Monday, July 2, 2018


When I was at Baltimore's St. Mary's Seminary, itself a caricature of what happens to a pre-Vatican II seminary when post spirit of Vatican II ideologies led to the complete collaspe and discontinuity of what preceded it, Richard Sipe a nationally known "expert" on sexual abuse in the Church taught us "Pastoral Theology." He was a laicized Domincan priest and married at the time with children. He was married in the Church after his laization.

He had a bit over the top admiration of Mother Teresa of Calcutta at the time. He also thought that he and his kids bringing the "gifts" to the altar was as good as the "former" (at that time) ringing of the bells at the pre-Vatican II Mass, but I digress.

Since the sex abuse scandals began to be revealed by the Boston Globe and before them the National Catholic Reporter, he has become an unofficial spokesman for it.

He wrote something in 2010 which at the time I thought was just gossip. But in 2018 he is redeemed by the truth. You can read the sordid details known by him and many others, especially in high places, about Cardinal McCarrick HERE.

So, let's connect the dots. Prior to Vatican II there was a healthy, rigid approach to a disciplined lifestyle to support celibacy. If any hint was indicated in the seminary that one wasn't called to this life, the seminarian was expelled, often under the cover of night. In fact any infringement of the rules led to expulsion. There was great discipline and rules to back it up and the breach of the rules had consequences.

The liturgical and devotional culture of the pre-Vatican II Church supported this healthy rigid lifestyle. I am not speaking of Obbessive Complusive Disorder here, euphemistically called "scruplosity" but rather a healthy love and appreciation for the discipline needed to live a celibate life by establishing clear boundaries.

All of this discipline, prayer  and liturgy was changed after Vatican II that has fostered the culture of taking advantage of minors and psychologically compromised adult men to include a liturgy that glorifies the person of the priest (Mass facing the people, ad libbing, cult of the personality, making the liturgy a playground of creativity for the priest all of which points to him and his personality, narcissism), as well as the complete relaxation of discipline, boundaries and the like. This happened at my 1970's seminary, an unbelievable discontinuity which took place almost overnight.

Let's face it, most heterosexual men prefer a more military approach to institutional life, homosexuals not so much. Thus if the lavender mafia gains control, relaxes everything and modifies a masculine Church, liturgy and style of seminary formation in cahoots with lesbian religious women in order to femininize the Church, the priesthood, men and their life and liturgy, we see the results that we are reaping now.

The problem in the Church today isn't rigidity or scrupulosity, it is the loss of boundaries, professionalism, an increase of unscrupulousity, and the promotion of these things to the point of bullying people who they call rigid, masculine and regimented.

Thus minors and adult men who are soft, passive and vulnerable to attention from older superiors can be manipulated and taken advantage of as Cardinal McCarrick did and many others like him. It is a part of the underbelly of the Church's homosexual culture promoted in the spirit of Vatican II!


Dan said...

But Father, those were just 'rigid neo-pelagians' with 'limited conceptual resources' who aren't as enlightened and in touch with even MORE truthiness like today's hierarchy. Don't worry, however, they will FORCE complicity.

Anonymous said...

We are at war.
Fr. Martin Fox said a week ago: “So men, we’re in a mess.”...”A spiritual Pearl Harbor, a moral 9-11 is happening right now.”

We desperately need real men in our clergy, in our seminaries and in our homes. Man-up before it’s too late. Rome is burning...

Anonymous said...

I am glad you are using the word "rigid" Father, since this is the textbook term the modernist seminaries have used for dismissing worthy seminarians.

The USCCB with bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville leading the charge, immediately went on a PR rampage to convince us that they had cleaned up the mess. I, for one, am not convinced.

The story about Cardinal McCormick was rumored to break as far back as 2002, especially among those who had read the details of the "St. Sebastian's Angels" website--a website for homosexual clergy that was uncovered about that time.

I honestly don't know what's worse--the clergy who live this subculture out behind our backs (or think they are fooling us) or the clergy and laity who paste on a phony smile and try to convince us that all is well.

If most Catholics had a clue about just how bad the problem of homosexuality in the clergy truly was, they would go in to shock. Especially in large archdioceses and major cities.

Charles G said...

Indeed, and what goes for the clergy also goes for the broader Church. Mercy is a good thing, but if no one is ever allowed to speak of sin or impose any discipline, then it leads to an unhealthy imbalance and de facto collapse of the moral life of the Church.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, I was a vocation director in the mid 80's to the late 99's and rigidity was the catch phrase to weed out masculine, heterosexual and orthodox men especially if they opposed the feminization of the Church and priesthood, i.e. Female everything. There is a pastoral rigidity that is unhealthy, the heterosexual who can't empathize or show compassion and is holier than thou. That is unhealthy.

However when you read the sordid details of the testimony of a young priest abused by the Cardinal in the link I provide, I would say that a disciples heathy heterosexual or homosexual priest would have kicked that Cardinal in the balls and sent him to the hospital or would never allow him in the same bed! A soft, emotionally needy priest would be paralyzed and simply take it and Cardinal McCarrick knew who to groom! I suspect too some priests stood up to him and did kick. They were sent to the peripheries I am sure, never the inner circle!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Disciplined healthy...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Pope Francis and his 1970's theology of enablement as well as the 1970's misuse of Jesus' criticism of the doctors of the law as directed towards law and order clergy and laity is exactly how the liberal, heterodox 1970's hoodlums accomplished the post Vatican II feminization of the Church and enabled miscreants to rule the day.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But I honestly think Pope Francis is oblivious to what I just wrote and sees the 1970's and Pope Paul VI as the golden age of implementing Vatican II.

Victor said...

"Pope Francis is oblivious to what I just wrote and sees the 1970's and Pope Paul VI as the golden age of implementing Vatican II."

If rigidity has been used as the filter criterion in the formation of the modern clergy since Vatican II, then the Church is in deep trouble in not caring about the kind of role model the clergy is meant to set for the people. Good heavens, homosexual drug parties at the Vatican, and the thing just got "buried" away. That is turning one's back to God.

I am fortunate that there is a FSSP mission here where I live, for their formation is based on holiness, that the priest must reflect to the people the holiness that God demands of all His people. I also have great respect for the SSPX because they continue in the manner of pre-Vatican II priestly formation which also demands holiness. Does the holiness of priests correlate with the holiness of the liturgy they celebrate?

Why is the Vatican II Church so rigid in placing the ambiguous "pastoral" needs of the people ahead of their holiness, as if Her main vocation were social service? The pre-Vatican II Church was very clearly pastoral in guiding the people to be holy temples of God first, because the greatest pastoral need of any person is his need to get to heaven. Caring about people is part of that way to heaven, but only a part, albeit important. In other words, God comes first, or as Cardinal Sarah's book title says, God or Nothing. As the Cardinal said, poverty is a virtue, so we must not be so much concerned with the poor as with those in real need, the destitute: try that with a progressivist in the Church today.

Anonymous said...

"Let's face it, most heterosexual men prefer a more military approach to institutional life, homosexuals not so much."

Except that there are plenty of heterosexual men who have no desire for a "military approach to institutional life," and plenty of gay men who serve honorably in the military and/or lead very disciplined lives as civilians.

The decline in discipline is not an issue for the Church uniquely, nor was it caused by changes in the Church. This was a society-wide phenomenon that has been, I would suggest, the result of the wealth of Western countries. When you have to get up before dawn and work till dusk just to keep food on the table, either on your family farm or in an industrial setting, you have no choice but to be regimented in your lifestyle. When you have all the money you need to have your food delivered by drones, when you can shell out $8,000.00 for a weekend package to watch two football teams play a championship game, when you have 6 or 8 or 10 pairs of shoes, 25 shirts, 18 pairs of trousers, 120 cable channels, air conditioning, a pool in the backyard, and dinner out 3 or 4 or 5 times a week, why is discipline even needed?

A man who exhibits serious problems in psycho-sexual development or who cannot control his temper or who cannot master the academics should have been expelled. But, in the "rigid" days, minor infractions did get good candidates thrown out of the seminary, and this was unfortunate.

Cletus Ordo said...

Since "rigid" is our term of the day, let's explore what the Church has taught us about rigidity and compare and contrast it with what seminary gatekeepers think of the term.

The Church has ALWAYS taught that we cannot stand in the presence of God (Heaven) as long as there is any stain of sin on our soul. That's rigid.

Seminary gatekeepers want us to keep an open mind about what may or may not be sinful. That's flaky.

The Church has ALWAYS taught that we cannot attain Heaven so long as we have even the tiniest attachment to sin. That's rigid.

Seminary gatekeepers don't have a problem with soft males who might have an attachment to their abnormal attractions. Instead they say, "just having the attraction isn't sinful, so long as you don't do anything" then they allow the seminarian to be plunged into an environment where he will be surrounded by other males. That's flaky.

Jesus said, "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Thus, the Church has always taught that we must aspire to weed out our vices and weaknesses and try to attain perfection. That's rigid.

Seminary gatekeepers say, "You're only human. Don't be so hard on yourself." That's flaky.

The Church has never had priestesses, even though many religions at the time of Jesus did. The Church has never permitted the ordination of women and several popes have asserted that the Church lacks the authority to do so. That's rigid.

Seminary gatekeepers want candidates with an "open mind". That's flaky.

The Church warns us that nothing is as valuable as our soul and if we die we will suffer eternal torments in the absence of God in Hell and there is no reversing God's judgment. That's rigid.

Seminary gatekeepers don't like the idea of using fear to motivate obedience. That's flaky.

You keep your flakes. Unless you are willing to bet your soul that the flaky modernists and 70's Church-types are right, I suggest you get rigid. I want to be rigid. May God give me the grace to remain rigid.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

LOL - "kicked that cardinal in the balls" Way to go, I couldn't have said it better myself. Predators like McCarrick pick their victims with care - they seem to have a sixth sense as to whom they could approach. This is a category of evil that is imcomprehensible.

I think this has handicapped the Church in so many ways, particularly, the teaching of sexual sins. The priest can't preach, when he himself would be impeached!

Marko said...

Vatican 2 led to the exposure of church sex scandals,
There’s plenty of evidence that the church was just as scandalous pre-Vat2, they just a better job of keeping it covered up.

rcg said...

Predators, successful ones, are very skilled at picking their victims. Frankly, the realy strong ones were either not let in or hounded out. The recruits had be potential victims or naive in their convictions. And all had the vulnerable to the blackmail of shame. It has been my unfortunate experience that many, if not most, people who seek positions of authority over other individuals as in an academic environment are power mad tyrants.

Anonymous said...

So many stereotypes & logical fallacies to addresss here.
Start with this: Most of the priests involved in the sex scandals occurring in the 70s & 80s were older fellows, who became priests before Vatican II.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Your starter makes my point, it was the abolishment of boundaries, rules and morality that led to 1974 be the year with the most priests abusing male adolescents, according to the John Jay Study on abuse in the Church. Following the 10 Commandments, also called into question in the Church during this period of the springtime of renewal contributed as well as cultural upheavals that were more influential on clergy and laity than the law of God.

Anonymous said...

No, your point is incorrect. It wasn't the abolition of boundaries that caused priests to abuse. Would you start robbing banks if, all of a sudden, the "boundary" of the law against theft and the threat of punishment were abolished?

No you would not. I didn't think so.

You offer 1974 as the year for the highest number of crimes. The priests responsible for the crimes against youth were formed BEFORE the changes in discipline were beginning in the seminaries.

A 40 year old priest who abused in 1974 was most likely ordained around 1961 when the Old Regime of rigid discipline was still in place. If he was a "lifer" - high school seminary, college seminary, and major seminary - that means he entered the Old School seminary with the Old School rules in approximately 1949. His entire formation was under the Rigid Regimen and it seems to have done little good.

As Marko reminds us, there were likely many, many cases of abuse in the "Good Ol' Days" that were simply covered up. All of those priests - every last one of them - was formed under the Rigid Rules.

On the other side of the coin, the vast majority of priests formed under the new regime are not abusers. The new regime doesn't cause abuse any more than the old regime prevented it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, I would steal, chest, lie, and fulfill all my concupiscence base desires for a licentious life style if all the rules were tossed. You just keep making my point. I am sure there are others who would remain Holy Joe’s though, like you.

You seem to think I disagree with you about Pre Vatican II priests going off the deep end when constraints were removed or liberalized, but I don’t and again you reinforce my point.

Please write more comments to confirm my post, great job and thank you!

TJM said...


THanks for your comical comments. THe point is, which even YOU should be understand, is that when the rules went, people acted out badly. Rules set bounderies and priests largely followed them. I agree that there were many immature priests (and nuns) who were trained prior to the Council who performed as they should probably because they were constrained by the Rules. When the constraints were lifted, they acted out, just like bad teenagers whose parents allow them to get away with murder. It's basic human nature.

Kind of like, with no rubrics, jackass priests make the Mass over in their image and likeness

Anonymous said...

TJM and Fr. McDonald - People did not act out badly because the rules were relaxed or removed. They act out badly because they are inclined to do so. Because, if rules kept people from action badly, guess what? They would never have done so.

But, of course, they did.

Fr. McDonald - If you would act as you suggest - and I think you are being your usual hyperbolic self - then there is something wrong with your conscience, not the rules.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You are simply out of touch with fallen humanity. How many woman would not have had an abortion if it wasn’t legal? Because it is legal women or otherwise would not have done so have murdered their babies and in good conscience so they say.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

And most people think the murder of an unborn baby should remain a right and some of those even at birth or after birth. But the same people are opposed to sexual abuse . Go figure. But in most places that’s still illegal. But if there is a legal right or no consequences, then it is okay as for example 13 year olds allowed to marry in SC until rather recently, in my lifetime.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Another example is how Catholics are Democrats when it is that party that is pro choice to even partial birth. Yet Catholics defend Democrats because of the other good things they stand for, which is like saying, the priest abuses kids but he does so much good in other areas.

TJM said...

Fr. McDonald, Kavanaugh is on a left-wing loon roll today. He provides a lot of comic relief

The Dem Party is evil and a criminal enterprise. Any Catholic who votes for them is earning a place in hell

Bella Donna said...

And when people defend the President who has advocated sexual assault on married women ("grab her by the p***y") they are supporting said sexual assault.

The supporters of Trump are part of a criminal enterprise. Any "Catholic" who voted for Trump has earned a place in hell.

Oh, and shall we discuss how Trump and his business empire continue to profit personally from his office...?

More criminal enterprise supported by those who voted for him and who continue to support him.

Oh, and shall we mention Trump's 6.5 bald-faced lies per day?

More immoral enterprise supported by those who voted for him and who continue to support him.

But, they defend him because of the other "good thing" they think he stands for which is like saying, "He's a lying, manipulative sexual harasser, but he does so much good in other areas."

TJM said...

Bella Kavanaugh,

When Trump inserts a cigar into an interns vagina in the oval office wake me up. Potty mouth is a venial sin, not a mortal sin like Horndog Clintoon committed.

The Republican Party does not support intrinsic evils as does the Dem Party of which you are a card carrying member. Do you savor selling baby body parts from the millions of abortions your party supports?

Obama lied 24/7 non-stop: if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, etc. the list is endless like your idiocies

Anonymous 2 said...


Are you_seriously_suggesting that Donald Trump just has a potty mouth and is guilty of no sexual transgressions, including numerous acts of adultery?

And are you_seriously_suggesting that Trump has uttered more falsehoods than Obama, or even close to as many?

If you are, you are either extremely naïve or extremely manipulative. Or perhaps the playbook from Trump Tower requires you to make outrageous statements like the Great Leader does.

And before you launch another playground ad hominem attack on my bona fides by accusing me of taking my marching orders from George Soros or supporting the Abortion Party or whatever slur you find in the Trumpian playbook (low IQ Maxine, low energy Jeb, crooked Hillary, lying Ted, sloppy Steve, little Rocket Man, and on and on and on), let me reaffirm that I am not a registered Democrat or a registered Republican or a registered anything. I am disgusted by all of them. Our politics are corrupt and are even more corrupt under Trump. Drain the swamp? Give me a break. Scott Pruitt anyone?

Bella Donna said...

TJM - Cigars notwithstanding, your support for Trump in proof that you support marital infidelity. It's not a potty mouth that's the problem, it is he ADMITTED behavior. Mortal Sins all of them. Mortal sins you support.

Trump’s first marriage imploded on the covers of all of New York’s tabloids after he brazenly took his mistress, Marla Maples, on a family vacation in Aspen along with his wife, Ivana.

When Trump was dating his one-time mistress, Marla Maples, he famously posed as his own spokesman, “John Miller,” and told a People reporter that he’d never marry Maples, and that he had “three other girlfriends” at the time.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Trump's lawyer had allegedly paid a porn star, Stephanie Clifford, over $130,000 for her silence about the alleged affair they had in 2006, one year after Trump married Melania.

That encounter was also detailed in her journal, with McDougal writing that it culminated with the pair's first sexual encounter. When they were done, Trump offered to give McDougal money. "He offered me money," wrote McDougal in her journal. "I looked at him (+ felt sad) + said, "No thanks - I'm not 'that girl'. 'I slept w/you because I like you - NOT for money'"- He told me "you are special."'

Thirty years after Trump avoided the draft he told the Howard Stern show that his own “personal” Vietnam had been his sex life in 1980s New York, and how he was “lucky” not to contract an STI. “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world,” he said. “It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”

TJM said...

Bella Kavanaugh,

When Trump begins messing around in the oval office while president, phoney catholics who LOVE abortion droolers and baby parts sellers like you, will have something to talk about. Also, when Trump sells us down the river to Iran for $150 billion, I will listen to you. Otherwise, you are a pathetic windsock who should be concerned with your immortal soul for supporting a Baby killer and Sodomite Party. Your little buddy, Horndog Clintoon was a draft dodger. Unlike Horndog Clintoon and the rest of the braindead "intelligentsia" including Al "High Priest of Global Warming" Gore and Pelosi, etc., Trump opposed the intervention into Iraq. Do you take amnesia and hypocrite and stupid pills in the morning? I wouldn't dare celebrate Mass considering how you consort with the evil Party. I would be concerned with being struck dead on the altar or being punched out by a lay catholic who is incensed that someone like you would have the temerity to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

Bella Donna said...

" Your little buddy, Horndog Clintoon was a draft dodger."

Donald Trump, draft dodger, says he would have been a hero during the Parkland shooting

Bella Donna said...

TJM - You seem to be putting forth a novel and completely heterodox notion that mortal sins are worthy of condemnation only if they are committed within the confines of the Oval Office.

And you consider to be worthy of praise and emulation the same mortal sins committed outside the Oval Office.

We shall have to hear you on this some other time . . .

Anonymous said...

FDR, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton all had affairs and mistresses. I've read that LBJ did as well. He and Richard Nixon were known for their potty mouths. Barack Obama listened to rap music and had rappers into the White House. I could not put in my comment a sample of what their "talent" has inspired them to write.

With Donald Trump there is nothing new here, except that I have not read anywhere so far where he has had an affair since becoming President,unlike FDR, Kennedy and Clinton.

Trump Derangement Syndrome anyone?

Anonymous said...

"...since becoming president" makes it all okay, does it?

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM says:

“Unlike Horndog Clintoon and the rest of the braindead "intelligentsia" including Al "High Priest of Global Warming" Gore and Pelosi, etc., Trump opposed the intervention into Iraq. Do you take amnesia and hypocrite and stupid pills in the morning?”

This is an ironic question to say the least:
In other words, yes, Trump opposed the Iraq War—after he didn’t, that is.

Now, shall we talk about the 3000 plus other falsehoods already uttered by this President?

Here are the Politifact analyses of several of these post-inauguration falsehoods plus many uttered before he became President:

But I suppose all of this must be FAKE News because that is what the Great Leader calls any source that dares to tell the truth and call him out on his innumerable lies and other falsehoods.

Now, I fully concede that all politicians lie and utter falsehoods on occasion. That is a major reason I am disgusted with our politics. However, Trump is in a league of his own. And as for his innumerable indecent and dishonorable utterances and actions, including several at the rally in Montana on Thursday evening, well that is the subject for another time.

Anonymous said...

Guys, guys, guys...ENOUGH!!!
Our salvation has not and will never be in politics, let alone politicians. Ranting on about politicians sex lives is so beneath where our thoughts should be. Most especially on a priest’s blog...

Bella Donna said...

The priest who owns the blog posts the comments.

No one suggests that salvation is in or through politics.

As many, many people point out, the current occupier of the Oval Office is, by any measure, dangerous for a variety of reasons, not the least is his stated history of philandering. His attitude toward 1) marriage and marital fidelity, toward his children (five by three different wives), and toward the women he has serially used and discarded IS a matter of grave concern.

The whole affair (pun intended) is sordid, and getting worse - no one disputes that. It is ugly. But it is also real. This is not a time for any decent person to be "polite," to keep quiet, or to think nice thoughts.

Anonymous 2 said...


I can certainly see your point. But a constant theme on this Blog is the alleged compromise of the Catholic Church with the world in the aftermath of Vatican II, and sexual issues are constantly brought into that conversation all the time. Well, if the Church is one side of the equation, the world is the other side. And the example set by our political leaders—and more to the point, the willingness of some here to give a pass to certain political leaders, particularly those whose name begins with the initials DT—would seem to relevant to this conversation. So, I have to wonder: Why the selectivity in which sexual behaviors to condemn?

This said, an even more important, and dangerous, aspect of the corrosion for me is the disregard for the truth that is now apparently becoming mainstreamed and normalized, again largely because of the owner of those same initials. Before DT it was not normalized like this. We expected politicians to lie but I do not believe we defended them for doing so. If you are not prepared to defend the truth, however, you can forget about defending anything else of value. Thus, we are sometimes reminded by various comments on this Blog that Satan is the Father of Lies. So, again I have to wonder: Why the selectivity in which lies to condemn?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

King David was no paragon of virtue and yet God selected him to be the King of Israel, one of the greatest. Maybe the Protestant puritanical ethos of our country has corrupted some Catholics to think presidents should be choir boys???? King David was no such thing and Catholic Europe has not, even in pre-Vatican II times, obsessed on the sexual or or moralities of their leaders.

Bella Donna said...

"King David was no paragon of virtue and yet God selected him to be the King of Israel, one of the greatest.

Are you suggesting that President Trump has been "selected" by God to be president of the USA?

"Maybe the Protestant puritanical ethos of our country has corrupted some Catholics to think presidents should be choir boys????"

Didn't you just post on June 27 the following: "But Jesus' and thus the Church's moral teachings aren't unattainable ideals, they are in fact attainable perfections."

So what's it gonna be? Are we, by grace, capable of turning away from sin or not? Or are we going to wink and nod at the very public sins of the President and say, "Oh, well, boys will be boys"? Double standard much?

"...Catholic Europe has not, even in pre-Vatican II times, obsessed on the sexual or or moralities of their leaders."

You and others lament here the disastrous state of the Church in Europe and you do so repeatedly. Now you want us to believe that you hold Europe up as a paragon of "Turning A Blind Eye" to the moral turpitude of many of the leaders on that continent.

Ya can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting that President Trump has been "selected" by God to be president of the USA?"

Jesus answered(to Pilate), "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.

So, yes it is possible.

Donald Trump is not a Catholic, and as to his beliefs and his sins, he can only be judged by God. Do you believe he will be judged the same as someone brought up in the Church?

Bella Donna said...

It is "possible," but that does not answer the question posed: "Are you suggesting that President Trump has been "selected" by God to be president of the USA?"

Not "possibly" selected, not "might have been" selected.

"Donald Trump is not a Catholic, and as to his beliefs and his sins, he can only be judged by God."


His philandering, his brutality, his vulgarity, his lying, his defrauding can all be judged as sinful regardless of his denominational affiliation.