sign of our pastoral concern and protest against this hardening of the American heart.”

And here’s O’Malley’s statement about the border:(there was a bishop’ s meeting in June)
Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, though not attending the conference, issued a statement saying that “the moral challenge of immigration is mounting for the United States.”

“On too many occasions our government has taken a posture and established policy which is in principle and in practice hostile to children and families who are fleeing violence, gangs, and poverty,” he said, adding “The United States is now openly before the world using children as pawns to enforce a hostile immigration policy. This strategy is morally unacceptable and denies the clear danger weighing upon those seeking our assistance.”

O’Malley celebrated Mass on the Mexican border in 2014 with other bishops, and had this to say. “This is not just a political or economic problem,’’ O’Malley said Tuesday. ‘‘This is a moral problem.’’

If only O’Malley thought child rape was a moral problem worth making a statement about!

I reworded Cardinal Tobin’s initial statement using the current “tragedy”.**

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Cardinals: McCarrick, Cupich,Tobin, Farrell, Wuerl, O’Malley; birds of a feather flock together.

THE SISTERS OF MOUNT TABOR CONVENT, (MISSIONARY SISTERS OF JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH), LED BY SISTER MILAGROS CAME TO MY HOME TO CELEBRATE MY 95TH BIRTHDAY

IMG_2441

+RHG slicing his birthday cake (flan) brought by the Sisters

 

IMG_2429

+RHG celebrating his Thanksgiving Birthday Mass with the Sisters in his private chapel.

IMG_2432

+RHG with his faithful Server, Joseph Mejias, who is holding the hot pan

of Paella Madridellna brought by the Sisters for a feast after the Mass.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments

This year’s Gerber baby, Lucas, has Down syndrome. Lucas is happy. Lucas is lucky to be alive. From Margaret Sanger (skin color) to Adolph Hitler (Jewish blood) to Pol Pot (educated) to Isis (Christian Faith) the virus of genocide continues to spread.

From Termination to Extermination: The International Down Syndrome Genocide
by David F. Forte
within Human Dignity
Jul 23, 2018 08:02 pm http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/21996/
4

This year’s baby, Lucas, has Down syndrome. Lucas is happy. Lucas is lucky to be alive.

Share this article:    

Ever since 1928, Gerber Baby Foods has illustrated its products with a sketch of a beautiful child who was chosen after a nationwide contest. Beginning in 2012, Gerber supplemented its cherubic logo with an advertising campaign featuring an additional child, also chosen in an open competition.

This year, out of 140,000 submitted entries, Gerber chose a smiling two-year-old named Lucas. Last month, Gerber arranged for the two babies—the original 1928 Gerber baby and the 2018 Gerber baby—to meet.

 

Estimates vary, but in the United States, abortions of children whose Down syndrome is detected in the womb are in the range of about 67 percent. The lethal discrimination practiced against such persons has become a worldwide phenomenon. Iceland has trumpeted its success in eliminating people with Down syndrome from the island. Denmark, whose people heroically saved over 95 percent of the Jews living there during World War II, now boasts that 98 percent of unborn children with the condition are aborted. Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland, England, and Belgium all have rates exceeding 90 percent.

Hitler wanted Europe to be judenrein, scrubbed clean of Jews. It seems that today Europe aspires to be DownSyndromerein.

Despite the fact that a majority of children with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States, each year about 6,000 babies with Down syndrome survive pregnancy and are born here. In Europe, the situation is more dismal. In England, about 700 are born each year. In 2017, only four children whose Down syndrome was detected in the womb were permitted to be born in Denmark. There are virtually none in Iceland.

Protecting Babies with Down Syndrome

Down syndrome, or trisomy 21, occurs when there is an extra copy of chromosome 21. It most often occurs in pregnancy of women who are over thirty-five years of age. Common effects of Down syndrome include a smaller stature, a slight flattening of the rear of the skull, slightly upward slanting eyes, a degree of mental retardation, and heart and eyesight problems. Life expectancy is now around sixty years. Just forty years ago, life expectancy was only twenty-five years, and in 1929, it was a mere nine years. In the main, Down syndrome children are happy and outgoing.

On December 22, 2017 Governor John Kasich of Ohio signed the Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits abortions of unborn children who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome. In March 2018, federal district judge Timothy Black, responding to a suit by the ACLU, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Act from going into effect. Similar laws in Indiana and Louisiana have also been stayed, but a North Dakota law protecting unborn children with Down syndrome has taken effect.

The Humanity of the Unborn Child

For the last twenty years, in the United States, states have passed myriad statutes attesting to the humanity of the unborn person. In addition to Down syndrome laws, they include such measures as fetal homicide acts, born alive acts, pain-capable restrictions, ultrasound requirements, sex-selection prohibitions, twenty-week bans, informed consent laws, heartbeat bills, and counseling and adoption opportunities. The next stage in abortion jurisprudence will be to grapple with the central fact of the humanity of the unborn person, to which all of these statutes attest.

In 1948, in reaction to the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the National Socialist regime in Germany, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights was adopted. Drafted by men such as personalist philosopher Jacques Maritain, the Declaration had a basis in natural law. In the same year, the Genocide Convention was adopted. It seems that seventy years later, Europe and North America have circled back to the time when eugenics sought the sterilization or eradication of certain kinds of human beings. Because of the ideology of abortion, we have now traveled the road from termination of the pregnancy to the extermination of the kind of human being we no longer wish to abide in our midst.

The abortion decision is no longer just that baleful utilitarian calculus, “In order to enhance my life’s prospects, I must utterly destroy your life’s prospects.” It is now, “You may not live, because of who you are.” Recall that the first group Hitler sought to destroy was gay people—because of who they were. In China, girls are aborted—because of who they are. In Rwanda, the Tutsis were slaughtered—because of who they were. In America, we have something called pregnancy reduction—a euphemism—when one of twins or triplets is aborted, usually because he or she is smaller than the other. You’re short—you go.

With Down syndrome, as the columnist George Will has written, “it is simply the deliberate systematic attempt to erase a category of people.” In other words, it is a form of genocide. It goes beyond eugenics, for Down syndrome people rarely reproduce.

What Gives Someone the Right to Live?

When we tolerate the killing of people simply because of who they are, we lose our own moral standing to exist. Recall what Abraham Lincoln wrote about the justifications offered in defense of slavery.

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

Do you lose your right to life because of who you are? Because you are gay, or a girl, or a Tutsi, or black, or a Jew, or a Christian, or have an extra chromosome?

Does a person lose his right to live because of his geography? Did a person lose his right to live in Mao’s China because of where he was? Would he have retained that human right had he been in Taiwan? Does a person not have a right to live because he is a few centimeters inside the birth canal and then gain it when he is a few centimeters outside of it?

Is it time? Did a persecuted Jew during the anti-Jewish period in the Soviet Union have no right to live during the waiting period of his six-month exit visa? Did he then possess that right when he finally exited the country? Does a child six months away from delivery have any less a right to live than one who is just born?

Is it power? Does a citizen of North Korea have no right to live because Kim Jong-un can kill him at will, while a citizen of England has a right to live because Theresa May cannot? Does a child in the womb not have a right to live simply because someone else has the power to end her life?

During the mass starvation in Ukraine caused by the Soviet government, Joseph Stalin was quoted as having said, If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.  That glib comment is callously wrong. Ukraine’s millions of famine-induced deaths weren’t a statistic. They were a moral catastrophe. The mass extermination of unborn children today is likewise a moral catastrophe. Every year, we track the statistics on abortion. But behind each one of the twenty million or more deaths under Stalin, there was an individual person. Behind each one of the abortion statistics, there is an individual human person, unique, just like you and me, with a life, just like yours and mine, never to be replicated—for all time.

Just like Lucas.

David F. Forte is Professor of Law at Cleveland State University. He was formerly a Visiting Scholar at the Center for the Study of Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute. This essay is derived from a presentation to a conference commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sponsored by the Forum of Rights and Freedoms, in Warsaw, Poland.

Copyright © 2018 The Witherspoon Institute, all rights reserved.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on This year’s Gerber baby, Lucas, has Down syndrome. Lucas is happy. Lucas is lucky to be alive. From Margaret Sanger (skin color) to Adolph Hitler (Jewish blood) to Pol Pot (educated) to Isis (Christian Faith) the virus of genocide continues to spread.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL LOOK LIKE AFTER THE REFORMS OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL ARE FINISHED, WATCH THIS YouTube VIDEO

258d6-four-horsemen

{The video will start about 3/4 of the way in the video, be sure to click on its buttons and start it from the beginning or you will miss the ‘best’ part!!!}
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments