BE THERE OR BE SQUARE, LAFAYETTE SQUARE THAT IS

Yours truly the celebrant for the Cathedral's 1 PM Sunday Extraordinary Form High Mass:

Traditional Propers for the Fifteenth Sunday After Pentecost

Vestments:  Green

INTROIT Psalms 85: 1, 2, 3 Bow down Thine ear, O Lord, to me and hear me: save Thy servant, O my God, that trusteth in Thee: have mercy on me, O Lord, for I have cried to Thee all day. -- (Ps. 85. 4). Give joy to the soul of Thy servant; for to Thee, O Lord, I have lifted up my soul. V.: Glory be to the Father . . . -- Bow down Thine ear, O Lord, to me and hear me . . .

COLLECT -  Let Thy continual pity, O Lord, cleanse and defend Thy Church: and because it cannot continue in safety without Thee, may it ever be governed by Thy goodness. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity . . .

EPISTLE Galatians 5: 25, 26; 6: 1-10 Brethren, If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit. Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. For if any man thinks himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let everyone prove his own work, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in another. For everyone shall bear his own burden. And let him that is instructed in word, communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption; but he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good, let us not fail; for in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

GRADUAL Psalms 91: 2, 3 It is good to give praise to the Lord; and to sing to Thy Name, O most High. V.: To show forth Thy mercy in the morning, and Thy truth in the night.   Alleluia, alleluia. V.(Ps. 94. 3). For the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all the earth. Alleluia.

GOSPEL Luke 7: 11-16

At that time, Jesus went into a city called Naim: and there went with Him His disciples, and a great multitude. And when He came nigh to the gate of the city, behold a dead man was carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and much people of the city were with her. And when the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her, and said to her: Weep not. And He came near and touched the bier. And they that carried it, stood still. And He said: Young man, I say to thee, Arise. And he that was dead, sat up, and began to speak. And He delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on them all: and they glorified God, saying: A great Prophet is risen up amongst us, and God hath visited His people.

OFFERTORY Psalms 39: 2, 3, 4 With expectation I have waited for the Lord, and He had regard to me; and He heard my prayer, and He put a new canticle in my mouth, a song to our God.

SECRET - May Thy Sacraments, O Lord, safeguard us, and ever defend us against the assaults of the devil. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost . . .

PREFACE (Preface of the Most Holy Trinity) - It it truly meet and just, right and for our salvation, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored. Which the Angels and Archangels, the Cherubim also and Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out, with one voice saying:

COMMUNION John 6: 52 The bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world.

POST COMMUNION - May the efficacy of the heavenly gift, we beseech Thee, O Lord, possess our minds and bodies: so that its effects, and not our own impulses, may ever prevail in us. Through our Lord Jesus Christ . . .

BISHOP BARRON

ALTHOUGH SHE MAY NOT REALIZE THIS, WHAT MARIE COLLINS WRITES IS A DAMMING DENUNCIATION OF THE POST VATICAN II, SPIRIT OF VATICAN II'S ENCOURAGEMENT OF WHAT POPE FRANCIS CALLS SYNODALITY AND INCULTURATION AND YES BOTH HAVE AND CONTINUE TO CAUSE THE MESS WE ARE IN ON SO MANY LEVELS THE LEAST OF WHICH IS LITURGICAL!

From the National Catholic Reporter ( I highlight in red my own comments and in blue what is clearly damnable about synodality and inculturation in so many other areas of the Church since Vatican II and now with Pope Francis:)

Exclusive: Marie Collins responds to Francis, seeking transparency in bishop accountability process

Aug 31, 2018

by Marie Collins

 

Along with seven other survivors I met with Pope Francis Aug. 25, at which time I asked him why the central Vatican Accountability Tribunal announced in 2015 was not being implemented.

In reply to me, he spoke of his belief that for cultural reasons such a tribunal was "not viable." He referenced his 2016 moto proprio "As A Loving Mother" at this time and later in his press conference Aug 26 on the plane home to Rome, rather than the tribunal.

On the plane he expressed the belief that I was a "bit fixated" and did not "understand" the process being used now. I have no problem in admitting to being determined to see those who protect perpetrators held accountable (though "fixated" is not how I would describe myself!)

The priest who abused me was exposed as a perpetrator to his bishop soon afterwards, but the bishop did nothing, and the priest went on to sexually assault little girls in his parishes for the next 30 years — hence my determination that perpetrators not be protected. (My comment: What Marie experienced is pedophilia and thus the reason why she calls her abuse not homosexual, but clericalism. A pedophile normally could care less about the sex of the small child and thus with pedophilia the problem indeed is not homosexuality but serious pathology enabled by power or clericalism that gives cover to the pedophile but in her case it was the bishop who enabled this pedophile as well as his status as a priest! But pedophilia is not the primary problem in the Catholic Church as bad as pedophilia is and the grotesque number of victims just one pedophile priest can have due to clericalism, the major problem is homosexual predatory behavior toward teenage boys and young adult men. These situations usually entail a fewer number of victims per priest compared to the true pedophile.)

I do understand the alternative option Francis has chosen over a centralized one. The statement in regard to my lack of understanding is reminiscent to me of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who after my resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors in 2017 also said I did not "understand." I did in that case too.

Francis clearly now favors separate or local courts to hold bishops accountable, but I wonder: What has changed his mind since 2015? At that time a central Vatican Accountability Tribunal was recommended to him by his Commission for the Protection of Minors. This recommendation for a central tribunal was approved by every member of the Commission, experts he had chosen from differing cultural backgrounds to advise him.

On June 10, 2015, it was announced by the Council of Cardinals that the pope was in agreement with this recommendation and he would provide any funding or personnel needed to implement it. Later, it was reported to the Commission by a member close to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that it had been blocked by them and, as we know, it was never implemented.

Pope Francis has not explained why he accepted a central tribunal in 2015 but now feels it "is not possible." Who or what has caused him to change his mind? (my comment: very good question as we know that Pope Francis has surrounded himself with questionable advisors who are compromised themselves!)


The pope's main reason for different judges for different bishops, as expressed during the press conference, is because of the "different cultures of bishops who must be judged." This I freely admit I do not understand. The Catholic Church should have a universal standard to which all leaders are held.

My comment: Thank God for Marie stating the obvious and in a commonsense way and this is the root problem of synodality and inculturation especially when you think of the German bishops doing their own thing and how inculturation has deformed the Latin Rite Liturgies!: If in some cultures practices are acceptable that are not approved in international law or in the church's own canon law — rather than lower its standards to suit the culture, surely the church should be ensuring they do the opposite and become a front-runner in changing that culture in order to protect the vulnerable. All children should be cherished equally.

Speaking at the press conference in the context of an accountability question, Francis referred to the finding against Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron as the last time this system was used. I believe this case was one of a perpetrator of abuse and so this is not an accountability issue. Why the confusion?

The pope speaks of the reason for not having a central tribunal as being that for some bishops "leaving their dioceses ... is not possible." If it is a true impossibility, then could an exception not be made by any Vatican Tribunal to have a local hearing in that particular case?

In speaking of his process in using "As A Loving Mother," the pope said "many bishops have been judged this way." Have they all been found not guilty? Or if there have been findings of guilt, why have these not been made public?

If all is in place and bishops are being held accountable behind the scenes then why, in his recent letter to the People of God, does Francis refer to efforts "to come up with" and delay in "applying" the "actions and sanctions that are so necessary"?

At his press conference, the pope expressed an intention to meet with me when I am in Rome and explain how the new accountability process under his moto proprio is working. Due to pressure of time on Aug. 25 we were not able to discuss the issues at length, so I would appreciate that opportunity. I believe a number of the above questions would be important to ask, and then have explained, in order to bring clarity on the issue of accountability.

I will be in Rome from Sept. 9-14 on a private visit and would very much like to meet with Francis to understand better the answers to these questions. If this is not possible, I do hope he will make a statement to the faithful covering these issues and stating clearly what is being done as so many are hurting at what is happening in their church today.

[Marie Collins is a former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and an Irish survivor of clergy sexual abuse.]

HOMOSEXUAL CLERICALISM AND PRIVILEGE?

I happen to believe that clericalism properly understood is at the root of the Church’s sex abuse scandal . And yes, it can be homosexual or heterosexual clericalism.

But homosexual clericalism is the most virulent form of it. Let me explain with an Episcopal Church example.

A few years ago in Macon an Episcopal priest invited me to lunch. Somehow the conversation turned to gay clergy in the Episcopal Church in Macon (I suspect he wanted to know from me if I was gay or straight.) . He told me he was gay and living with a gay lover, a transitional deacon in another Episcopal Church in town. He told me his bishop knew of this arrangement and had no problems.

His own parish had no problems although he did concede that one woman on his vestry worried about public displays of affection during services or elsewhere when he was with his lover.

I asked him, could a heterosexual unmarried priest live with a woman in the same kind of arrangement as he had or a woman minister live with an ordained man? He said no, that would be frowned upon.

There you have it, actual privilege and entitlement not afforded heterosexuals. CLERICALISM! Homosexual clericalism.

The major problem in the Catholic Church is homosexual clericalism too. When bishops accept homosexual men to the seminary, problems start. Would they put heterosexual seminarians in a similar close living situation in an all women's environment as found in all men seminaries or religious orders? Would the Nashville Dominican Sisters allow young men to live in convents and in the same way religious women live in common? Absolutely not because it opens the door to sexual situations, courtship and marriage. In other words it goes against common sense! One doesn't need to be an expert in these things.

Heterosexual seminarians and priests who fall in love and are explicitly romantic usually do the right thing, they leave the seminary or priesthood and get married. This excludes them from active ministry. Homosexual seminarians and priests simply do as they please in their relationships which aren’t always monogamous and the bishop looks the other way as we have seen over and over again. Others presume on the heterosexuality of these men never thinking more might be involved. Or the worst kind of Catholic priesthood clericalism, the presumption that these men who have made a vow or promise of celibate chastity are in fact celibate and chaste!

But this is the horror of homosexual clericalism prior to the 2002 charter. Most parents trusted that priests were celibate and chaste and they could trust priests with their boys in parishes and seminaries because they thought these priests were heterosexual  and celibate and would not not take advantage of their boys. Thus, presumed heterosexual and celibate priests who really were homosexual priests who believed they could break their vows/promises of celibacy could take boys on camping trips, vacations and the like without parents worrying.

But do you think these same parents would entrust their girls, daughters to heterosexual priests in the same way even though the priest was in fact celibate? NO, NO, NO! They knew that something fishy would be afoot! And they didn't want to tempt the celibate heterosexual priest to fall into sin with their daughters who while teenagers, could in many states marry at 13 or 16, South Carolina being a state taht allowed 13 year olds to marry with parental consent until the 1980's!

And most parishioners in the prudish pre-Vatican II days when modesty was still a virtue would read a woman or girl the riot act if they dressed provocatively around a presumed celibate Catholic priest. They wouldn't worry to much about a man/teenager doing the same because the the laity's presumptions of celibacy and heterosexuality.

Thus homosexual clericalism entailed homosexuals taking advantage of the belief of the laity thought they were heterosexual and celibate and no threat to their teenage and young adult sons! Celibate heterosexual priests would never think of close relationships with girls because parents wouldn't allow it anyway. And thus this explains why 82% of the cases of sexual abuse against teenagers and very young adults is homosexual and not heterosexual in the Catholic Church. Homosexual clericalism went unchecked by a trusting laity who never dreamed priests could be homosexual and actively so with their sons!  At its root though, this is a bishops' problem for allowing this to happen over and over again and not warn the laity about allowing anyone heterosexual or homosexual to have such access to their children!

Yes, homosexual clericalism is the problem when homosexuals in the seminary and priesthood are given access to same sex situations that would never be allowed heterosexual seminarians and priests with the opposite sex.

There you have it!

THIS FEBRUARY, 2017 ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY SAYS IT ALL: POPE FRANCIS WRECLESS MERCY AT THE EXPENSE OF VICTIMS AND COMMONSENSE, INDICATES HIS WILLINGNESS TO EMBRACE CARDINAL MCCARRICK DESPITE HIS PAST OR PRESENT

Let’s just call this enabling! This article is from Associated Press, February 2017

Pope reduces sanctions against some paedophile priests

Pope Francis (Photo: CNS)

Fr Mauro Inzoli, a convicted abuser, appealed successfully to Pope Francis not to be laicised

Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of paedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful Church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the Pope’s own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the Pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. Fr Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.

The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be laicised, two canon lawyers and a Church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the Pope’s own words about mercy in their petitions, the Church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

“With all this emphasis on mercy … he is creating the environment for such initiatives,” the Church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and laicised some 800 priests who raped and molested children.

At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the CDF dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and Church official said.

One is the head of the section and will be replaced before leaving March 31. Vatican spokesman Greg Burke dispelled rumors that sex-abuse cases would no longer be handled by the congregation, saying the strengthened office would handle all cases submitted.

Burke said Francis’ emphasis on mercy applied to “even those who are guilty of heinous crimes.” He said priests who abuse are permanently removed from ministry, but are not necessarily dismissed from the clerical state, the Church term for laicisation.

“The Holy Father understands that many victims and survivors can find any sign of mercy in this area difficult,” Burke said. “But he knows that the Gospel message of mercy is ultimately a source of powerful healing and of grace.”

Francis has repeatedly proclaimed “zero tolerance” for abusive priests and in December wrote to the world’s bishops committing to take “all necessary measures” to protect them.

But he also recently said he believed sex abusers suffer from a “disease” – a medical term used by defence lawyers to seek mitigating factors in canonical sentences.

Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor and founding member of Francis’ sex-abuse advisory commission, expressed dismay that the congregation’s recommended penalties were being weakened and said abusers are never so sick that they don’t know what they’re doing.

“All who abuse have made a conscious decision to do so,” Collins told AP. “Even those who are pedophiles, experts will tell you, are still responsible for their actions. They can resist their inclinations.”

Victim advocates have long questioned Francis’ commitment to continuing Benedict’s tough line, given he had no experience dealing with abusive priests or their victims in his native Argentina. While Francis counts Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley as his top adviser on abuse, he has also surrounded himself with cardinal advisers who botched handling abuse cases in their archdioceses.

“They are not having zero tolerance,” said Rocio Figueroa, a former Vatican official and ex-member of the Peru-based Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, a conservative Catholic lay society rocked by sex scandals. The Vatican recently handed down sanctions against the group’s founder, Luis Fernando Figari, after determining that he sexually, psychologically and physically abused his recruits. His victims, however, are enraged that it took the Vatican six years to decide that the founder should be isolated, but not expelled, from the community.

“It’s really shameful,” said Pedro Salinas, who blew the whistle in 2015 on abuse within the organisation. The sanctions against Figari, Salinas said, amount to a “golden exile, where he can live comfortably with all his needs taken care of.”

The Church official stressed that to his knowledge, none of the reduced sentences had put children at risk.

Many canon lawyers and Church authorities argue that laicising pedophiles can put society at greater risk because the Church no longer exerts any control over them. They argue that keeping the men in restricted ministry, away from children, at least enables superiors to exert some degree of supervision.

But Collins said the Church must also take into account the message that reduced canonical sentences sends to both survivors and abusers.

“While mercy is important, justice for all parties is equally important,” Collins said in an email. “If there is seen to be any weakness about proper penalties, then it might well send the wrong message to those who would abuse.”

It can also come back to embarrass the Church. Take for example the case of Inzoli, a well-connected Italian priest who was found guilty by the Vatican in 2012 of abusing young boys and ordered to be laicised.

Inzoli appealed and in 2014 Francis reduced the penalty to a lifetime of prayer, prohibiting him from celebrating Mass in public or being near children, barring him from his diocese and ordering five years of psychotherapy.

In a statement announcing Francis’ decision to reduce the sentence, Crema Bishop Oscar Cantoni said “no misery is so profound, no sin so terrible that mercy cannot be applied.”

In November, an Italian criminal judge showed little mercy in convicting Inzoli of abusing five children, aged 12-16, and sentencing him to four years, nine months in prison. The judge said Inzoli had a number of other victims but their cases fell outside the statute of limitations.

Burke disclosed to AP that the Vatican recently initiated a new canonical trial against Inzoli based on “new elements” that had come to light. He declined to elaborate.

Amid questions about how the battle against abuse was faring, Francis recently named O’Malley, who heads his sex-abuse advisory commission, as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But it’s not clear what influence he can wield from his home base in Boston.

Francis scrapped the commission’s proposed tribunal for bishops who botch abuse cases following legal objections from the congregation. The commission’s other major initiative – a guideline template to help dioceses develop policies to fight abuse and safeguard children – is gathering dust. The Vatican never sent the template to bishops’ conferences, as the commission had sought, or even linked it to its main abuse-resource website.

WUERL SPEAKS TO THE WORLD

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, sent the following letter to priests on August 30, 2018. In an email to which the letter was linked, the cardinal noted, “In this time of so much distress and pain, I send you this letter in the hope that it might tell you of my desire to be close to you and the people entrusted to your pastoral care, particularly as you prepare for this weekend’s Masses.”)

Dear Brother Priest,

I very much look forward to our time together on Labor Day, first in prayer and then in conversation.  With all the disconcerting news and terrible revelations that have happened, and with such rapidity, I recognize that I have not been as close to you as I need to be to help you and me minister to the people we both love and serve. 

Last Sunday at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, as so many of you did in your own parish church, I offered Holy Mass – a Liturgy focused on the spiritual context for so much of the pain, suffering, darkness and disillusionment brought on by the sexual abuse of children and young people by priests and its cover-up by bishops. Whatever our response to this spiritual crisis, it has to begin at the altar – and in prayer. 

As so many of you did, we prayed first for the survivors – those who bear the scars of abuse. On too many occasions over these past three decades as a bishop, I have sat with survivors and their families to listen, to try to be present, to pray and often simply to cry together.

At the Cathedral, as I am sure you did, we also prayed for the whole Church – the Body of Christ – wounded by the shame and horror of these egregious actions. It is our people who also bear a deep hurt because they love their Church and do not know what is coming next.  Thank you for being there with them, even when there is so little to say, other than prayer. Your, and I hope my own, ministry is the beginning of some healing. 

My prayers and what I asked of those at Mass are also for you.  Each priest – all of us – somehow bears the joys and sorrows of one another because we are all rightly seen as sharers in the priesthood. Your ministry is a precious gift to those you serve – to the Body of Christ.  I want you to know my desire – even if I have not well expressed it – to be close to you.  In the rush to get information to you, I failed to share fully with you my spiritual and fraternal care and offer you and our faithful people a strong sign of pastoral leadership. I hope this effort today and our Labor Day gathering will clearly show my great appreciation, not to say affection, for all of you, my brother priests and the recognition of your efforts to be pastorally present to our people in their struggles.

I ask you, as I did at the Cathedral, for prayers for me, for forgiveness for my errors in judgment, for my inadequacies, and also for your acceptance of my contrition for any suffering I have caused, as well as the grace to find, with you, ways of healing, ways of offering fruitful guidance in this darkness.

This Sunday in our churches all across this great archdiocese, I ask you please to let your people – the men, women and children – we love and minister to and hold in our pastoral care know that I do recognize and share their pain.  Let them know I wish I could wipe it away even though that is simply not possible.  I would give anything, as would all of us, to turn the clock around and have the Church do everything right.  But I do join them in sorrow for all that has happened.  I plead for their prayerful support as I with you and them try to do whatever I can to help move this Church closer to the pathway that leads us from this darkness.  

At the Mass this Sunday that I shall celebrate, I hope to offer some thoughts on how we as a Church – all of us laity, religious and clergy – might begin with faith strengthened in prayer to discern that level of reform rooted in accountability and transparency that would permit the Church to enter a new era.

Finally, we need to hold close in our prayers and loyalty our Holy Father, Pope Francis. Increasingly, it is clear that he is the object of concentrated attack. At each Mass we pray for him by name. As we do so with our voices may we do so as well with our hearts. 

Dear brother in the Lord, I hope you will sense something of my anguish for those who have suffered and my sorrow for any of my failures to be there for both the abused and all who now feel a sense of alienation. In my heart, I now ask myself what is the way I can best serve this Church that I, too, much love.

Would you please let the faithful you serve know of my love, my commitment to do whatever is necessary to right what is wrong, and my sincere solidarity with you and them.

Faithfully in Christ,

Cardinal Donald Wuerl

Archbishop of Washington

HAS POPE FRANCIS BY WAY OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL BROUGHT US TO THE BRINK OF SCHISM?

It is clear to me that the two main factions in the Church are those who agree with the direction Pope Francis is bringing the Church in these last five or so years (not the scandals part). He wants an inclusive Church which forgives everyone and makes a place for them, Catholics and Protestants alike, at the "table" of Holy Communion. He wants sex and the type of sex (hopefully consensual) left to the private conscience of people and their confessors.

He doesn't want to exclude anyone who is baptized (and maybe even the unbaptized eventually) from receiving Holy Communion.

I feel that majority of post-Vatican II Catholics, who actually attend Mass on occasion, would follow Francis unreservedly in all of this.

The small minority of post-Vatican Catholics who want the Church as Pope Benedict was leading it, in continuity with the pre-Vatican II Church is the other group. They want to interpret Vatican II in continuity with the pre-Vatican II Church not in rupture with it as Pope Francis interprets things today, telling everyone that this is a result of the Holy Spirit and the God of surprises.

What is important to remember is that Schism as defined by the Church is separating oneself from the Supreme Pontiff and going it independently of him, such as at the Great Schism.

We have a small semi-schism with the SSPX, but not fully like the full schism of the Orthodox.

I have opined over the years what I would do if the Church under the pope left me in the dust, so to speak. I have always prayed that I would stick it out in the desert until God restored the Church under the pope to God's liking. I still ask for that grace.

AND MORE PECULIAR

As if to answer my questions below this new post about Vigano, they are answered by Aldo Maria Vali! Does he read my most humble blog?

I might add, at this point, wouldn't it be wise for Pope Francis to call Archbishop Vigano to Rome and to have a public meeting with the Archbishop before reporters of Pope Francis' choosing, like perhaps the ones on the plane back to Rome, and simply have a pow vow for the world to see and hear? How would that be for transparency?????????

I copy and paste this from 1Peter5's translation of Aldo Maria Vali's defense of Archbishop Vigano:

Addressing the ‘Proofs’ against Viganò: Noise without Substance

1P5 Staff August 30, 2018  

 

Editor’s note: Aldo Maria Valli, the author of the following article, is the reporter with whom Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò originally planned the publication of his allegations against Pope Francis and several high-ranking Vatican cardinals. For the adventure of how Archbishop Viganò’s report came to be, click here. For Viganò’s response to the initial wave of criticism against him, click here.

Recent comments by various journalists on the controversy surrounding Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò after the publication of his memoir attempt to discredit the former nuncio to the United States. In particular, it is noted that, in May 2012, at a gala dinner in New York, Viganò spoke words of kindness and esteem for Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, even though he already knew that the cardinal had been sanctioned by Pope Benedict XVI, who had asked McCarrick not to attend public ceremonies and not to travel.

A video from that event, which took place at a Manhattan hotel, the World Mission Dinner of the Pontifical Mission Societies, shows Nuncio Viganò open his remarks by greeting Cardinal McCarrick first of all, saying: “Distinguished guests, bishops who are present, and guests who are being honored this evening as ‘Pontifical Ambassadors of the Missions’ – what a beautiful title – first of all, His Eminence Cardinal McCarrick, already an ambassador for some time, as priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and all of us wish him well…”

According to some people, these words are the proof that Viganò is lying. In his memoir, Viganò accuses McCarrick of not having respected the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict XVI, but during that same period of time[, the video shows that] Viganò publicly praised McCarrick.

In my opinion, the video proves no such thing. Let’s think about the circumstances. In May 2012, Viganò has been nuncio to the United States for only a few months (since November 2011). He attends one of his first public high-profile events as the ambassador of the Holy See. The occasion is very prestigious. When a cardinal is present at such an event, from the point of view of the hierarchy, the nuncio [who is only an archbishop] ranks below him and is bound by protocol to greet the cardinal first in his remarks and to speak some words in his honor. Now, in that situation, what should Nuncio Viganò have done? Ignore McCarrick? Or say publicly in his remarks: “Your Eminence, I ought to greet you but I will not, because you are a scoundrel”? Or expose him to public ridicule and say, “Here tonight is Cardinal McCarrick, who takes seminarians to bed with him and has been sanctioned by the pope. I greet him!”?

It is obvious that on such an occasion, the nuncio, the representative of the pope, plays the role of the diplomat he is supposed to be – that is, he does not state publicly either what he knows or what he personally feels about it. Ambassadors often have to hide their personal emotions in order to save appearances. It is simply a part of their job, often unappreciated.

Thus, Viganò makes his greeting. He does so at arm’s length, without any particular emphasis, and God alone can know what was going on inside the soul of the nuncio at that particular moment. But then he is expected to say some word of praise. Viganò says with regard to McCarrick that “we all wish him well.” Isn’t this what a Christian should do? To wish well for the sinner, despite his sin? It seems to me that by using that expression, Viganò did quite well. Although he was only at the beginning of his assignment and thus still not very experienced as nuncio, he held his feelings at bay and respected the exigencies of protocol. I repeat: in these situations, an ambassador is bound to act in this way, to act as if he knows nothing, without letting anything leak out. If Viganò had not acted in this way, he would have given scandal and betrayed the trust of the pope.

You will ask: but why did McCarrick not respect the orders of Pope Benedict XVI and instead go around in public freely? That’s a good question. It’s the same question Viganò asked, which led him to conclude that McCarrick was protected by somebody very high up who intended to make a fool of Pope Benedict himself. (Haven't I, this humble blogger asked the same question????)


But now we come to a second video that is circulating, which, according to some commentators, once again shows that Viganò is a liar. This is a video related to the first one, showing a brief encounter between Archbishop Viganò and Pope Francis, at the end of the official meeting of nuncios with the Holy Father in June 2013.

In his memoir, Viganò recalls that the pope, without any preface, barked an order to him in a tone of rebuke, saying, “The bishops of the United States must not be ideologized! They must be pastors!”

Those who are contesting Viganò’s version of events and calling him a liar are now claiming that this video shows a pope who is initially smiling, in no way aggressive, who, upon learning that he has the nuncio to the United States in front of him, begins a discourse. Well, we can prove nothing about this discourse, because the [official Vatican] video, as often happens in these cases, has been cut in such a way that it does not show the private content of the conversation. But it seems to me completely understandable that Viganò, in his recollection of that moment, held in his memory not so much the initial smile of the pope (who in these situations smiles equally at everybody in the same way), but rather the content of the brief conversation that followed. This is why, in his memoir, Viganò says the pope, without any preceding remarks, gave him an order in a reproving tone. In reality, this is probably exactly what happened. After the initial smile, the pope immediately began to speak with Viganò, but we don’t know what followed because the video doesn’t show it.

At this point I would like to emphasize that, if I reply to critical observations and accusations against Viganò, I am not doing so in order to save Archbishop Viganò, but rather out of respect for the truth, and because it seems unjust that such heavy accusations, such as being a liar, are being so freely circulated.

And finally, a response to those who are maintaining that Viganò has also committed perjury, because, by publishing his memoir, he has violated the pontifical secret that he was sworn to uphold as nuncio.

On this point we can observe that the “secret” of which we are speaking is not of a sacramental nature. It is not – just to be clear – like the “seal” that binds a confessor [in the Sacrament of Penance]. The secret that binds a nuncio functions in the service of the Church and her action in the world. But if this secret comes to be used not for the good of the Church, but rather against her – that is, if it becomes a conspiracy of silence [omertà] to cover up a lobby, whoever becomes aware of this perversion not only can, but should violate the secret. It is his duty for the good of the Church, in the name of the truth.

I repeat one more time that if I have wanted to respond to the accusations against Viganò, I do so not to enter into conflict with other observers and commentators. I believe rather that in this whole affair, we must scrupulously avoid descending down to the level of personal attacks. What is needed instead is to keep our eyes fixed on the key question: the moral corruption denounced by Viganò – a corruption that, according to the former nuncio, has now reached the highest levels of the Church, so much so that an action of force is necessary, such as the publication of his memoir, in order to bring about the beginning of a purification.

This article was translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino. The original Italian can be found at Aldo Maria Valli’s website.

IT IS ALL SO DAMN PECULIAR!

Is there truth in Archbishop Vigano's text and how are Catholics to know?

Vigano, McCarrick and sanctions?

The National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) has a very good article HERE which includes the above video. I still believe that Pope Benedict has to clarify what he did or didn’t do in terms of sanctions on McCarrick and Pope Francis has to be honest and transparent about what he knew.

We Catholics, clergy and laity alike, should demand this transparency. Archbishop Viganò must also explain what is in the video above. Was there blackmail from McCarrick, with his pathological HOMOSEXUALIST CLERICALISM, and threatened to bring others down with him, including Pope Benedict, if sanctions were actually enforced? In other words did McCarrick give the finger to Pope Benedict and the late US papal nuncio Archbishop Sambi who suddenly, unexpectedly died shortly after his tumultuous meeting with McCarrick? What did McCarrick say or threaten to Sambi???

And why isn’t an Attorney General issuing court orders for both McCarrick and Viganò to testify?

This all seems to be a sequel to the Davinci Code movies or Godfather V!

Folks, the best thing any of us can do is to pray, offer Masses, novenas, Rosaries and the like for the next pope who is out there! May God raise up a man of God who will sort out this diabolical mess from the top down and restore our Catholic Church as the unblemished Bride of Christ!

CORRECTED

Cardinal Cupich Says Interview Edited Unfairly

The archbishop of Chicago said Wednesday a recent television interview was edited in a way that inaccurately portrayed him.

Catholic News Agency

CHICAGO — The archbishop of Chicago said Wednesday a recent television interview was edited in a way that inaccurately portrayed him.
“An NBC Chicago TV report that aired Monday night was edited in such a way that gave the false impression that Pope Francis and I consider the protection of children to be less important than other issues, such as the environment or immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Cardinal Blase Cupich wrote in an Aug. 29 press release.
The cardinal was interviewed by Chicago NBC 5 reporter Mary Ann Ahern about an Aug. 25 testimony published by a former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Vigano. That testimony alleged that Archbishop Theodore McCarrick was instrumental in Cardinal Cupich’s appointment as archbishop of Chicago in 2014.
“The edited report created the false impression that my comment that the Pope should not ‘go down the rabbit hole’ of the allegations in the Viganò letter was about sexual abuse. As the unedited footage shows, it was not,” he added.
The entirety of the paragraph in which Cardinal Cupich referenced a “rabbit hole” is as follows: “But for the Holy Father, I think to get into each and every one of those aspects, in some way is inappropriate, and, secondly, the Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s gotta get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
After airing a story containing portions of its interview with Cardinal Cupich, NBC 5 published five videos that contain more footage of Ahern’s conversation with Cardinal Cupich. For clarity, CNA has transcribed those videos.

PRAISE GOD!

Blogger changed things a few months ago and I stopped receiving email notifications of comments. This meant at random times I had to go into the inner workings of my blog entailing several steps, to see if I had any new comments. It was a pain in the neck.

Just now I received an email from blogger asking if I wanted email notification restored. I responded, you are dang right I do!

And by the grace of God it is restored and just received my first restored email notification of a comment.

God is good!

CARDINAL BURKE SPEAKS (AGAIN)

Cardinal Burke said on Wednesday that the allegations levelled against the Pope by Archbishop Vigano were “very serious” and had left him “speechless”.

“I believe we now need a full response from the Pope and the Vatican,” he told La Repubblica newspaper.

Calling for the pope to resign was “legitimate” if it was proved that he had made “grave errors” but the matter needed to be properly investigated, Cardinal Burke said.

“I have nothing personal against the pope. I’m simply trying to defend the true faith and the clear presentation of the faith.”

THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF PRIESTS ACCUSED OF ABUSE HAPPENED IN THE EARLY TO MID 1970'S, WITH MID TO 1970'S CONFUSION OF BOTH CATHOLIC AND PRIESTLY IDENTITY

We have to keep in mind that the CARA report which you can read in full HERE, states that the highest number of priests accused of abuse were born in very early 1930's (like McCarrick) but ordained in 1960 or slightly before or after.

What happened to these men well trained and formed in pre-Vatican II discipline, theology, doctrine, morality and a pre-Vatican II Catholic identity and priestly identity? Vatican II is what happened and everything that grounded them, kept them faithful and kept them in their Catholic and priestly identity was ripped out from under them, completely.

Yes, we are speaking of priests who were kept in line by the authority of the Church, of Scripture and of Tradition and of God who after Vatican II had the yoke of others, including God,  telling them what to do, then being told by Vatican II to do what they want to do and enjoy life. With reckless abandon many did that in normal ways, but others skidded off the rails, especially those who got their most up-to-date information from the National Catholic Reporter which encouraged alternative lifestyles that were clearly not of the Catholic or priestly identity sort. We are also dealing with adolescent behavior among priests who let go with adolescent abandon to do all they couldn't do under the more "do what you are told to do" pre-Vatican II Church.

The loss of Catholic identity, be it of the clergy, religious or laity has had a deleterious and disastrous effect on the Church so much so, we are at the brink of "a house of cards" collapsing, the house of cards of the post-Vatican II Church!

1PETER5 PRINTS ANOTHER BOMBSHELL AND ANOTHER DEFENSE OF VIGANO, VIGANO, VIGANO!

Sequestered Viganò Speaks: ‘I Am Not the Crow. I Want Only the Truth.’

1P5 Staff August 29, 2018
Editor’s note: The following interview is between Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, now world-famous for his explosive testimony, and Aldo Maria Valli, the reporter with whom Viganò originally planned the publication of his allegations against Pope Francis and several high-ranking Vatican cardinals. For the adventure of how Archbishop Viganò’s report came to be, click here.

Monsignor, how are you doing? 

Thanks be to God, I am doing very well, with great serenity and peace in my conscience – this is the reward of truth. The light always conquers the darkness. It cannot be suppressed, especially for the one who has faith. Therefore, I have much faith and hope for the Church.

How do you judge the various reactions to the publication of your memoir?

As you know, the reactions are contradictory. There are those who cannot stop looking for places to draw poison with which to destroy my credibility. Someone even wrote that I was hospitalized twice with compulsory treatment (TSO) for drug use. There are those who imagine conspiracies, political plots, plots of every sort, et cetera, but there are also many articles of appreciation, and I had the chance to see messages from priests and faithful people who are thanking me, because my testimony has been for them a glimmer of new hope for the Church.

What is your response to those who in these hours are objecting that you must have motives of personal rancor against the pope, and that it is for this reason that you decided to write and circulate your memoir?

Perhaps because I am naïve and accustomed to always think well of people – but above all I recognize that this is in fact a gift the Lord has given me – I have never had feelings of revenge or rancor in all these years when I have been put to the test by so many slanders and falsehoods spoken against me.

As I wrote at the beginning of my testimony, I have always believed that the hierarchy of the Church should have found within itself the resources necessary to heal all the corruption. I wrote this also in my letter to the three cardinals who were assigned by Pope Benedict to investigate the Vatileaks case, a letter that accompanied the report I gave them. “Many of you” – I wrote – “knew, but you remained silent. At least now that you have been given this assignment by Benedict you may have the courage to report accurately what has been revealed to you about so many situations of corruption.”

Why did you decide to publish and circulate your testimony?

I spoke because now more than ever, corruption has spread to the highest levels of the hierarchy of the Church. I ask the journalists: why are they not asking what happened to the cache of documents that, as we all saw, were delivered at Castel Gandolfo to Pope Francis from Pope Benedict? Was that all useless? It would have been enough to read my report and the transcript that was made of my deposition before the three cardinals charged with the investigation of the Vatileaks case (Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi) in order to begin some cleaning up in the Curia. But do you know what Cardinal Herranz said to me when I called him from Washington, concerned that so much time had passed since the investigation commission had been named by Pope Benedict and still no one had contacted me? We were speaking together, and I said to him, “Don’t you think that maybe I too have something to say concerning my letters, which were published without my knowledge?” He responded to me, “Ah, if you really want to.”

How would you respond to those who are saying that you are a “crow” or one of the “crows” at the origin of the Vatileaks case?

I am a crow? As you have seen with my testimony, I usually do things in the light of day! At the time, I was in Washington, and I definitely had other things to think about. On the other hand, it was always my habit to immerse myself completely in my new mission. This was what I did when I was sent to Nigeria: I no longer read the Italian news – so much so that after six years, when I was recalled to work in the Secretariat of State by St. John Paul II, it took me several months to re-orient myself, even though I had already worked in the Secretariat of State for eleven years from 1978 to 1989.

How would you respond to those who maintain that you were thrown out of the Governatorate, and that because of this you would have feelings of rancor and revenge?

As I have already said, rancor and revenge are not feelings that I hold. My resistance to leaving my post at the Governatorate was motivated by a deep sense of the injustice of a decision that I knew did not correspond to the will of Pope Benedict, of which he himself had told me. In order to throw me out, Cardinal Bertone had committed a series of grave abuses of his authority: he had dissolved the first commission of three cardinals whom Pope Benedict had nominated to investigate the grave accusations made by me as secretary-general and by the vice secretary-general, Monsignor Giorgio Corbellini, concerning the abuses committed by Monsignor Paolo Nicolini; in place of this cardinal commission he had created a disciplinary commission, altering in its constitution the institutional commission of the Governatorate; still prior to creating this commission, he had summoned me to tell me that the holy father had named me nuncio to Washington. Notwithstanding the fact that the disciplinary commission had decided on July 16, 2011 to dismiss Monsignor Paolo Nicolini, he abusively annulled this decision and prevented it from being published. By doing this, he blocked me from continuing the work of healing the corruption present in the management of the Governatorate.

How would you respond to those who speak of your “fixation” on becoming a cardinal and who maintain that you are now attacking the pope because you did not receive this honor?

I can affirm with all sincerity before God that I rejected the opportunity to become a cardinal. After my first letter to Cardinal Bertone, which I sent to Pope Benedict so that he could do whatever he thought best, Pope Benedict summoned me and received me in an audience on April 4, 2011, and he immediately spoke these words to me: “I believe that the assignment in which you can best serve the Holy See is as the president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs in place of Cardinal Velasio De Paolis.” I thanked the pope for the confidence he had shown me, and I added, “Holy Father, why don’t you wait six months or a year? Because, if you promote me right now, the team that has had faith in me and worked to remedy the situation in the Governatorate will be immediately dispersed and persecuted (as in fact happened).

I also added another argument. Given that Cardinal De Paolis had only recently been appointed to deal with the delicate situation of the Legionaries of Christ (Cardinal De Paolis had consulted me before accepting this assignment), I said to the pope that it would be better if he would continue to have an institutional position that would give greater authority to him as a person and thus to his action with the Legionaries. At the end of the audience, Pope Benedict said to me once more: “I however remain of the opinion that the position in which you can best serve the Holy See is as president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs.” Cardinal Re can confirm this story. Thus, I renounced being made a cardinal for the good of the Church.

How would you respond to those who would draw your family into this matter by speaking of the “saga” under the banner of having huge economic interests?

On March 20, 2013, my siblings had prepared a statement for the press, whose publication I opposed so as to avoid involving the entire family. Because the accusation of my brother Lorenzo is now being repeated – namely, that I lied to Pope Benedict by writing to him asking for a leave of absence to take care of my sick brother – I have decided to make this communiqué public. Upon reading it, it becomes evident that I felt a serious moral responsibility to take care of and protect my brother.
(Whoever is interested to delve deeper into this last point may read here the text of the communiqué, which was redacted in March 2013 by several of Viganò’s siblings in his defense.)
This interview was translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino. The original Italian can be found at Aldo Maria Valli’s website.

POPE FRANCIS HAS NO INTENTION TO RESIGN AND TO FORCE THE ISSUE WOULD INVALIDATE THE RENUNCIATION--LIKE OR LUMP IT! BUT FIRST, THE QUOTE OF THE DAY:

INTERESTING UPDATE, PRESS TO READ ABOUT HERESIES OF POPES AND BISHOPS BY RETIRED BISHOP RENE GARCIA:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

While Vatican infighting is nothing new, this feud between factions for and against Pope Francis is playing out in real time on social media. As one Vatican writer put it, "it’s as if the Borgia’s and the Medici’s had Twitter accounts.”

There is no provision in canon law for the removal of a pope. The job comes with lifetime tenure, ending only in death or voluntary resignation.

"He is the supreme legislator," said papal biographer Gerald O’Connell. "Nobody can remove him from his place as pope unless he himself decides to go. That’s the Church law."

There’s also no provision for an independent investigation, unless the pope decides to create one.
"There’s no special counsel for popes, no Robert Mueller," said the Rev. John Wauck, an ABC News contributor.

My comment: But there is Cardinal MUELLER and Cardinal Burke of the SUPREME TRIBUNAL. 

TO CUPICH, MCELROY, TOBIN AND COMPANY

Apart from what Pope Francis knew and when did he know it about McCarrick, and the unbelievable immoral way bishops managed the selection and supervision of their seminaries, seminarians and those they ordained priests, not to mention bishops popes have chosen, the polarizing liberal agenda of Pope Francis has now brought the Church to the brink of Armageddon.

Every aspect of Pope Francis’ ambiguous and divisive  papacy in nearly six years has brought us back to the divisive 1960’s and ‘70’s after heroic and measured steps by John Paul II and Benedict to lead us forward from that abysmal time.

The hand writing is on the wall! Liberal Catholicism is no Catholicism at all and 1960’s Catholicism in 2018 has brought the Catholic Church and the papacy of Pope Francis to the brink with all its polarizing ugliness.

130,000 people at a papal Mass in Ireland says it all in a symbolic way about what the 1960’s in 2018 has done to the Church. Wake up!

CATHOLICS FED UP WITH CLERICALISM, NEED CLEAR ANSWERS FROM THE POPE AND OTHERS IN THE VATICAN TO INCLUDE POPE BENEDICT

"I will not answer" and the following simply don't cut the mustard and must cease. Give us straight answers and let the chips fall where they may!

Pope Francis and Archbishop Georg Gänswein arrive at the Paul VI Hall on May 10, 2015 in Vatican City. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images)

  Aug. 28, 2018

 

Archbishop Gänswein’s Comments Were Correct and We Stand By Our Reporting

 

The Register reported Aug. 25 that Benedict XVI had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but we never stated that the Pope Emeritus confirmed — as alleged in The New York Times — all of Archbishop Viganò’s recent testimony on corruption in the Church.

Edward Pentin

Much is being made on social media today about Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s comments in which he said it is “fake news” to suggest that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI confirmed Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s testimony on abuse cover up in the Vatican.

What Archbishop Gänswein said is entirely accurate: Any assertion that the Pope Emeritus had seen the entire testimony, and confirmed it, is untrue.

The Register also never reported this.

What we did report, given by an inside source close to Benedict in July, was that Benedict had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but was unable to remember their precise nature.

That has not been denied.

In his comments published today in Die Tagespost, Archbishop Gänswein said he was referring to a report published yesterday in The New York Times.

In that article, The New York Times interviewed and quoted Tim Busch, a board member of EWTN. And in comments attributed to him, but without quoting him directly, The Times reported that said he told the newspaper that “leaders of the publication [the Register] had personally assured him that the former pope, Benedict XVI, had confirmed Archbishop Viganò’s account.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who is also prefect of the Pontifical Household, denied as “fake news” this assertion as reported by The New York Times, alleging that Benedict had “confirmed Viganò’s account.”

He also said Benedict had “no opinion” on the memorandum of Archbishop Viganò. It is not clear what memorandum he is referring to, as a number of memoranda are mentioned in Archbishop Viganò's  testimony, and Archbishop Viganò never refers to Benedict’s penal measures on McCarrick as a "memorandum." Archbishop Gänswein did not go into any more details, but he did not refute that Benedict issued sanctions.

The Register fully stands by its reporting, drawn on sources close to the Pope Emeritus, that sanctions were issued by Benedict against McCarrick.

MY BULLETIN LETTER FOR THIS LABOR DAY WEEKEND

Dear parishioners,

I have been praying for all of you these difficult and historic days for the Catholic Church throughout the world. It seems like  bombshell after bombshell and even nuclear explosions. 

It is a test of our Catholic Faith and I clearly understand that so many are angry and disillusioned by it all. So am I!

But by God, I’m not going to let the devil or any unfaithful Catholic, be they the pope, the cardinals and other bishops, priests or deacons, nuns or monks or the laity destroy my faith in the Most Holy Trinity or in the Church Jesus founded.  

By God’s grace, IT—AIN’T—GONNA--HAPPEN!

I pray that you feel the same way as I do. 

But with that said, how do we let go of anger and rage and the disillusionment and loss of faith that this can bring to us?

Ever since I have been ordained a priest I have seen so many Catholics, be they clergy or laity, who have lost their Catholic identity. Part of it has to do with the manner in which Vatican II’s changes were shoved down our throats in the 1960’s. Good, faithful Catholics formed in the pre-Vatican II Church were shocked by the disintegration of Catholic identity in the 1960’s and 70’s. Even Pope Paul VI lamented shortly after the changes began and went out of control that the smoke of Satan had entered the sanctuary of the Church. 

Yes, the smoke of Satan entered the Church to bring havoc and  to ruin Catholic identity, the Church’s Liturgy, primarily the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and much, much more. And as things spiraled out of control prior to Pope St. John Paul’s election as pope in 1978, the smoke of Satan entered compromised bishops, priests, nuns and monks and we are paying the price today. 

The biggest problem (apart from the meltdown we are experiencing) is that the Church after Vatican II put “man” at the center of the Church and pushed God to the periphery. The cult of the personality of the pope, bishops and priests went on steroids.  And a popular pope, bishop or priest, with a charismatic personality who had deep seated psychological problems could use his position in the Church to destroy people’s lives because no one would believe that a pope, bishop or priest could do evil as we have seen. This is called clericalism, automatic trust and respect given to the individual bishops and priests who then manipulate this trust to suit their perverted desires and get away with it. 

But the priest is only a sacramental image of Jesus the High Priest. It is the priesthood that we honor because Jesus is the High Priest but each priest must earn his own personal trust and respect and he can lose it too. No one should be treated as though they are God! Only God is God.

This is controversial, but I pray that a future Pope will mandate that we return to celebrating the Mass in a more uniform manner as it was prior to Vatican II and that the priest at the altar faces the same direction as the laity, what some wrongly call the priest having his back to the people. 

By doing this, the emphasis is taken off of the particular priest celebrating Mass, his personality, his pious looks (or lack thereof) and his hospitality and creativity. It returns the focus to God and makes God the center, not the priest or the congregation. This is radical for many Catholics my age and older and perhaps for some of our younger Catholics, but I pray that a change in direction will occur before the good Lord calls me to retirement or the afterlife with its personal judgment. 

Give me Jesus and help me to know, love and serve Him in this life in order to be happy with Him in heaven forever! Is that too much to ask????? God bless you in these historic, faith-challenging times!

Your pastor,

Fr. Allan J. McDonald