January 2019
Faithless
THE EDITOR
"Do we believe the doctrine of the Church, or not?" |
- Bishop Strickland (Baltimore, 13/11/18) |
Last month we reprinted a most offensive episcopal letter. The offending prelate was Bishop Joseph Strickland of East Texas, who, in October 2018 by way of a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper, beseeched non-Catholics to join the Church.
Oh. Dear. Sooo first millennium.
Well, at least in the eyes of episcopal ecumaniacs the world over. These prideful souls have evolved beyond 'triumphal' notions of Absolute Truth and its protection, explication and transmission by One True Church divinely commissioned to teach and convert all nations [Matt. 28:19]. For them, Bishop Strickland's zeal, like St. Peter's Pentecostal proselytism [Acts 2], is not just passé, divisive and cringeworthy, but sinful!
Indeed, it transgresses the Frankenmagisterium: the laundry list of DIY dogmas compiled on the run by Frankenpope, who declared on 1 October 2016: "There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism." Twelve days later, in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall, before assembled Lutherans and a statue of Martin Luther erected for the occasion, he repeated: "It's not right to convince someone of your faith. Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism."
Soon after, on 18 November 2016, just in case we misheard or thought he was kidding, he repeated the dose. Taking specific aim at those who say he is protestantising the Church, he fumed:
I repeat, proselytism among Christians is a sin. The Church never grows through proselytism.... Proselytism among Christians is therefore in itself a serious sin because it contradicts the very dynamics of becoming and remaining Christians. The Church is not a football team in search of fans.
Perhaps the pathetic analogy is meant to rationalise the pathetic number of papal 'fans' frequenting St. Peter's Square nowadays? And perhaps Frankenpope and Frankenchurch — shape-shifting Lutheranised monstrosities — explain the disinterest? Just saying.
But let us return to Bishop Strickland. Having committed the "very grave sin" of carrying out Our Lord's missionary mandate through his local press, the following month he fronted up to the U.S. Bishops' mid-November General Assembly in Baltimore, where he sinned more gravely still: daring to deliver some home truths about homosexuality and episcopal complicity.
If the hierarchy in general is now so diabolically disoriented as to wave away the saving of souls (mandated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ), in preference for material concerns (dictated by the Social Gospel of Men), it is hardly surprising that the loss of souls occasioned by sodomy — and all the bodily diseases, deaths, and criminal abuses that follow in its wake — is also waved away. Accordingly, whenever the science and stats on the dangers of homo sex (CO passim) are brought out, especially when tied to clerical sex abuse, which preoccupied the mid-November Baltimore Assembly, the episcopal shutters come crashing down. The disheartening thought of complicit eyes glazing over before pointed points and damning rhetorical questions did not deter Bishop Strickland, however. Unlike most of his brethren he refused to tip-toe around or obscure the obvious.
"It’s part of our deposit of faith that we believe homosexual activity is immoral," he announced (an unwelcome reminder for some; fresh and shocking news for others). That said, he wondered out loud how, then, it was possible for a serial abuser like Cardinal McCarrick to gain promotions when his predation was an open secret: "How did this happen, if we really believe that what was going on was wrong? I think we have to face that directly."
Queue shuffling of feet; chewing of pens; rearranging of papers; furtive sideways glances; nervy mumbles and murmurs... 'Directly? How directly?!' 'No, he won't go there. Never. Will he?!'
Miraculously and mercifully, he did —asking plainly and simply: "Do we believe the doctrine of the Church, or not?"
Voilà! Bottom line.
And they do not believe. Most of them.
They don't. Haven't for a very long time.
And that is why, as noted above, the dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is considered redundant, and Bishop Strickland's evangelical outreach viewed as anachronistic and silly. They no longer believe in the Holy Catholic Church as the Ark of Salvation, opting instead for that hoary heretical chestnut beloved of the Lodge: universal salvation. Francis urged his late Protestant friend Tony Palmer not to convert despite his desire to become a Catholic. QED.
Persistent incredulity
Of course, since Modernism has synthesised all the ancient heresies, the list of Catholic doctrines not believed by prelates gathered under its heretical umbrella is very lengthy indeed. Manifested in heinous episcopal sins of omission and commission routinely committed over several decades (and counting), pointing out this suffocating blanket of unbelief might seem like a trite statement of the obvious. Yet papolatry-trickling-down-to-episcopolatry is a stubborn Catholic mindset. Ever more flagrant betrayals of the episcopal office are defended come what may, while blunt but logical conclusions continue to be denounced as hyperbolic and inflammatory. Even by those who should know better.
Plus ça change. The crisis of faith had already been raging for three decades when, 15-20 years ago, I received a telling phone call from a Catholic writer well known in the secular press, who also penned a column for the diocesan-dependent 'Catholic' press. He wanted to know if I really believed a charge I had made in these pages about the British episcopates, which he found shocking. In fact, it was just a variation on my repeated theme of Aliens (read: bishops considerably less Catholic than Baptist pastors) in Our Midst." A well informed, seasoned journalist with traditional leanings, the incredulous tone of his query revealed such stunning ignorance and naivety that I was taken aback. Where to begin? So I simply asked: "Do you take CO?" When he replied "No," I said: "Well there you are then. If you did, you wouldn't be alarmed because you'd know what you read is far from exaggerated. As events have proved about every damning description of the hierarchy ever written in CO, it is understated."
It still is, to include descriptions of a sociopathic, mentally ill pontiff, which sober assessment may turn out to be the least of it. And nowadays there is even less excuse for robotic indignation before damning indictments of the "apostasy at the top." Indeed there is no excuse. Not only due to the internet, but to the far more blatant and aggressive Modernist squaring of Catholic circles; to include rambling off the cuff papal opinions at clear odds with the Faith of our Fathers being passed off as magisterial teaching!
Magisterial 9/11?
"I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That's what I think," Francis declared in Argentina's La Nación (7/12/14). "Check it out," he encouraged his interviewer, "it’s very clear."
Well, actually, not-so clear, not-so Holy Father. Quite the contrary. A stream of consciousness is never clear. Deliberately so. It is an artifice designed to stream the sort of diabolic, anti-Scriptural ambiguity, double-speak and self-contradiction synonymous with this papacy. The only thing clarified by such Modernist blather is the positive response to the negative part of Bishop Strickland's query: namely, a papal 'Yes' to unbelief.
Those in any doubt whatsoever need only read one article among the many we've published to prove the point since March 2013: "The Bergoglian Synthesis"; the English translation of an ongoing study of this pontificate by a group of Spanish priests.(1) Damning and incontestable, the first year of their investigation alone yielded 129 closely documented heretical or heterodox deviations from Catholic doctrine mouthed by Francis. Doubtless very many more since then.
What is "very clear" is that this Bergoglian concept — Stream of Consciousness as Magisterium — so completely outdoes other laughable misrepresentations of the teaching and development of Catholic doctrine that it deserves its own cable comedy show. Or it would deserve that derisive treatment if it were not:
1. so wilfully confusing — as evidenced by papolatrous acrobats still twisting themselves in knots to explain 'What Francis Really Said/Meant'; and,
2. so purposefully damaging to the authentic magisterium — the divine light of mankind which flickers and dims each time a Modernist commentator hails a Francis interview or politically correct aside as a watershed moment for the Church. Said one: "He has forever changed the Catholic conversation. We can never go completely backward. No one can ever say [that Francis] did not say the things Francis said in [an] interview. They will be quoted for a long time to come. It is now a part of the authoritative data, like the Gospels themselves, and must be reckoned with."
They wish.
And yet... if one accepts the validity of both Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's election (thoughtful Catholics are split on the reasonable arguments pro and con) the Mods have a point. In which case, writes Fr. Anthony Cekada: "The Francis interviews are nothing less than 9/11 for the Church’s magisterium. In effect, they first turn it into a generator of gibberish which needs to be decoded, and then they destroy its very foundations."
It is all grist for Fr Cekada's sedevacantist mill. By simply pointing to outrageous 'magisterial' statements on faith (e.g., there is no Catholic God; doctrinal security exists no more; he who claims to have all the answers does not have God within him; proselytism is nonsense; atheists can go to heaven; etc.), he can logically infer that such declarations by Francis "blow away the meaning of the Creed, the nature of God, the possibility of arriving at doctrinal truths, the divine mission to convert others to those truths, and faith as a requirement for eternal salvation."
Similarly, apropos Bergoglian moral pronouncements (e.g., moral teachings on the 6th and 9th commandments are a disjointed multitude of doctrines that cannot be imposed insistently; one must not obsess about matters of abortion, 'gay marriage' and contraception; what is objectively adultery admits of a "pastoral solution"; who am I to judge; each one has his own vision of good and evil; spiritual interference in personal life is impossible; etc.), he can reasonably conclude that they "portray mortal sins as trifles, castigate as 'obsessed' those who say otherwise, trivialise adultery, reprove moral judgments, enthrone the conscience as autonomous and supreme, and effectively renounce the right of the magisterium to tell the individual conscience anything."
Since this faux 'magisterium' puts every Catholic teaching up for grabs, is it any wonder that Fr. Cekada and his sedevacantist fellows "no longer consider Jorge Bergoglio merely a heretic [but] an apostate because he adheres to a system that rejects the possibility of religious truth and the objective moral law"? Moreover, while St. Pius X explained that apostasy is the final product of the Modernist system, says Fr. Cekada, Francis only arrived there because "all his noxious and scandalous utterances against Catholic faith and morality are but the poisonous fruit of the seeds sown by [Vatican II]."
We need not venture down the endless, tortuous sedevacantist rabbit hole — which, despite the best intentions of its proponents, excites more conflict and confusion than Francis himself — to appreciate and share these basic observations by Fr. Cekada. As he himself concluded, "if you hesitate to take advice from a sedevacantist, remember, 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'."
Penned in October 2013, his commentary has most certainly been proven "right"! To include his understanding that "There are tens of thousands more Bergoglios out there, so in the long run there is really only one cure for the disease. Get rid of what really caused the infection in the first place: Vatican II." Amen.
We look forward to that endgame corrective by Almighty God, in His good and providential time. Meanwhile, perhaps only a coerced resignation and a rigged conclave, determined and declared by dutiful cardinals, will end our Jorgean nightmare? Or must we wait for a posthumous denunciation of the Frankenpapacy by the next (Catholic) pope? And if the latter, will such denouncement be proclaimed over the exhumed remains of Jorge, in the presence of persecuted Chinese Catholics he sold out?
Blasphemous prize
So many questions.
But at least those posed by Bishop Strickland showed that he harbours no illusions about a faithless hierarchy rotting the Church from the head down. As if to underscore the purely rhetorical nature of his queries apropos their fidelity or lack thereof, he immediately asked his brethren why some of them allow pro-homo propagandists to speak in their dioceses.
Alluding to ubiquitous LGBT propagandist Fr. James Martin, he pointed out that "There’s a priest that travels around now basically saying that he doesn’t [believe the doctrine of the Church], and he seems to be very well promoted in various places."
(Queue gritted hireling teeth ... vengeful hireling thoughts ...)
Bishops need to ask themselves some obvious questions, he said: "Can that be presented in our diocese? That same-sex marriage is just fine, and the Church will one day grow to understand that? That’s not what we teach."
Correction: it's not what Bishop Strickland teaches. But he knows that most bishops, to include the current Bishop of Rome and his cabal, teach otherwise — overtly or implicitly — pushing sodomy and all its destructive bogus permutations in one way or another, every day of the year.
Hence the unspeakable license afforded homo-agitators and the invitations extended to them by Culture Of Death Enablers (CODEs) high and low. For, at any diocesan or parish gathering, what is the presence of "Vatican consultants" like Fr. Martin and Fr. Timothy Radcliffe if not a flashing green light for anal sex and all the body-&-soul-destroying acts covered over by LGBT acronyms and 'rights' and 'equality' cant. As Father John Zuhlsdorf blogged on 16 April 2016:
"Homosexuality" was the bigger issue with the Kasperites... This is still the Kasperite strategy.
Yet if normalisation of buggery was the inexorable endpoint of Cardinal Kasper's perverse theology,(2) the primary goal embedded in the Kasper-inspired Amoris Laetitia (AL) is more evil still.
Referring to para. 303 of AL, "the decisive text which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or 'irregular couples'...", renowned philosopher Josef Seifert states:
AL says we can know with "a certain moral security" that God himself asks us to commit intrinsically wrong acts such as adultery...
Thus, in thrall to Walter Kasper, and proudly influenced by a Who's Who? of other latter-day heretics, relativists and nihilists (Bernard Häring, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Michel de Certeau, et. al.) Francis teaches in AL that God wills evil. Full stop.
In which case, not only unrepentant, contracepting adulterers can receive Holy Communion, but equally unrepentant, equally sterile homosexuals can receive the Eucharist, too. The 'blessing' and 'marrying' of homo 'couples' are just sacrilegious steps along the path to this goal. For satanists, heretics, and revolutionaries of every stripe (including sexual revolutionaries of the culture of death) profanation of the Real Presence is always the objective; the ultimate blasphemy and prize.
Clericalist CODEs
That is the hellish agenda enabled by priests and prelates each and every time they dress up the abnormal and sinful and present it to their flocks as normal and virtuous. In respect of which, the following recent scandals, right on the heels of the explosive Pennsylvania findings of demonic homo-clerical abuse, highlight the ongoing corruption of faith and morals by our British hirelings.
I
Julian Filochowski is the former Director of the Bishops' condom-promoting Culture of Death-affiliate (aka "overseas aid agency") CAFOD. Readers might recall that he is also the "partner" of radical homo-activist and ex-Carmelite Martin Pendergast, of blasphemous Soho Masses notoriety. In receipt of a large lay-funded salary for many years as he and CAFOD lurched from one scandal to another [cf. "Contributing to CAFOD is a Sin", CO, Jan. 2005], he now Chairs the Archbishop Romero Trust, from which pulpit he sings the praises of the late Archbishop in parishes around the country.
To that end, he recently turned up at St. Patrick's Coatbridge, in Scotland's Motherwell diocese, thereby consigning its parish priest, Fr. Sweeney, and local Bishop Toal to one of two Culture Of Death Enabler-categories:
CODE 1. witting enabler; or
CODE 2. unwitting enabler.
Perhaps they, along with Romero Trust patrons Vincent Nichols of Westminster and Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, should inform the faithful — in all post-clericalist honesty and transparency — into which category they fall? Given Filochowski's notoriety, I think we should know.
II
Bishop Williams of Brentwood, too, might declare whether he self-identifies as a CODE 1 — witting and defiant; or CODE 2 — unwitting, ashamed, and penitent?
I only enquire because in the very week that the disgraced American hierarchy assembled in Baltimore, his diocesan website of 13 November 2018 saw fit to promote Quest; a notorious homosexual outfit Cardinal Hume finally removed from the English Catholic Directory when he could no longer dodge the voluminous evidence of its radical rejection of Catholic teaching.(3)
The group was eventually rehabilitated by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, apparently as reward for their ongoing 'fidelity' to the Kasperite Master Plan — trumpeted once again on CaritasBrentwood.org by Quest member Ania Kowalski, for whom "a loving, committed same-sex relationship, which includes sexual intimacy as an expression of that love," is in "complete concordance with being Catholic."
So, what say you, Bishop Williams? Which category of enabler defines you?
If CODE 2, we can forgive your negligence and accept your apology.
We can even handle a CODE 1 confession.
What we cannot and will not accept, however, is being treated with clericalist contempt while our Holy Faith is mocked by homosexuals defiling diocesan platforms with their culture of death propaganda: passing off the abnormal as normal; portraying dangerous and deadly acts as benign and healthy; presenting mortal sin as "an expression of love."
III
Compounding this contempt for Catholic truth and the Catholic faithful, the Bishops of England and Wales promptly matched the Brentwood outrage by tweeting recognition of 20 November as the "Transgender Day of Remembrance." Passing over the Feast of St Edmund, King and Martyr, they tweeted:
"[W]e pray for all people who are ill at ease with their gender, seek to change it, suffer for it and have been persecuted, and also killed."
On cue, Kasperites the world over tweeted their appreciation. The omnipresent Fr. James Martin responded: "I join with the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales in praying for all transgender people, especially those who are persecuted in any way. May you know that you are all God's beloved children."
Thankfully, England still has its straight-shooters. Father Marcus Holden for one called out the bishops. "While we must pray for everyone who has died and fight against persecutions of any group of vulnerable people, ‘Transgender Remembrance Day’ is part of an ‘ideological colonisation’ which Catholics cannot support," he wrote.
The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (comprising priestly converts from Anglicanism), tweeted its firm wish "to dissociate itself from [the Transgender Day] message and calls into question the Catholicity of those who have approved its publication."
Always forthright, Deacon Nick Donnelly also took to Twitter to condemn the bishop's ideological intent, stating:
"This tweet confirms reasons for alarm that the Bishops of England & Wales as a conference are co-opting the Church into the LGBT political movement." Referencing a pro-sodomy curriculum introduced to Catholic schools with episcopal support, he added: "The determination to push the @CathEdService LGBT ‘Made in God's Image’ program for schools was worrying enough. Now this!"
Devilish scam
The above examples typify the way British prelates impose a sodomitic culture on the local Church by clericalist fiat.
But wait.... over in Baltimore, their arrogant counterparts fingered this same "clericalism" as the cause of clerical sexual abuse!
In order to rationalise this self-incriminating self-contradiction bishops steep themselves in denial.
Firstly, they deny their own patent clericalism and the iron logic of their argument. Then they deny the science; shutting their eyes before the clear and demonstrable link between the homosexual nature of sexual abuse and homosexual clerics.
They doggedly maintain this irrationality because it wins them the politically correct plaudits they crave. This worldly applause, in turn, drowns out the voice of conscience — the Moralistic Noise of the Rigid Rosary-Counters calling them to stop pouring sodomitic fuel on the sex abuse inferno.
Thus, safely insulated from Catholic reality, they continue to avoid the proven cause of the criminality while blaming it on a "clericalism" they decry yet personify.
It is self-serving insanity. A devilish scam. Yet easy enough to pull off when Rome's Clericalist-in-Chief is leading from the front; craftily pinning sex abuse on "clericalism" and any other spurious culprit that leads outwards and away from sodomy and the hierarchy.
Taking the Pope's lead, the Baltimore bishops also fixated on what the difference may be between abuse of minors and consensual sex involving adults, while others urged leaving it to the Vatican to address the abuse crisis. Francis encouraged this latter line of evasion at the outset of the Assembly by pressuring the bishops to suspend their voting on two substantive measures addressing sexual abuse: namely, a draft Standards of Conduct for bishops, and a proposal to create a new special lay-led investigative commission to handle accusations made against bishops. Better, cooed Francis, to delay the proposals until the conclusion of a special meeting of the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences to address the global sexual abuse crisis, which he is convening in February.
Instead of politely and rightfully ignoring this papal overreach, the American bishops duly buckled before it. Even as Bishop DiNardo was relaying the Vatican demand to the Assembly, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago intervened from the floor, expressing his support for Francis.
"It is clear the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously," he said.
On the contrary, of course, it is a blatant stitch up, underlined by the Machiavellian choice of Blase Cupich himself to head up the February meeting.
If it were not telling enough that Francis would choose a man who considers Archbishop Viganò's vital testimony a distracting "rabbit hole" — one that hurts the Pope's "bigger agenda" which involves "talking about the environment" (as Cupich told NBC last August) — veteran commentator Phil Lawler adds the following:
In his eye-opening testimony, Archbishop Viganò said that Cardinal Cupich is one of the American prelates whose rise through the ranks can be traced to the influence of the disgraced McCarrick. ... Any serious Vatican inquiry would be forced to weigh the truth of Viganò claim. But now the cardinal who should be under a microscope is instead sitting on the organising committee – in an ideal position to block uncomfortable questions about his own possible involvement to the scandal. If the February conference is intended as an exercise in damage control, the Cupich appointment makes sense. If the conference is intended to prompt reform, the appointment makes no sense at all. So I conclude that this meeting – which one scarred veteran of the Vatican battles has described as the “last chance” for Vatican credibility – will produce nothing more than “enthusiastic words” about the fight against sexual abuse. [CatholicCulture.org, 28/11/18]
Since Creepy Cupich(4) is out to save his own hide, we can count on it. But we need not wait for this predictable outcome to assess the tattered remains of Rome's erstwhile integrity. Within a year of his election the Frankenpope had already turned "Vatican credibility" into an oxymoron. Today, his subversive scheming mocks honesty and justice on a daily basis. Just consider his forthcoming February manoeuvre in this damning additional light provided by Lawler:
For most of five years, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has been working in these same vineyards, with little to show for it. The Commission strongly recommended a special tribunal to hold bishops accountable; that proposal was formally approved, then quietly shelved. Commission members have complained that their work is opposed by other offices within the Roman Curia, and ignored by many of the world’s episcopal conferences. Pope Francis could have given this existing Commission the clout that it needs to produce real reform. He could have summoned the leaders of the world’s episcopal conferences, and instructed them to carry out the suggestions of the Pontifical Commission.
[...] Think about it: The February conference is dedicated to the protection of minors. The Vatican already has an office devoted to precisely that topic. But that office will not be in charge of organising the meeting. The Commission that has already spent months speaking with victims, and devising plans to protect them, is not setting the agenda.
Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a former executive director of the U.S. Bishops' Secretariat for Doctrine who once penned an excoriating open letter to Francis (CO, Dec. 2017), offered this simple litmus test for the February meeting:
What I do know is that if the bishops... actually take up the major problem in the Church, that of active homosexuality among the clergy and bishops, then you know they’re serious. But if they hide behind clericalism, you know they’re not serious.
Seriously detached, deaf and blind
So much sinful obfuscation and self-interest.
This is what happens when popes and prelates lose their fear of God and start hosing down the fires of Hell; demythologising damnation. They lose all sense of accountability, even for the souls lost and lives ruined by their criminal complicity. The unaccountability then fuels the pride and arrogance that detaches them from the Faith and, in consequence, from the faithful entrusted to their care.
It is this complacent cage that Archbishop Viganò did his best to rattle in a brief message to the Baltimore Assembly. He not only urged them to confront sex abuse as "courageous shepherds" rather than "frightened sheep," he reminded them they would be held to account: "Do not be afraid of standing up and doing the right thing for the victims, for the faithful and for your own salvation. The Lord will render to every one of us according to our actions and omissions," he warned.
Of all the indicators that his appeal fell on deaf ears, none were more striking — or clericalist — than the non-response to the Silence Stops Now rally adjacent to the hotel in which they were meeting. Safely insulated in their comfortable surrounds, the hirelings peered out nervously at the several hundred faithful who had flown in from around the country. Perhaps they glimpsed James Grein, the man abused by ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for 18 years from the age of 11? On 13 November, identifying himself publicly for the first time, he told rally participants:
"I am here today because of the grace of God. We need actions which will guarantee this problem will be addressed and addressed fairly. ... There’s too much silence. But the silence will no longer trick us into forgetting or ignoring the scandal. Our bishops must know that the jig is up."
Yet if they did surmise that their devilish scam was fizzling out, surely dozens of bishops would have emerged from behind their sound-proofed double-glazing to hear and engage with Mr Grein and the rest — even as a cynical PR gesture; as one last throw of the dice? But they didn't. They remained in their comfy confines. One prelate alone possessed the paternal heart, Christ-like humility, and common decency to approach this wholly admirable little flock, and pray with them: Bishop Strickland.
How disheartening. But at least Strickland was not the only bishop to hold Assembly feet to the fire. Mercifully, several other prelates also spoke like "courageous shepherds."
Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly, for instance, who asked if the sex abuse might have come about "because we have certain bishops or priests who don’t see anything wrong with consensual sex between adults? It might be that they themselves were compromised," he mused. "Others, ambitious clerics on the ecclesiastical escalator doing everything to contain things and not saying anything, and then moving up the ladder." (Cormac Murphy O'Connor/Vincent Nichols anyone?)
Despite his false appeals in defence of 'chaste homosexuals' in the clergy, which recalled his patchy record in dealing with subversive sodomites, even Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco called for a study of the linkage-that-dare-not-speak-its-name. He raised the recently-released Ruth Institute study by Father Paul Sullins that found a near 100 percent correlation between an increase of homosexual clergy and an increase of sex abuse of minors. Speaking from the Assembly floor, he exhorted his brethren to get a grip:
“I think the worst thing we could do is discredit this study so we don’t have to deal with it, or ignore or deny this reality altogether. I think we need to lean into it. The correlation exists and we have to face it. To flee from it would be to flee from the truth, and to be perceived as fleeing from the truth.”
"I think it is imperative," he concluded, "that... people will know that we’re taking this seriously."
No chance!
The ready surrender to the Pope's opening gambit (to kick the sex abuse can down Via della Conciliazione into a Vatican black hole) had already revealed their signal lack of commitment and guts. After that sell out, any remote possibility of seriousness was vaporised by their insulting decision to invite the former Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney, to address the Assembly.
Not to beg forgiveness for his legalistic cover ups which allowed deranged clergy to damage thousands of bodies and souls on his watch.
Not even to express regret for telling the LA Times that pro-abortion politicians should not be refused Communion because Jesus gave Communion to Judas Iscariot.
Rather, he came to assure the bishops they are not the problem.
"Our collegial communion is threatened the same ways it was in Charles Borromeo’s time," he declared, "and that is from outside influences"!
Exiled from diocesan life in 2013 for his arch-criminal complicity, he then told those seeking cover for their own complicity "to lead by witness." ... Seriously?!
Sulphurous spectre
Beyond the blind leading the blind [Matt. 15:14], Mahoney's return was nothing less than a collective wink at the generational corruption he embodied, and a hat tip to Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago.
An evil genius whose seminary was known as the "pink palace," Bernadin cultivated the corruption, then cemented it via the all-powerful, homo-infested national bureaucracy he developed. His hellish legacy explained in the following article sets the endless U.S. cycle of clerical homosexuality, sexual abuse, episcopal complicity, denial and cover-ups in historical context.
Mercifully, few if any prelates of the modern era can be fully compared to the monstrous Bernadin. Nonetheless, his sulphurous spectre lingers in episcopal souls and psyches worldwide. It seeped into England and Wales through his close friendship with Cardinal Hume, who peddled the same Modernist agenda — the secularisation of faith and morals — in the same unctuous manner. Even on his deathbed, the hapless Hume was still promoting Bernadin's wicked "Common Ground" initiative (an extension of his more renowned "Seamless Garment" deception which sought to reconcile Catholicism with Modernism and its Culture of Death).
Though in terms of personal ambition, ego and liberal scheming, it was not Basil Hume but ruthless control-freak Derek Worlock, Archbishop of Liverpool, who was probably England's 'Bernadin-lite'.(5)Like Bernadin, the Worlockian legacy also carried on through Derek's Boys: über-Modernist protegés like Cormac Murphy O'Connor and Vincent Nichols, under whom Catholic deconstruction continued apace as clerical abuse scandals burgeoned.
If, however, a memorial prize were to be awarded to the prelate who conjured up the darkest spirit of Bernadin in these Isles, the leading contender would surely be David Konstant, the former Bishop of Leeds, whose stint in charge of the Catholic Education Service saw the innocent corrupted via classroom sex ed programmes so degenerate and pagan that the Archbishop of Birmingham — with a view to ducking that Judgmental millstone in Matt. 18:6 — refused to use them in his schools.(6) Concurrently, doctrinal abuse by way of his Modernist anti-catechesis further softened up the vulnerable for sin, secularisation, and exploitation.
Bishop Nichols, who followed Konstant, was no better. Personally admonished by a catechetical expert during his tenure as head of the CES, he refused to confirm her insistence that Catholic truth must take precedence over "unity." It was this clear preference for a spurious unity-in-diversity at the expense of objective truth that saw him replicate the homo propaganda Konstant introduced. As Archbishop of Westminster, he has continued making common sodomitic cause at every opportunity; even slapping down righteous critics of the blasphemy and sacrilege which defined Masses run in Soho by radical homosexuals.
After Konstant and Nichols, Bishop Malcolm McMahon carried on where their CES promotion of falsehoods and filth left off.
And so it goes. The recent episcopal affirmations of vice and mental illness as acceptable, healthy and normal (cited herein), are just the latest links in this English continuum. The CO editorial of November 2010, "Triumph, Tragedy and Stardust", contains helpful background documentation in this regard.
But let us leave our faithless British crew (now to include Bishop Williams of Brentwood) and their American cousins to bicker among themselves over who deserves the Joseph Bernardin Millstone Award for the most egregious abuse of Christ's "little children." It hardly matters. After all, spiritual rape not only extinguishes the light of faith in souls as surely as sodomitic rape, it grooms victims for predators. In that complicit spiritual sense, in God's eyes, they're not just heirs of Bernadin, they are Bernadins.
By their roots we shall know them
Let us pray always that God will flood their darkened minds with His Catholic Light. For without that divine illumination, episcopally-sponsored propaganda at the service of sodomy will continue in brainwashing-tandem with papal emissaries like Fr. James Martin, whose "Non serviam!" grows louder by the month and year.
Last August, during the World Meeting of Families in Dublin, this "Vatican consultant" publicly demanded that we not "reduce homosexual people to the call to chastity," but "welcome" these active sodomites "into parish life" and "listen" to them rather than "simply repeating Church teachings without considering their lived experience"!
As Father John Zuhlsdorf shot back:
[T]his is part of a larger, concerted effort to normalise sodomy, which is a sin that 'cries to heaven'... Martin's talk is a nightmare of manipulation and misdirection... they use "lived experience" to justify whatever the hell they want.
You bet! Amorphous jargon is their most powerful tool. It also betrays the tyrannical root of the anarchic effect.
- "Lived experience"
- "Who am I to judge?"
- "Pastoral accompaniment"
- "The concrete complexity of one's limits"
They're all on the same subjective page!
Dictators of Relativism to a Clericalist-Modernist man!
Faithless.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See "The Bergoglian Synthesis”, CO August-September 2016; or visit https://en-denzingerbergoglio.com/
(2) See "The Kasper Apostasy" (CO, June-July 2014).
(3) See "The Quest Rehabilitation" (CO, November 2007).(4) Cf. "Depravity Unleashed", CO, November 2018.
(5) For an explanation of Worlock's uniquely English approach to the Modernist stacking and bullet-proofing of a local episcopate, see: "On the Westminster Succession and the Fear of God" (CO, Aug-Sept 1999).
(6) Cf. “Comments on Education in Sexuality,” and “The Great Corruption,” CO, November 1997.