CBS “Face the Nation” segment interviewing Cardinal Gregory and the female Anglican/Episcopal Bishop of Washington is excellent. I commend the reporter for the very good questions he asked especially about President Biden’s form of Catholicism.
Cardinal Gregory’s answers, while measured, were very good and he persisted even as the female Episcopal Bishop pushed back with a corrupt understanding of conscience and proclaimed her belief in a woman’s right to abortion as selfish healthcare for herself even as it murders a human baby in the womb!
That choice may be a decision of conscience but it is not a Christian conscience but one that is corrupted by world politics, or better yet, the world, the flesh and the devil.
While President Biden goes to Mass, as the reporter states, even saying Sunday Mass and Holy Days of Obligation, there is a disconnect between Biden’s private worship and his life’s politics. Politics and polls guide him more than Jesus Christ as he embraces not Catholicism in practice, but the world, the flesh and the devil.
This is over 13 minutes long but well worth the watch. Even the politically liberal female Episcopal Bishop of Washington offers some good insights at limited times.
While Catholicism is loosing members to the world, the flesh and the devil, it is not at the same rate as the Anglican Communion which has embraced all three with gusto with a veneer of “Protestantism and Catholic lite”.
61 comments:
Big whoop.
He "notices" Biden's relativistic faith in an almost bored-sounding passive tone. So what?
He isn't going to do anything about it. You know it. I know it. Everyone who reads this knows it. Nope. His highly selective outrage and indignation is only reserved for those who disagree with his political stance, most especially Donald Trump.
This is the same "cardinal" who allows Nany Pelosi to receive Holy Communion in his diocese in direct opposition to the sanction of his brother bishop Salvatore Cordileone.
This "story" is a big nothingburger.
At least there is a clear distinction between how the Cardinal answers the very good questions and the Episcopal Bishop of Washington answers them. And that distinction should be noted.
Yes, I feel that while it isn't prudent to excommunicate a head of state (we learned that with Henry VIII and the Church he named himself as head, from the good female Bishop of the church he created through corruption of the true Church), it would do Catholics well to tell Biden not to receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church in the world until he repents of his anti-Catholic morals as it concerns life and human beings be created male and female exclusively.
Forbidding bishops, priests, deacons and so-called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion from offering him Holy Communion is the way to go!
Fr K would give Biden Holy Communion. Until we give corrupt bishops and priests the boot, nothing will change. And more Catholics will continue to shrug and say, why bother, and walk away!
"His highly selective outrage and indignation is only reserved for those who disagree with his political stance, most especially Donald Trump."
That and those attached to the Church's tradition, which must die a slow, bloody death, according to the former professor of liturgy.
And Cardinal Gregory is a Bernardin (and McCarrick?) protege, after all.
Nick
Well done, Cardinal Gregory.
I was reasonably sympathetic with the rather sappy Episcopal Bishop until about minute 11, when she defended as Christian the right to murder a child. Nothing she can dream up in all her years of ministry and education can possibly defend that.
But Cardinal Gregory rather surprised me, knowing he had committed mistakes of judgment in the past (my own opinion, and God forgive me if I have misunderstood his words and actions). He came out and said JB has a flawed understanding of the doctrine of life, and that no Catholic can pick and choose what they believe and defend. *Very* well stated, and may I say as a lay Catholic - very courageous of him to do so on national television.
I am blessed to be under the leadership of my bishop, His Excellency Edward Malesic, JD of Cleveland, who effectively but a target on his back when he put out a policy a few months ago which clearly declared that all parishes, schools, parishioners, employees, and students of the Diocese are to follow the teaching of the Church, specifically on transgenderism, etc. Everyone is to be addressed and recognized by the gender of his or her birth and is to use the bathroom of that gender. And may only join sports teams of their birth gender. And no same-sex dates to parish functions such as dances, ball games, etc.
I know it is very difficult to stand up for the Church when society and even fellow Catholics are against us - but it is *always* the right thing to do. And we should support those who may have made mistakes in the past but are now defending the teaching of the Church, such as Cardinal Gregory.
Susan, TOF (Third Order Franciscan)
Nick,
Well put. Being one of "Bernardin's Boys" has a deeper meaning than anything decent people would want to discuss anyway. Needless to say, it's not a compliment nor anything to brag about.
Thank you Susan for your positive and thus Catholic comments on this. There are other things that are not Catholic, such as being pro-abortion. It also includes lacking in respect for offices in the Church and less than charitable remarks concerning clergy and laity created in the image and likeness of God although flawed in moral character. This lack of charity is less than evangelical and turns off those who might otherwise seek or remain with Catholicism. It’s a bad witness to say the least, from being pro-abortion all the way to being not only uncharitable but cruel.
The question from the reporter about Biden’s “pious” form of Catholicism, which is very private, is the classic criticism of Pre-Vatican II by post Vatican II Catholics as being a Pharisaical piety that is not matched by living a moral life in any area of life, not just sexual. President Biden’s Catholicism is so private and personal, that there is no ability to be evangelical in words and deeds, except the piety that is shown in the Church building and following the obligation to attend Sunday Mass and Holy Days of obligation.
"Decent People" Decent people don't hide their self-referential fears and their baseless accusations behind innuendo and adolescent insinuations.
Nick and Jerome, if you want to say Cardinal Gregory is gay, say it.
And when you do, put your real name, postal address, and email in the post.
More than likely, that's not going to happen.
Father McDonald, thank you for your assessment of the interview in question.
I found that Cardinal Gregory conducted himself in holy fashion. That is not surprising as I have every reason to consider him a holy man.
Cardinal Gregory represented the Church in stellar fashion during yesterday's interview. He was calm, peaceful, respectful, but he refused to comprise Holy Mother Church's pro-life teachings.
Father McDonald, as you noted, Cardinal Gregory "pushed back" against the Episcopal Church's prelate, Mariann Budde, when she offered a "corrupt understanding of conscience and proclaimed her belief in a woman’s right to abortion as selfish healthcare for herself even as it murders a human baby in the womb!"
Deo gratias for Cardinal Gregory refusal to allow the corruption/trampling of the True Church's holy Culture of Life teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have every reason to believe that Cardinal Gregory is a holy man. I appreciate the manner in which he represented Holy Mother Church during yesterday's interview in question.
He conducted himself yesterday in line with the gifts of the Holy Ghost. That is, Cardinal Gregory was calm, peaceful, sober, as well as unrelenting in his having upheld Church teaching.
Cardinal Gregory was respectful and charitable, but uncompromising when he, as Father McDonald stated, "pushed back" against Mariann Budde's support for abortion.
Cardinal Gregory, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. MJK,
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Card. Gregory was ordained by Bernardin, served as his master of ceremonies, and was his auxiliary for over a decade. No-longer-cardinal McCarrick controlled American episcopal appointments for a long, long time. As far as I can tell, unlike McCarrick, Bernardin was not known to have had sexual relations with men. My dislike for the man lies in his views, not his conduct, as far as I know about him (whereas with McCarrick, I appreciate neither his views nor his conduct).
As far as I know, in our debauched age, "protege" is still mostly free from innuendo or sexual undertones. If one's first thought was that I was saying Cardinal Gregory is sexually attracted to men, rather than what I actually did say--that he was Bernardin's protege, and possibly that of McCarrick as former American bishop-maker--surely that says more about the reader than the writer.
Ironically, it's considered pretty homophobic these days to assume that anyone who is publicly opposed to homesexuality is himself a closeted homosexual, though that was all the rage a few decades ago.
Nick
Pope Saint John Paul II was unrelenting in his determination to promote Wilton Gregory through the ranks of the Church.
As far as I know, Cardinal Gregory is a holy man.
Thetefore, I thank Pope Saint John Paul II for his having thrown in with now-Cardinal Gregory.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Saint John Paul II was unrelenting in his determination to promote Theodore McCarrick through the ranks of the Church.
As far as I know, will-be Saints do not have the Midas Touch.
Mark Thomas' to throw around the canonization of a holy man who made terrible personnel decisions to bolster that man's personnel decisions is unsurprising.
Nick
Nick - The use of "Bernadin' Boys" has, from the beginning, had a direct sexual understanding. To claim ignorance of that is pretty unbelievable.
And to propose further inuendoes, "...surely that says more about the reader than the writer..."- without being man enough to post your name is what I anticipated. Cowardice.
There's sticks and stones and there's stupidity. There are loads of bishops we know are faggots. Cardinal Bernardin was a faggot. Fag bishops appoint like-minded (and oriented) boys to positions of prominence.
You want to call me a coward for not publishing my address and phone number? Why would I want to open myself up to a lawsuit? Why would any sensible person want to lose everything?
You can call me names all you want. I called the names I called and I stand by them. Can I prove that Gregory is a homosexual? No. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he did in the diocese of Atlanta to open up the acceptance of the stench of sodomy.
I didn't use the phrase "Bernardin's Boys"; obviously, if I had, then you might have a point. Frankly, most of Bernardin's "headlines" or gossip were before my time, so I'm limited to Internet information (Wikipedia entries and the like). None of them let on to that. Disbelieve that if you like. Thankfully, I am not so sophisticated and important that I'm included in all of the gossip in the hierarchy to be included in those rarified circles where "everyone knew" about episcopal misdeeds.
And you are again reading an innuendo where there is not one. You, as is your pattern, jump to the most hysterionic and ultra-implicating reading possible, and it is that pattern that I was referring to.
And frankly, that you are so exercised about someone pointing out publicly known facts about Cardinal Gregory's long association with Cardinal Bernardin--to repeat, being one of his presbyters, one of his masters of ceremonies, and one of his auxiliary bishops for over a decade--leads me to repeat that you protest too much. It can hardly be called a homophobic dog-whistle when all of that is in his adw.org bio.
Lastly, there is cowardice and then there is foolhardiness.
Nick
Cardinal Gregory's defamers have not presented evidence that he is an unholy man.
Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, and in line with Church teaching, I have every reason to view Cardinal Gregory as a holy man.
In turn, I have every reason to believe in the appropriateness related to Pope Saint John Paul II's unrelenting support for now-Cardinal Gregory.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It's worth noting Joe Biden, the most Catholic president ever, has ordered us to commemorate "Trans Visibility Day" and canceled Christian imagery for Easter. I'm sure all of his supporters will be edified.
This after he prioritized a fancy fundraiser over the Sacred Triduum.
Maybe that's what His Eminence had in mind when he softly criticized the President. Too bad only one President has thus far acted reprehensibly in his eyes.
Nick
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/wilton-gregory-is-the-deep-church
https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2003_03_Neuhaus_SexualAnd.htm
https://www.complicitclergy.com/2020/06/06/archbishop-wilton-daniel-gregory/
Decent People do not vote for Democrats
Sophia here: Thank you Cardinal Muller, Faithful Shepherd of not only great intelligence, but also immensely inspiring virtue and courage, for this very timely stance:
"EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Müller joins calls for US bishops to excommunicate Biden"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-muller-joins-calls-for-us-bishops-to-excommunicate-biden/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa
"Cut-and-paste non-sequiturs" are acceptable suddenly.
Pax.
Mark Thoma
Mark “Thoma,”
Empty Suits are a cut above your level of discourse! You are a Satanic leftist hell bent on destroying Holy Mother Church!
Jerome - You find great comfort and security in your anonymity the way a member of the KKK finds comfort in his hood. Like theirs, your mask hides filthy corruption.
You're not protecting yourself from lawsuits and "losing everything." You're hiding your identity because you're afraid of being called out for what you are, vicious and weak.
Hiding in a casket like the undead, you proclaim, "There are loads of bishops we know are faggots. Cardinal Bernardin was a faggot." Then you nail your coffin shut with the self-damning, "Can I prove that Gregory is a homosexual? No."
The only stench in this is the malodorous trail you leave behind you. "All the perfumes of Arabia......"
Jerome,
Thank you for your relevant contribution to the comment discussion on Cardinal Gregory.
However, he is still holy, holy, holy, and there is no evidence to the contrary! You see, like Cardinals Mahony, Bernardin, and (formerly) McCarrick, Cardinal Gregory has been elevated to his status by Saints, Saints by golly!
Nick
Wow.
I increasingly think whoever posts here as Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh is trying to damage the reputation of a real Fr. Kavanaugh somewhere out there.
Nick
The poor analogy of the alleged Fr. Kavanaugh's argument is one that most of the general public has imbibed: Allowing sexual perversion to wear the mantle of the civil rights movement. For many, it's a great shortcut to self-righteousness. For the rest of us, it's an insult to our intelligence. And if the Bible is true, it's an outrage to God.
Nick,
A priest who votes Dem, is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I know this is rather repetitive, but it needs to be repeated: People don't get mad when you lie about them--they get mad when you tell the truth.
I can think of two particular examples that relate to this current debate: Two popular personalities of another age--Liberace and Cary Grant. Both men were accused at one time or another of being homosexuals. What's instructive here is to note how each reacted to the accusations.
Liberace, whose death unleashed a plethora of young men who had various claims to inappropriate relationships with him, actually SUED a British newspaper for making such accusations. If ever there was a celebrity who came across as "flaming"--especially in the 50's and 60's--it was Liberace. In retrospect, he feared exposure and it angered him.
Cary Grant, most likely because had once been a roommate with Randolph Scott, also faced such accusations. His response? He was amused. He even confided to his daughter that he rather enjoyed the gossip, since it caused so many women who wanted to see if they could prove otherwise to try to seduce him. (No, I am not condoning extramarital sex).
Neither of these men could be called shining examples of morality, but that's not the point. The difference of their reactions speak volumes.
Jerome - As much as you would like to divert attention from your own words and turn this into a discussion of how I reacted, it won't work. Not after your baseless and slanderous accusations regarding "loads of bishops."
Since you continue to lack the courage to stand by your words - you can't do that using a pseudonym - you may, for the moment, be safe from being charged with libel.
People get PLENTY mad when people lie about them. People like me who don't hide behind fake names have reputations worth protecting.
Your reaction to being called out - trying to make this about someone, ANYONE other than you - does, indeed speak volumes.
Father,
Is Jerome lying about bishops or about you? As best as I can tell, he's been on and one about Gregory et al.
Nick
I never said a word about this being about YOUR reaction. If the shoe fits, then...
Frankly, you can call me all the names you like, but I have extensive experience interviewing law enforcement, former seminarians and doing extensive background research to know that there is a strong cabal of homosexual bishops in our Church. If you want to deny reality, that's on you. If you think you're provoking me with your indignation, think again. I couldn't care less if you disapprove of me.
Nick - He's lying. And he's lying behind a mask because he's a coward. That's what cowards do. They use names or initials to cover their posteriors, then spew their vile garbage, all the while feeling oh-so righteous.
If anyone doubts there is a strong homosexual presence neutering our once-masculine episcopate, I strongly recommend reading Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy. She names names. Richard Sipe, an expert on clerical sex abuse also had some interesting things to say.
Father,
You didn't answer the question and continued venting. Another pattern, sadly.
Nick
Nick,
Father K is part of the establishment. He's going to stick up for the establishment, good or bad. I strongly suggest you avoid provoking him. You see how patient he is with me--well, keep it up and you can expect the same from him too.
I honestly don't understand why he's so bent out of shape anyway, because I never said that Archbishop or Cardinal or whatever he is Wilton Gregory was gay. I said he was one of Bernardin's boys. Ever eager to take offense, he decided to publicly connect the dots here and brought up the subject of homosexuality. The only thing I said about Gregory was, that as archbishop of Atlanta, he took the initiative to suddenly orient the diocese towards all sorts of gay "pride" stuff that the Church had previously steered clear of. And any Catholic with an IQ over 70 has to be curious as to why so many bishops are so terribly interested in making what, at most generous estimates, is 2-5% of the populace--why they are so concerned with being solicitous with THAT group while simultaneously treating Traditionalists like lepers. It's a question that continues to beg and it isn't going to go away.
Now that he's spoken his peace about how I allegedly "feel" about the sodomists in the priesthood and episcopate, I'll tell you myself: I feel sick. I feel sad. I feel like the Church that was my rightful patrimony and YOUR rightful patrimony has been held from us so a bunch of disordered men don't have to feel badly about themselves. I feel angry. And I also feel scared. I don't want to go to hell. I don't want any of these people to go to hell either. I feel like a sinner, because I AM a sinner and when I see them caving in to their weakness, it reminds me that I have plenty of weaknesses of my own that I can easily cave in to. I feel all of those things. I suppose feeling "oh-so self righteous" would be a welcome relief. Overall, I'm just sad. I am sad that I have to live in an epoch of such pathetic decline in our Church. About the only thing that keeps me from going insane is the reminder that this is the time God chose for me to live. I suppose I should be more grateful.
Yeah, Ol' Nick I answered you question. Jerome is lying, globally.
Jerome claims to have ALL this info. Where's it published with his name attached? Where's the data about the "research" he conducted? What are the NAMES of the "former" seminarians he interviewed? And what reasons were given for their dismissal from the seminary?
It's all a fantasy in Jerome's sick and twisted mind. And he still hides behind his KKK style mask.
Jerome -No, you didn't say Cardinal Gregory is gay. You didn't SAY it, but what you did say..."The only thing I said about Gregory was, that as archbishop of Atlanta, he took the initiative to suddenly orient the diocese towards all sorts of gay "pride" stuff..."
So, what does that say? Or are we to think that after saying, "There are loads of bishops we know are faggots. Cardinal Bernardin was a faggot. Fag bishops appoint like-minded (and oriented) boys to positions of prominence," that you really aren't expressing what you, without a shred of evidence, think about him?
Anyone with an IQ of 70 knows exactly what you think about Gregory.
And you keep saying it under the mask of anonymity. Man up.
Fr K must be tipping a few to refer to Jerome as having a "sick and twisted mind." The only one here with a sick and twisted mind is an alleged Catholic priest voting for the Party of Intrinsic Evil. I bet his bishop would be very interested in how he represents the diocesan priesthood of Savannah!
TJM,
I doubt it.
Nick
https://veilofinnocence.org/home/safe-environment-issues/background-of-safe-environment-programs/the-origin-of-the-specious/
MONEY QUOTE:
From their very inception, safe environment programs were diverted from any mention of homosexuality.
"When Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., suggested in 2002 that the bishops conduct a study of the causes of the scandals, his motion did not even get a second. When the John Jay Study, commissioned by the bishops, reported in 2003 that over 80% of the crimes committed in the scandals were homosexual in nature, the bishops buried it like a hot potato."
The is counting on us to have short memories. They want us to forget about Bishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and the money he paid to his partner. They want us to forget about Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa and his ordaining of a gardener and the lavish spending habits he indulged in. They want us to forget about Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg and the money paid off to try to silence the complaints of gay sexual harassment. They want us to forget about Bishop Daniel Ryan of Springfield, who was caught predating young male prostitutes at local parks. They want us to forget about Minnesota bishop who was transferred to another part of the country while paying a settlement of at least $80,000 to a former seminarian who called him a "homosexual rapist" when they signed the agreement at an office in Nebraska--an agreement that demanded the seminarian's silence. They want us to forget about USCCB Secretary Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill, who was using gay dating apps. And they sure as heck want us to forget about St. Sebastian's Angels, a WORLDWIDE group of homosexual priests and bishops who used their "secret" website to solicit meetups, rail against Pope John Paul II, and post obscene pictures of themselves in compromising poses.
Oh...did we forget "Cardinal" McCarrick? Did we forget a current "Cardinal" who recently told the press that he just can't understand why some people have so much animus towards homosexuality?
Tip of the iceberg. These are the people who have been caught.
All of that is the tip of the iceberg. The many we do not know about (and I happen to know about several of them) involve payments with confidentiality agreements, prohibiting the victims from ever speaking to the press.
No, no, my accusations are "baseless". I'm clearly "lying". I just made it all up to feel "oh-so righteous".
We'll see. We'll see. More and more of this is coming to light and more will. And you can bet your last dollar that the USCCB will downplay and use their friends in the media to keep it as low-key as possible.
The typo from my previous post should have read, "The USCCB wants us to forget..."
I, for one, will never forget the year 2002. Leading the charge for the USCCB's PR machine was the Bishop of Belleville, Illinois, one Wilton Gregory, who said, "We are not what you think we are."
He was right. They're worse.
I'm not denying there are good bishops. They just have to be very careful or they will get the Joseph Strickland treatment. Most of the rest are just company men. Some better than others. I respect their offices as bishops. I abhor what they have allowed to happen to our Church.
"...but what you did say...'The only thing I said about Gregory was, that as archbishop of Atlanta, he took the initiative to suddenly orient the diocese towards all sorts of gay 'pride' stuff..."
"So, what does that say?"
Good question from Father K. Aside from the fact that this is an accurate observation about Cardinal Gregory, what DOES that say? Indeed!
Seems to me this priest is angry that someone noticed the obvious and brought it to our attention.
Well. I learned about "Sebastian's Angels" for the first time today. Sickening. You'd think anti-Catholics made it up to defame the Church; it's something a wild conspiracy theorist from the depths of 4chan could've spun out... how many more sites like that are out there?
Sickening. I used to joke about God owing Sodom an apology for letting things go on now as they are, but there's more truth to that than I thought. God help us.
Nick
Mister Jerome,
I was going to post about many/most of those same... *situations* that you mention about certain bishops and priests since the Great Lent of 2002. Thanks for saving me the time. 👍
Jerome Merwick,
Thanks for laying out the facts Father “I vote for Abortion” contumaciously avoids. I am not trained in mental health matters but this cleric is clearly off his rocker, a cultist type, impervious to reason. He and MT are two sides of the same coin.
Jerome - You're playing a game. That game is: "Some small number of miscreants from among a group of priests/bishops has been identified. Therefore, there MUST be many, many more - "loads of them" to use your words."
How many "traditionalist" priests have been caught behaving badly? We can start with my seminary classmate, a very famous member of the FSSP, much vaunted for his traditionalist publications, recently sentenced to 6 years in federal prison for possession of child porn. Can we mention the up-and-coming traditionalist Filipino priest from Seattle who preached fiery sermons about homosexuals, who, when he was caught putting a camera in the boys' bathroom, fled to his homeland and who hasn't been heard from since? Or the so-called "Cancelled Priests," most of them traditionalists, who have openly and scandalously disobeyed the legitimate authority of their ordinaries.
Do the actions by these traditionalists indicate that there are LOADS of traditionalist priests behaving the same way? No. Are they just the "tip of the iceberg" in the traditionalist community? No. The vast majority of traditionalist priests and bishops are not sexual predators.
Bankers have been predators. Are there LOADS of bankers behaving that way? Any group you choose to focus on - bartenders, brick masons, CEO's, doctors, librarians - will have some very small number of disordered individuals in it. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children." This is a human problem, not one related to a particular group of individuals.
Yes, your absurd accusations are baseless. What might be driving you to the levels of anger you evidence here is anyone's guess, although in telling us that you feel sick, sad, angry, scared, and victimized is a pretty good place to start.
Here is one of Fr K's "heroes" being torched by his intellectual superior!
Retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has argued that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should face prosecution for some of the “worst crimes” he has seen in public prosecutions.
“She ought to be on trial for perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, witness tampering,” Dershowitz said in an interview with Newsmax. “The evidence is overwhelming that she committed perjury, including technical scientific evidence and several witnesses.”
Yet Fr K would vote for her. Abortion Uber Alles!
"Provide evidence of your accusations!"
"Okay, here's evidence!"
"Dammit, he actually provided evidence... here's some red herrings that have nothing to do with the claims for which I demanded evidence!"
You might as well go noodling for eels as get Fr. MJK to ever admit that he's wrong about anything.
Nick
My God, I didn't notice it but in re-reading... to compare overly-strident priests to sodomitic and abusive bishops has got to be one of the worst "defenses" of the latter I've ever seen, and then to lump the former in with sexual predators is even weirder.
Oh, and save us the sanctimony, Padre. God forbid Catholic laity be sickened, saddened, or angry the more they learn about how rotten the great and "good" in the American hierarchy have become. God forbid anyone be outraged that a shocking number of bishops (too many regardless of the actual number) have been free to indulge in wicked passions and victimize members of their flock, physically and spiritually, and thanks to the culture of silence and yes, quite likely blackmail, have never been brought to account. And you have the temerity to viciously, repeatedly attack somebody making "baseless" accusations that... OOPS... turns out do have a base?
"Take the L" as the kids say. Quit while you're behind, as an older generation says.
And as another commenter said, seems to me you're angry that someone noticed the obvious and brought it to our attention.
Nick
Ol' Nick - "...to compare overly-strident priests to sodomitic and abusive bishops..."
I made no such comparison. The comparison I made was between a few bad apples in one group tainting the whole, and a few bad apples in another group tainting the whole. (And possessing child porn and taking videos of boys in bathrooms is not being "overly strident.")
"Too many" is not "loads." Hyperbole gets the better of many.
Jerome has no base for calling Bernardin gay. He has no base for saying that "loads" of bishops are gay.
What angers me is that people like Jerome, and you more and more it seems, seek to undermine the trust and confidence we can and should have in the episcopate based on a few - a very few - examples of awful behavior. It's a tragic symptom of our age in many areas - church, politics, banking and finance - and it is, in my estimation getting worse.
I never said a THING about Traditionalist priests and bishops being exempt from the sex abuse problem--so I have no idea why the good priest here is so desperate to make a counterclaim to a claim I never made.
The only thing I DID say even REMOTELY close to this distraction-red-herring is that too many bishops bend over backward to accommodate people committed to disordered living, while treating Traditionalists like lepers--and I stand by those words. But there is sexual abuse across the board, in Traditionalist, conservative, moderate and the most liberal corners of the priesthood. The more traditional will rail against homosexuality publicly, but do their deeds in private. The more liberal are simply trying to get us to accept perversion as normal.
I spent ten years of my life WORKING at investigating and exposing this horrible stuff, using my real name. The best informants I had were priests--the few who actually seemed to care about the rot that had set in. Most of the priests weren't bad--just company men who didn't want to stir the pot. But the few who were downright rotten poisoned everything. One of my best contacts was a priest who worked in Rome for years and was a top-notch canon lawyer with a mind like a steel-trap and I almost wish I didn't know some of the things he shared with me. I spent hours traveling to distant counties to check real-estate records of priests who showed up on Sunday for Mass, then left to share their "love-nest" in another locale. Everything, ultimately, points back at the bishops. Either they tolerated or cooperated with the sexual deviance. And the deeper I dug, the uglier it looked. I'm really sick of talking about this, but there it is.
None of this bickering is making us better people. I don't want to engender hatred for priests or bishops. They do us a service we should be grateful for eternally. Let's just leave it at that.
At the risk of mimicking the bloghog, I need to add one more point: Fr. K writes,
"Bankers have been predators. Are there LOADS of bankers behaving that way? Any group you choose to focus on - bartenders, brick masons, CEO's, doctors, librarians - will have some very small number of disordered individuals in it. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children." This is a human problem, not one related to a particular group of individuals."
I quite agree!
The only problem is, bishops and priests should be held to a higher standard, since they are the providers of our pathway to God.
I have spent hours defending the Catholic Church against heavy-handed cheap shots from people who insist that the Church is nothing but a homosexualized club of pedophile priests and bishops and casually call our alleged pope a "pedophile" with no evidence.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate number of homosexuals among the ranks of the ordained and the ones who have enabled the abuse, moved offenders, paid our tithes off in legal fees and settlements and tried to "normalize" homosexuality with some air of authority are BISHOPS.
Yes, a child is statistically more likely to be sexually abused by a teacher or a dentist than a Catholic priest. But it isn't helping when the leaders of our faith, a faith that should lead us to holiness, not compromise with the urges of our flesh, spend so much time and energy catering to a small segment of the population that has helped turn our society into a pornographic culture of "anything goes". So when cardinals and bishops issue confusing documents that ambiguously give hope of "blessing:" sins that cry out to God for vengeance, it makes it even harder for lay folks like me to defend our Church. When our pope gives solicitous preference and privilege to the likes of Father James Martin S.J., whose sole reason for breathing seems to be normalizing homosexuality, something is seriously wrong. It's hard to blame the Protestants and ex-Catholics for their ignorant rants against the Church. But I still try.
We as lay people need to demand better from our Catholic leaders. Pretending there isn't a problem hasn't worked.
"What angers me is that people like Jerome, and you more and more it seems, seek to undermine the trust and confidence we can and should have in the episcopate"
HAHAHA, yes, how trustworthy they have shown themselves to be.
To shamelessly paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi: they have done that themselves, and time and again, and seemingly from any angle you could think of.
Unless you think the problem is talking about their sins and collective coverups, not the sins and coverups themselves--that seems increasingly likely to be how you prefer to view it.
And something seems to have snapped on your brain once again, as you once knew what my name was (it shows up twice for every one of my comments), but you've reverted to associating me with the Devil. How cute--this must be what a 1970s seminary education leads to.
I'm done, I can't anymore; we've reached levels of farce I thought impossible. See y'all in the next mega-thread.
Nick
Jerome - I never said you thought traditionalism was sinless. My point is that a FEW bad apples in any group, progressives or traditionalists, are not a solid basis for making broad generalizations. "Load of bishops" is an example of a gross overgeneralization.
I'm also not pretending that sinful clergy are not a problem. I am suggesting that it is far from the problem you make it out to be.
Pope Francis gave no hope of "blessing sin." That's a deliberate mischaracterization of his actions. "Oh, but that's how people will understand it!" you may argue. How did the people misunderstand Jesus healing on the Sabbath, or allowing "that kind of woman" to touch him, or Jesus having lunch with Zacchaeus? They, too, were deliberately mischaracterizing Jesus' actions because they didn't want to accept the propriety of His words and actions. And they didn't want His words and actions to challenge their way of thinking.
I am one of those who believes firmly that, in spite of the difficulties we face now, the Church is not anywhere near the levels of corruption that have plagued us in the past.
You go ahead and demand what you want from Catholic leaders. Demand that homosexuals be called "faggots," demand that bishops be free to act in contradiction to the Holy Father and remain in office, demand that any Catholic politician who, in your judgment, has strayed from the faith be publicly excommunicated. (Be sure to include in that group politicians who have strayed in areas other than sexual morality.)
Jerome Merwick said..."At the risk of mimicking the bloghog..."
"Risk of mimicking...?" "Risk?"
Jerome Merwick, you are a "bloghog." You have long been a "bloghog."
But "bloghog," that is fine with me as it is only through Father McDonald that one may reach "bloghog" status. That is, Father McDonald, and nobody else, determines whether to post a comment, as well as the amount of comments, to his blog.
I do not have any problem with the manner in which Father McDonald conducts his blog. That is Father's business, not mine.
Therefore, "bloghog" Jerome Merwick, I do not have any problem with the amount of bellowing, as well as cut-and-paste non-sequiturs, that you have contributed to this thread.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Bloghog" Jerome Merwick, you are unable to conceal the war that you wage against God and His Church. Example:
"Bloghog" Jerome Merwick said: "I have spent hours defending the Catholic Church against heavy-handed cheap shots from people who insist that the Church is nothing but a homosexualized club of pedophile priests and bishops and casually call our alleged pope a "pedophile" with no evidence."
"...alleged pope." "...alleged."
You have long called into question the True Church's unrelenting assurance that His Holiness, Pope Francis is, beyond doubt, Holy Mother Church's Roman Pontiff.
I hope sincerely that you will reject the manner in question in which Satan has deceived you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Kavanaugh said..."I'm also not pretending that sinful clergy are not a problem. I am suggesting that it is far from the problem you make it out to be. I am one of those who believes firmly that, in spite of the difficulties we face now, the Church is not anywhere near the levels of corruption that have plagued us in the past."
At least in regard to corruption that involves sexually abusive priests:
Father Kavanaugh's above comment has merit. Much of said corruption occurred decades ago.
Example: April 3, 2024 A.D.
"The Diocese of Sacramento announced it has filed for bankruptcy, citing the costs of settling more than 250 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by clergy and staff."
In its FAQ page on the bankruptcy, the diocese said "almost half" of the lawsuits involved allegations from the 1970s or earlier, with more than 80% stemming from allegations from the 1980s or prior."
"Only six claims allege abuse that occurred after the diocese's reforms and improved safeguards (were instituted) in 2002," said the diocese, referencing the year in which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted its Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (also known as the Dallas Charter)."
========
I am convinced that the abundant holiness that I believe has long flowed, for example, from Fathers Kavanaugh, as well as McDonald, is found within the overwhelming amount of Holy Mother Church's priests and bishops.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father and Father,
I apologize for my intemperancy. I'll be taking some time away.
One note: canon law does not consider those who doubt a papal claimant's legitimacy schismatics.
A happy Easter to all.
Nick
Actually Nick, I don't think I've EVER said he isn't the pope. I usually go to "alleged" to indicate the huge VERIFIABLE question marks that hang over the current placeholder's legitimacy. The Sankt=-Gallen Mafia and its members who talk too much made sure of that. Regarding other accusations--laughable at best. Some people here have a woeful ignorance of the history of the papacy--especially corrupt popes and antipopes.
Post a Comment