Savannah Cathedral's youthful (no one older than mid 20's) schola, one of the best in the world)) will Chant the Mass featuring Gregorian Chant and polyphony with the Dies Irae. The catafalque will be present and black vestments will be used.
This will be the first EF Mass in our new church! Yours truly celebrant!
As I finished reading Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s third letter, I had an immediate sense that I had just read something that is destined to be one of the great pastoral and literary moments of the Church’s history. There was an air of greatness about it that I cannot fully describe. I was stunned at its soteriological quality — at its stirring and yet stark reminder of our own judgment day. In effect he reminded us that this is more than a quibble over terminology or who wins on this or that point, or who is respectful enough of whom. This is about the salvation of souls, including our own. We almost never hear bishops or priests speak like this today!
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano The Vatican Insi der is an apologist for Pope Francis and has become His Holiness Great Defender. How good is that? But in its eagerness to crush Arcgbishop Vigano, that great reformer in the tradition of that other first great reformer in the first aspect of his vision of reform, Martin Luther,
they are intentionally throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is particularly odd given Pope Francis rehabilitation of Martin Luther even with this great reformer's dark, antisemitic, pathological side.
If the Vatican can rehabilitate Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation and even issue a Vatican stamp with Martin Luther standing at the foot of the Cross, shouldn't Archbishop Vigano be cut some slack and be taken seriously as a great reformer himself especially given his love for the papacy as an institution and for the Church?
And shouldn't the Vatican Insider examine the role of Pope Francis as the Great Polarizer leading the Church to the brink of Schism with his 1970's mentality and nostalgia canonized with the actual canonization of two of the most polarizing figures of the 1970's, Pope St. Paul VI and St. Oscar Romero as well as the canonization of the Spirit of Vatican II they created?
And what about the anger and rage Pope Francis has fomented throughout the polarized Church he is creating symbolized by Archbishop Vigano?
An excerpt: Does this mean then that everything, concerning the management of the case, was conducted to the best of one’s ability? Obviously not. The Pope, who in the case of Chile acknowledged his share of responsibility in not having given credit to the accusations of Father Karadima’s victims about the involvement of Bishop Barros, announced a thorough investigation into McCarrick. But the solution certainly doesn’t lie in listening to those who rise up as great accusers, to those who self-invest themselves in the mission of supreme judge, to those who rush to find the speck in the eyes of others forgetting the log stuck in their own. The Church cannot turn into a great tribunal, torn apart by powerful political-media lobbies that would like to dictate her agenda. There is no doubt that better procedures are needed for appointing bishops and a shrewder selection in the seminaries, going so far as to ordain only men who are able to live in celibacy, even if there will still be scandals because sin, as long as the world lasts, will never be eradicated. But first and foremost, it is necessary to rediscover the essential of the Christian message, namely that the Church is not founded on the skill of its pastors or its members - from the Pope to the last faithful - nor is it saved by the best business practices of those who mistake it with a multinational. The Gospel is saved and proclaimed, if those who are part of it look at the Another, recognizing themselves as fragile sinners in need of infinite mercy. All, from the Pope to the last faithful.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The Pontifical St. Mary Seminary and University Chapel in Baltimore, my seminary chapel (BTW):
Fr. Michael Kavanaugh (hopefully the witches' hex last night on Justice Kavanaugh didn't extend to all Kavanaughs by accident) alerted me to an article in the Washington Post on Seminary Formation.
Below my comments are five suggestions for things that need to change. But here are my comments first:
1. We need manly men who are docile to the Holy Spirit and the Deposit of Faith, but aren't soft or easily manipulated by those who might want to take advantage of them. In other words we need men who want to be married but have the capacity by the grace of God's Divine calling to forgo Sacramental marriage for the kingdom of God and who can redirect sexual energy to spiritual fatherhood, leadership and enabling lay Catholics to be great laymen in the church and most importantly in the world.
2. There needs to be a rediscovery of the unique sacramental identity of the priest that isn't focused on social work, administration (although this is important) or just being a nice guy with a great personality. We need men of faith, hope and love who act like men who understand that they act in the Person of Christ, Head of the Church but not in an authoritarian, aloof or dictatorial way.
3. We need seminarians and priests who can kick a superior in the balls who is trying to sexually groom them--which means men with a strong masculine identity. Soft candidates who act like high schoolers trying to please authority figures or be praised by them or promoted by them is simply sick.
4. We need seminarians and priests who are worldly in the best sense of the word and fully cognizant of their own sexual identity and who by God's grace use their heterosexual identity to promote the Kingdom of God and Jesus as the Son of Man.
5. There needs to be a sense of discipline, order, and manliness in seminary formation, in the liturgy and in ministry of ordained priests. What was good in the monastic and strict seminaries of the 1950's should be reexamined and what was good recovered.
First, an overemphasis on academics must yield to a sharper focus on forming candidates who are emotionally mature and have a healthy, well-integrated personality and spirituality. If we’ve learned one thing since the crisis of clergy sexual abuse erupted in 2002, it’s that many abusive priests reached ordination in a stage of arrested psychosexual and emotional development. Where focus on personal psychological integration is lacking, space opens for disordered living of precisely the type that has made headlines in recent months.
Second, bishops need to work urgently to ensure that in our seminaries there reigns an inner culture of trust, transparency and honest dialogue between seminarians and the formation team. It has pained me to hear, in recent weeks, for example, that some seminarians have felt prohibited from engaging in open dialogue about McCarrick or a grand jury report about clergy sexual abuse in Pennsylvania. Such censoring of honest reactions is utterly wrongheaded. Seminarians must feel that they can freely, frankly and confidently express to the formation team their concerns about the seminary community, their opinions about the formation process and any other honest apprehension or contribution they want to make in the spirit of honest dialogue.
Although I would like to think that the vast majority of our seminaries are healthy environments, to the extent that seminarians might have concerns about their own safety or exposure to potential exploitation, every seminary should have a clear sexual harassment policy and corresponding protocols. Seminaries should appoint an independent ombudsman whom anyone (seminarian, lay student, staff member) can contact, independently of the diocese as part of that policy.
Third, in general, bishops need to slow down the rush to ordination and consider a minimum age for beginning seminary formation — perhaps 22, with the candidate having a college degree and some work experience. They could then follow up with eight years of formation, beginning with a year dedicated to detoxing from the culture and social media, growth in self-knowledge, prayer and a secure masculine identity. The final year before priestly ordination would be dedicated to intensive fieldwork and pastoral ministry.
Given the pressing need for priests, however, the vast majority of bishops staunchly resist the idea of prolonging the formation process. But how is the church well served by rushing men to ordination before they are ready? When years later some of them falter, with addictions or other personal struggles, we all pay a heavy price.
The delayed maturation process of young men these days is well documented. My years of screening candidates for priesthood confirm that our men need ample time to allow life wounds to heal and to grow in a solid, well-integrated interior life. As challenging as it may be, bishops need to think in the direction of a future church with fewer, but better-formed, priests.
Fourth, bishops must not assign to seminary priests who lack the skill set and drive to become mentors, role models and moral guides — nuances all captured in the term “formator.” A doctorate in theology does not render a priest automatically suitable for such ministry. Bishops must also demand and provide for the ongoing professional formation of the formators themselves.
Fifth, let’s identify the seminaries that are working hard to get formation right and those that are not. Bishops should convene an independent blue-ribbon panel of seasoned seminary formators to undertake a visitation and review of our seminaries. Bishops should think seriously about either reforming or closing those seminaries that are failing in their mission.
Sixth, the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate (CARA) annually collects data on the 70 seminaries that serve American dioceses. As reported by CARA in 2017, 11 of those seminaries have 100 or more seminarians enrolled, but one-third have fewer than 50 seminarians. What must we conclude? The United States does not need 70 Catholic seminaries. So, let’s reduce the total number to 15 or 20 regional institutions. Let’s pool and share the best formators to serve as teams in these regional seminaries that offer the quality of formation our times require. Seminary formation needs radical rethinking. The bishops must be catalysts in this process.
The Rev. Thomas Berg is professor of moral theology, vice rector and director of admissions at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y. He is the author of “Hurting in the Church: A Way Forward for Wounded Catholics.” He tweets at @frtberg.
Here is one comment from the Washington Post article from a lay woman:
This op-Ed does not address the main cause of the sex abuse scandal:
Homosexual men being ordained to the priesthood. The vast majority of
the victims have been prepubescent or teenage boys. The vast majority of
the perpetrators have been homosexual priests. Want to reform the
seminaries, Father Berg? Stop recruiting and ordaining homosexuals. No
one wants to address this both without and within the Church because
homosexual activity is prevalent among the hierarchy and considered
acceptable behavior culturally and by the majority of Catholics, even
though Church teaching has always condemned it as evil. And that is how
the problem began. The clergy have not taught the people their faith.
They have not made the salvation of souls their top priority. So evil
crept in. And now they are all going to pay for it. Literally. The state
should not be investigating these matters. Church and state should
remain separate. But it has become so great a problem, the result will
be priests on trial in criminal courts instead of being censured and
removed by ecclesiastical courts as soon as their bad behavior became
known to their superiors. The whole situation stinks to high heaven. And
only heaven knows how it will end.
I have to agree with the National Catholic Reporter opinion piece (which is itself hypocritical in this regard, especially how they trashed Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict) when they call out the hypocrisy of some so-called traditional catholics:
It also bares as pretenders those who previously claimed the high ground
of "orthodoxy" as defined, in their world, by unquestioning loyalty to
the pope and the magisterium. In fact, their orthodoxy extended only so
far as their agreement with prevailing papal tendencies. Very soon after Pope Francis was elected pope we saw from those who should have and could have known better a vehement disregard for this particular successor of St. Peter. In this, they were mimicking the same thing as ultra-liberals who were opposed to the previous two papacies, but in particular their hatred of Pope Benedict.
I personally think it is a psychological type rather than a theological type that the two extreme camps in the Church share in common be they so-called liberal or conservative, their denigration of persons who hold high office be it political or religious when their views don't match up.
I was taught in the pre-Vatican II Church, mind you, that there have been good Catholics and bad Catholics, good popes and bad popes, good priests and bad priests and so on. But as Catholics we respect the office although we might lament the errors or immoral behavior of those who hold them. This is even true of secular government, that we respect authority, not in a blind fashion but for the sake of peace and justice and the common good.
When I read some of the comments that so-called traditionalists hurl at Pope Francis, and I don't mean legitimate critique but name calling and the like, some of whom comment here and politicize Catholicism according to the current fashion of comments concerning our politicians, I fear for the future of the Church.
If we are going to recover what is good about the Pre-Vatican II Church in continuity with what the Church should be today, we need to recover civility as well as elements of the pre-Vatican II liturgical and devotional life. An EF Mass with Pope Francis haters is as much of a liturgical abuse and sacrilege as an OF Mass with a clown theme.
St. Anne’s, my parish, celebrated October as the month of the Holy Rosary with our second annual Solemn Recitation of the Holy Rosary with Exposition and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament this past Wednesday.
We asked all our second graders and eight graders to sit as a group as they are preparing for Sacraments this year, but all ccd kids and parents we encouraged to attend. Our middle school kids meet on Wednesday nights.
The entire parish was encouraged to attend and I would say with kids and adults roughly 400 were there, more or less.
I gave a brief homily directed to the second and eighth graders and ask rhetorically, “how great is it to be a Catholic with all our Catholic traditions like rosary beads and the Holy Rosary and our wonderful blessed mother who loves us more than our own mothers (our second graders had processed in with a flower which they placed next to our Blessed Mother’s statue) and who gave us Jesus who is with us now under the form of Bread on this altar in the monstrance and we will shortly be blessed by Our Eucharistic Lord”?
HOW GREAT IS IT TO BE A CATHOLIC?!?!?!
And there was spontaneous and then sustained applause begun by the 8th graders! How great was that!
The National Catholic Reporter as well as Cardinal Cupich and others of their mentality don't believe that the scandal disintegrating the Catholic Church has anything to do with homosexuality, its networks in the Church and compromised bishops and priests a part of this network who failed time and time again to address the issues surrounding the sexual abuse of teenage boys in the Church.
I might suggest to these progressives who are using this talking point something that they would appreciate, which is the "sense of the faithful" and that is: NO ONE IS BUYING IT!
This is their talking point which we have heard over and over again, as though repeating it makes it true. This one is from the NCR which has may this talking point in two recent articles in the last two days on line:
"This very grave crisis cannot be confronted and resolved correctly
as long as we do not call things by their true names," states Viganò.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a
scourge in the clergy and that it can be annihilated only with spiritual
weapons."
Several scientific studies have concluded that there is no link
between homosexuality and clergy abuse. The 2011 John Jay Report, for
example, cited instead a perversion of power and authority. The study
was a deep investigation of the causes and context of clergy sex abuse
and was commissioned by the U.S. bishops.
Archbishop Vigano makes a good point in the following paragraph:
Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they
too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and
the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are
usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering
clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote
them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual
collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is
overwhelming.
Homosexual clericalism isn't always just a philandering priest but networks are created, a sub-culture which I don't believe is true among heterosexual priests prone to break their vows.
Part of the scandal that Vigano realizes very well is that if there is collusion among homosexual priests, how can a homosexual priest or bishop who act out their perversions out a brother priest who in addition to being homosexual is a pederast of teenage boys who those of age who look like teenagers?
It is all very unseemly. In addition, the homosexual clericalism would make you think that immoral heterosexual sex with consenting partners is equally as bad as homosexual sex with consenting partners. But what the modernists in the Church want us to believe is that heterosexual sex, licit/moral or illicit/immoral is equal to homosexual sex which is always illicit/immoral and unnatural to boot. The actual sex acts are disordered and never open to the creation of new life, it is unnatural, meaning opposed to natural law.
The dance this pope and synod are trying to do with LGBTQ and whatever other initials you wish to place upon it (recently there was a report in a local newspaper about a man who was having sex with his dog and this had made the dog very aggressive to the point of having to be euthanized once it was discovered that the man was abusing his dog!), basically denies the unnaturalness of homosexual sex acts and implies an equality.
IS THE THIRD BOMBSHELL A CHARM??????????????????????????
THE GREAT REFORMER, ARCHBISHOP VIGANO STRIKES AGAIN!
Of course this could lead to his excommunication and even laicization:
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò speaks at the Rome Life Forum in May 2018.
On the Feast of the North American Martyrs
To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge – “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” -- what answer could I give?
I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own. Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the Pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that. This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.
I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke. For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church -- harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the Pope.
Let me restate the key points of my testimony.
In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with yet another priest.
In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response.
In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response.
In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope's orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy.
On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com'è (Cardinal McCarrick -- what do you make of him)?”-- which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.
Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favor with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.
Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.
I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.
Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.
What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?
Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No Pope could forget that.
Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confirm this again.
Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.
In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.
There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.
In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.
As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.
Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.
It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.
Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis -- more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).
In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice-- on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge -- you will not regret having made.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico
19 Ottobre 2018
Feast of the North American Martyrs
I write institutional Church over the true Church which is comprised of orthodox and orthopraxisis everyday, rank and file Roman Catholic clergy, religious and laity who adhere to the Deposit of Faith.
Pope Francis thinks that doing everything we can to implement Vatican II is the most pressing issue for the Church all the while denigrating bread and butter Catholics who simply want the truths of Catholicism to help shape their lives and salvation.
Holy Father, the most pressing issue you and your cohorts have is to reform the post Vatican II institutional Church that is now being understood more like the mafioso crime syndicate rather than the bride of Christ.
Holy Father stop your ambiguous, confusing papacy and deal with this historic scandal, the worst in history and start by answering the great reformer’s questions, Archbishop Viganò and answer the Dubia!
Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia and from Philadelphia is one of the best bloggers and Twitterers in the Church today and his voice can be heard on this local Philadelphia radio news broadcast:
Synod, Homosexuality, and LGBT ideology. A Critical Voice From Australia
The following commentary comes from Australia, a country hit hard by
the scandal of sexual abuse committed by consecrated ministers, and so
hard that in the territory of its capital, Canberra, as of June keeping
the seal of the confessional can even be prosecuted as a crime,
if while administering the sacrament the priest should become aware of
an abuse of minors and does not report it to the public authorities.
The author of the commentary, Paul A. McGavin, a theologian who has
also studied economics, happens to belong to the clergy of the
archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn. And here he is confronting
precisely the scourge that is wounding the Church so deeply, not only in
Australia. He says why, in his judgment, this scourge has spread, and
advances proposals for healing it at its root.
The readers of Settimo Cielo already know Fr. McGavin through some of
his previous contributions, most recently, in 2015, on the criteria for
the selection of bishops.
But this time he is touching on a question that is being debated at
the synod of bishops currently underway in Rome, above all concerning
homosexuality, beginning with the combative statement
of the archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, against the
introduction of the LGBT formula into the foundational document of the
synod.
LIVING THE INCARNATE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST by Paul A. McGavin
The voice of Archbishop Charles Chaput on the introduction of LGBT in
the “Instrumentum Laboris” for the Synod on Youth is a siren call that
must be heard. Yet, his words do not say all that needs to be said and
all that needs to be heard. With Archbishop Chaput, I am convinced that
fidelity to the Gospel and lived proclamation of the Gospel must form
the spine of the structure and process of the Synod. But – and it is a
big “But” – our Gospel is a proclamation of Incarnation – a proclamation
that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians
5:19). And appropriating and living and proclaiming that Gospel remains
essentially “incarnational.”
Being “incarnational,” means that the disciples of Christ are
inserted into and engaged in the world, and build lives that deeply
grasp the various everyday situations of the varieties of cultures and
the variety of persons among whom the Church is inserted with missionary
purpose. What is the sharp point of my so speaking? I so speak because
the dreadful sexual abuse scandals in the Church universal that continue
to unfold make clear that ministerial formation and character formation
in the Church has been defective in the past – and continues to be
defective in the present.
The LGBT acronym in its second term stands for “gay”. That was a term
that was not even around in Australia when I was in ministerial
formation in the early-1970s, or at least I was not aware of it. But I
certainly was aware of the presence of what I would call a
self-selection process of young men entering formation who had not
achieved psycho-sexual maturation and integral sexual identity.
Although the general laxity of that era contributed to a widening
laxity in behaviors, this deficiency did not start there. The earlier
incidences of ministerial sexual abuses in the Church arose in a
preceding era when a general public probity seemed more apparent. I say
“seemed more apparent” because in significant respects it was less
“seen”. There generally was a reticence in speaking of the complexities
of human sexuality and of human development and of the processes of
psycho-sexual integration. Indeed, these complexities were often simply
not understood.
We saw this lack of understanding in the way that Bishops felt
incapable of handling cases of clergy abusive sexual behavior. We saw
this lack of understanding in the way that discomforted Bishops assuaged
their unease by referring sexual abuse offenders to clinics offering
remedial counseling programs. Too late was their recognition that there
are certain failures in psycho-sexual development and character
formation that are not amenable to late psycho-social therapeutic
interventions.
In brief, there was not – and in my view there is not – a
comprehensive appreciation of what is involved in the processes of
character formation and of psycho-sexual integration. It is at this
point that I am presenting a different perspective from the main thrust
of Archbishop Chaput. And my reason is because simply a proclamation of
the Gospel and the cultivation of a public piety that is supposed to
inculcate the living of the Gospel does not suffice. And does not
suffice because the work of reconciliation enacted in Christ and
entrusted to the Church is “incarnational.” Although the Gospels give us
a sound disclosure of the fleshly nature of Jesus, they do not speak of
him in sexual terms – other than in his evident manliness. What is
implicitly conveyed is the evident human integrity of Jesus.
On my “incarnational” reading, St Joseph is central in that wholesome
manliness of Jesus. The Conception and Birth narrative does not give
Jesus his human nature in an adequate understanding of incarnation. An
adequate understanding of incarnation engages not simply the biological
nature of the human person, but the social nature of the human person –
and the social processes whereby a human person develops in integral
human maturity. The “growth in wisdom and stature” of Jesus (Luke 2:51)
was not only an “obedience” to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51). Jesus was
referred to as the “carpenter’s son” or as “the carpenter” (Matthew
13:55, Mark 6:3) not simply because that was the common attribution of
him. The manhood of he who in his person was and is “true God and true
Man” was formed in the heart of a family and in the heart of a society,
and the Jesus whom we encounter in the Gospels matured under paternal
mentoring as the ‘“son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). In short, the strong and
gentle masculinity of Jesus, the psycho-sexual integration that we see
in the recorded behavior of Jesus did not just “happen” because the
divine Word by the operation of the Holy Spirit assumed humanity through
his Virgin Mother. There was an integral human development in the
person of the God-man Jesus of Nazareth.
I need now to make explicit what so far has been implicit. Jesus was
conceived and born of male sex.
The human development of Jesus showed
forth an integration of the social and behavioral aspects of his
maleness with the physical aspects of his maleness. Translating this
into contemporary social science language – Jesus was male in sex, and
Jesus was male in gender. That is, we encounter in Jesus a gender
identity that is coherent with his sexual identity. This is an important
recognition. It is important because the recently concocted term
“trans” that is the fourth term in the LGBT acronym is indicative of
persons whose gender identity is poorly integrated with their biological
sexuality.
The processes or the failures of processes that give rise to this
gender/sex disparity are complex and not well understood. But they have
significant components of social misconstruction. Similarly, we may not
well understand the processes or the failures of processes that give
rise to a dominant same-sex sexual attraction – the ‘lesbian’ and the
‘gay’ of the first and second terms of the LGBT acronym.
Although I have not engaged in high-level academic psycho-social
research, at 75 years I have a long life of observation and reading on
these issues. My conclusion is that it is one thing to encounter a
degree of same-sex attraction, and it is quite another thing to
cultivate or to give free reign to same-sex attraction. That is, making
recognitions that may lead to the descriptor “homosexual” is not the
same as being “gay”, and these terms should not be conflated. The
presence of homosexuality does not equate to being “lesbian” or being
“gay.” The issue is not fundamentally different from that of a married
heterosexual man or woman who may have strong other-sex attraction that
is not played-out because spousal fidelity is sustained. And spousal
fidelity is a matter of character, of character in an ethics or moral
sense. And such character is a product of complex human character
development and of psycho-sexual maturity and integration, including
religious integration.
It is the same for a man in the Sacred Ministry. Where he has not
been realistically and naturalistically formed in human development and
in character development that is consonant with the incarnate Gospel of
Jesus Christ, it will be found that he does not live out his celibate
commitment with strength and love. Indeed, his life and enactments may
become perverse across the whole range, and not just in matters sexual.
I said that ministerial formation remains unsatisfactory today, and
this is because we have a “new” version of Puritanism that is marketed
as “safeguarding” or “protection” policy that cultivates only a
rule-based performance and a protocol-based observance. This quite fails
to build a strong, warm, and confident human identity. It is a “no
touch” pietistic policy such that one is not even to be allowed in the
presence of someone aged under 18 years without another presence. It is a
“no trust” culture, and a culture where sober “risk assessment” is not
cultivated. It is a culture of heightened skepticism and of fear and of
exaggerated precaution. It is a culture that inhibits the appropriation
and living the beauty, generosity and freedom of life in Christ.
Strangely, these reactive responses present an awry reproduction of
the earlier culture in which hidden sexual perversions grew unseen and
without “safeguarding” or “protection.” The present exaggerated reactive
policies reproduce a culture where the integral human development that
we see in Jesus of Nazareth is inhibited rather than fostered. We need
to open our eyes and our hearts that we may see and understand the
confusions in which we live as represented by the LGBT acronym, and
generously lead people to encounter and to discover the beauty, the
grace, the strength, the joy, and the disciplined ease and honesty of
living the incarnate Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Rev Dr Paul Anthony McGavin is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, Australia, now resident in Sydney.
Pope Tells Seminarians to Report Abuse ‘Immediately’
Francis met with a group of Italian seminarians in the Vatican’s St. Clementine Hall Oct. 13.
Hannah Brockhaus/CNA
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis told a group of Italian seminarians to
report immediately to their bishop if they ever see or suspect any kind
abuse, sexual or otherwise, on the part of a priest.
“On this point, speak clearly,” the Pope told the students from Lombardy last weekend. “If you see something like [abuse], [go] immediately to the bishop, to help that abusive brother — immediately to the bishop.”
The Pope met the group in the Vatican’s St. Clementine Hall Oct. 13.
The text of the lengthy question-and-answer session was released by the
Vatican Oct. 16. During the meeting, he answered a question about
scandals in the Church and how to help Catholics to not lose hope
despite the “poverty of its ministers.”
“Scandal wounds. We must be clear: On this point, do not yield. To
scandals, no. Especially when the scandals hurt little ones,” he said,
emphasizing that though statistics show abuse by priests or other
clerics to be a small percentage of total cases in society, it is not a
reason to ignore the issue.
“No. Because even if it was just one priest, this is a monstrosity,” he underlined.
Pope Francis also spoke about other “scandals” brought about by the
public sins of priests, condemning worldliness in particular, and giving
the example of a priest who is polite and well-liked but never seen
praying, going to the hospital to visit the sick or performing works of
mercy.
For a priest to scandalize the People of God “is very bad,” he said.
Having grown up in the south, I know that Protestant ministers, even the most conservative fundamentalistic ones, are close to their people and spend time with them when they are in need.
Catholic priests have had a reputation in the south of being more aloof, formal and otherly. They come to the hospital, do the ritual for the sacraments and then leave. The perception was that the priest didn't want his personal time bothered by extended visits with those in need.
Pope Francis speaks of people being turned away at the confessional if they show signs of not being repentant. If I recall correctly, His Holiness once said that if a priest can't offer absolution to an "unrepentant" sinner, he should offer a prayer and blessing. That is sound advice.
I think a priest dressed in the finery of the Church can be engaged in the lives of his people just as one in blue jeans and a t-shirt.
How many priests and congregations automatically exclude gay people from Mass? How many are turned away from receiving Holy Communion? The only ones I know of being excluded from Mass are ones where the Church has actually taken a warrant out against a disruptive Catholics for various reasons and are prevented by law enforcement from attending a particular parish.
So I have to ask the laity here and any priests who read this blog, just how engaged are priests with their congregation or do they come across as arrogant, holier than thou and more interested in the ceremonial aspects of the Church and the fine details of the liturgy?????
Let me give an example. I have a newly ordained parochial vicar. Last night we have a wonderful annual celebration of the Recitation of the Holy Rosary with Exposition and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
The English version of the new GIRM has brought confusion to how many swings of the thruible during the incensations various objects/ persons or relics receive in the liturgy.
My custom is to offer three twos to the priest/celebrant and three threes for the Blessed Sacrament and the Paschal Candle during Eastertide.
My PV disagrees. It is three twos for the Blessed Sacrament and I can't remember for celebrants and laity.
What is your thought on this profound cause of concern to the laity?
The Holy Father touted the theoretical success of the first 50 years of Vatican II but acknowledged that it will take 💯 years to fully implement Vatican II:
I believe the Lord wants a change in the Church,” he told 28 Jesuits during a private meeting during his trip to the Baltics. “I have said many times that a perversion of the Church today is clericalism…I know that the Lord wants the Council to make headway in the Church.”
“Historians tell us that it takes 100 years for a Council to be applied,” he added. “We are halfway there. So, if you want to help me, do whatever it takes to move the Council forward in the Church.”
Then a Lithuania 🇱🇹 Archbishop let the Holy Father know of the jaw dropping practical success of Vatican II over the last 50 years as it concerns the Jesuits:
Lithuanian Archbishop Lionginas Virbalas of Kaunas told Francis that the province had dwindled from over 1,000 members to just over thirty and will soon merge into a larger, singular province with Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Hungary. Consequentially, some of the Jesuits now take on 3-4 jobs to support the work of the Society.
The pope’s remarks were published in full on Wednesday by the Vatican vetted Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica.
Among those issues is one that no one in the Catholic hierarchy seems eager to investigate: the extent to which there are gay networks operating within the American priesthood, its seminaries and chanceries, and within the Vatican itself. And to what ends? Perhaps the hierarchy is afraid of giving aid and comfort to right-wing zealots who would like to use the McCarrick scandal as an excuse to out and purge all homosexual priests and bishops. There can be no excuse for such a purge. We have all met gay priests who live chaste lives and honor their vows of celibacy, just as we know there are more than a few heterosexual priests who fail to honor theirs. But it wasn’t just clericalism that allowed McCarrick to abuse seminarians and young priests for decades, even though his behavior was widely known within clerical circles. And it wasn’t just his ecclesiastical clout that provided him protection. It was networks, too.
CNS) – Just because some young people disagree with Catholic moral teaching, including in the area of sexuality, does not mean the Church’s teachings are unclear or should change, Cardinal Robert Sarah told the Synod of Bishops.
The Church and its pastors should “courageously propose the Christian ideal corresponding to Catholic moral doctrine and not water it down, hiding the truth to attract young people to the bosom of the Church,” the cardinal told the synod Oct. 16.
Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, noted how in preparation for the synod, some young people asked the Church to be clear in presenting its teaching on “some questions that are particularly close to their hearts: freedom across the board and not only in sexual relations, nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, equality between men and women, including in the Church, etc.”
Others, however, “demand not only a discussion that is open and without prejudice, but also a radical change, a real and true U-turn by the Church in its teaching in these areas,” he said.
The Church’s teaching may not be shared by everyone, the cardinal said, but no one can say that it is not clear. However, there may be “a lack of clarity on the part of some pastors in explaining the doctrine” and that requires “a profound examination of conscience.”
Cardinal Sarah pointed to the Gospel story of the rich young man who asked Jesus what he must do to obtain eternal life; Jesus told him to sell all he had and follow him.
Jesus Does Not Lower Requirements
“Jesus did not lower the requirements of his call” and neither should the Church, the cardinal said.
In fact, he said, one characteristic of young people is their idealism and lofty goals, not only regarding their professional and personal ambitions, but also in the areas of “justice, transparency in the fight against corruption (and) in respect for human dignity.”
“Undervaluing the healthy idealism of the young” is a serious error and sign of a lack of respect, he said. It also “closes the door to a real process of growth, maturation and holiness.”
On the other hand, the cardinal said, “by respecting and promoting the idealism of young people, they can become the most precious resource for a society that wants to grow and improve.”
This is an article from Nova Scotia' Cape Breton Post about Canada's legalization of marijuana . My dad was from Judique, Cape Breton. His childhood friend was Buddy McMaster, a neighbor who was a world famous fiddle player.
As Catholics, I don't think there is any moral prohibition against the use of it as long as it is legal according to civil law and one uses it in moderation. In other words, the same rules apply to it as to alcohol consumption by Catholics.
The one thing this article doesn't describe is driving under the influence of pot. Law enforcement can tell what level of alcohol is in your blood to charge you with a DUI. How can they tell how high you are if you smoke pot?????
Is there a moral difference between the recreational use of pot and alcohol?
Cannabis rules: what to expect in Nova Scotia
Colin Chisholm
Published: Oct 12 at 12:44 p.m.
Nova
Scotia Liquor Corporation employee Dave MacPherson stands at the
entrance to Cape Breton Island’s first and only cannabis store.- David
Jala
WINDSOR, N.S. - Here's what you need to know about consuming marijuana products in Nova Scotia.
19 is the minimum age
Much like alcohol, if you want to consume, you'll have to wait until you're of age to do so.
And 19 is the legal age to use, buy, grow or possess cannabis in Nova
Scotia. Those under 19 who are caught with the substance, could face
fines up to $150 and/or criminal charges. Restorative justice programs
could come into play, depending on the person's age and circumstances.
If you're under 18 and in possession of more than five grams, you'll
be charged with a criminal offence, and will be prosecuted in the same
way as with youth drug possession.
Those over 18 in possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana could face charges under the federal Cannabis Act.
If you sell or provide someone under the age of 19 with cannabis, you could face fines of up to $10,000.
Where you can and can't smoke it
The Smoke-free Places Act will apply to all smoking of marijuana in
public. Basically, anywhere you can't smoke a cigarette, you can't smoke
a joint.
That means you can't smoke cannabis in any indoor workplace or public
place, outdoor licensed area or patio, restaurants, lounges or
cabarets.
There’s no smoking within four metres of windows, air intake vents or entrances to places of employment.
If you smoke within one of these restricted areas, you could face
fines of $2,000. Many municipalities are passing their own by-laws with
stricter rules, such as no smoking on sidewalks or in public parks. Some
municipalities have also promised to increase enforcement of existing
bylaws.
You will be able to consume marijuana in your own home, but, if
you're a renter, your landlord is legally allowed to amend your lease
and restrict the consumption or growing of cannabis.
Cannabis, in any form, is banned from being used in vehicles by
passengers or drivers. Fines of up to $2,000 could apply for consumption
in a vehicle.
Limited amount allowed
Adults over 19 will be allowed to have up to 30 grams of dried cannabis in public.
There are no restrictions on how much you can keep in your home, as long as it's for personal use.
There is a limit to how much you can grow: adults age 19 and older
will be able to grow up to four cannabis plants per household.
Each apartment in a house or building is considered a separate household.
Again, municipalities may pass additional bylaws that further restrict the cultivation of marijuana plants.
Where you can buy it
This is pretty easy. Basically, it's just the Nova Scotia Liquor
Corporation (NSLC), the only provincially-authorized retailer of
cannabis in the province.
Some stores will be branded to indicate that marijuana products are
available inside. Initially, these locations will be few and far
between, but the province is planning to roll out cannabis access all
over the province.
So far, in Nova Scotia those locations include: Amherst, Dartmouth,
two in Halifax, Lower Sackville, New Glasgow, Sydney River, Truro,
Yarmouth, New Minas, Bridgewater and Antigonish.
Cannabis can also be purchased online through the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation.
It will remain illegal to sell edible cannabis products at restaurants and markets.
Transporting it
Similar to transporting alcohol from the store to your home, cannabis
must remain in a closed, sealed package and out of reach of anyone in a
vehicle.
Fines of up to $2,000 can apply for improper transportation.
Medical marijuana will continue to be regulated and licensed in its current form.
And on top of that, there was no horse associated with Crazy Saint Paul the Perfects' conversion!
Just who does St. Paul think he is? Today's epistle reading from his letter to the Galatians won't create a very inclusive Church. He doesn't lift a finger to embrace the sins he condemns.
What advice would you give St. Paul to soften his stand on these things and not make "snowflakes" feel bad about their orientation to sin in these ways? Should these things even be called sins. Wouldn't "less than idea"l be better? But even that sounds harsh! St. Paul's teachings on the works of the flesh are just too hard and no one is perfect not even in heaven!
Brothers and sisters: If you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are obvious:
immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry,
sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy,
outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness,
dissensions, factions, occasions of envy,
drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I warned you before,
that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Against such there is no law.
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.
Rev. Robert Schuller's "Dutch Reformed" Crystal Cathedral in Orange, California was the epitome of celebrity christianity. But in keeping with the Protestant Tradition, Schuller's son disagreed with his dad's form of Christianity and became a new denomination. Then as dad got older, family squabbles and church politics led to the Crystal Cathedral's demise. It was purchased by the Diocese of Orange to become a baptized, confirmed and Holy Eucharist Cathedral in the Latin Rite of the Church.
They just turned on the new lighting system and as you can see, the crystals shine! I don't know if the would-be cathedral has undergone the Rite of Election yet.
Common sense about the actual cause of the clergy sex abuse scandal is only in part clericalism. The main culprit is narcissistic homosexuals admitted to the priesthood by bishops who think that these homosexuals aren't formed by the free love secular mentality and that gay sex is somehow sacrosanct.
The clericalism related to this is homosexual/homoerotic clericalism of bishops, priests and yes, laity.
This was the image on the stunning tapestry that hung on the center Loggia of St. Peter's at the canonization Mass. what a contrast to the reigning pope's image directly below it. Was it intentional?
