Withhold all your money Starve out the Bishops

Not.

One.

Penny.

Anywhere!

Sean O'Malley: A fraud and an enabler of perverts and predators

Sean O'Malley, the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston where the abuse crisis in the United States burst forth has issued a statement.

O'Malley is either a stupid man or he is evil, or he thinks that we are stupid people. 

If a letter is sent about a serious matter to a corporation it is fundamentally sent to the Chief Executive Officer. He is responsible even if it is not read by him. His staff is duty bound to inform him if it is of a serious matter. In the matter of the Church, the legal structure of a diocese is a Corporation Sole. The bishop owns it all. From the cathedral to the dining room table in an obscure parish to the dish soap under the sink. 

O'Malley received a "staff level" letter. from a priest about abusee and essentially determined that it was none of his business. 

O'Malley is a disgraceful enabler. A man complicit in the cover-up of the filthy sodomite predator pervert Theodore McCarrick.

When did the fraud O'Malley know and when did he know it?

He needs to resign.

“For the past several days, articles in the national media have reported accusations of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual improprieties with several adults and his criminal violations of the sexual abuse of minors. These alleged actions, when committed by any person, are morally unacceptable and incompatible with the role of a priest, bishop or cardinal.

“I am deeply troubled by these reports that have traumatized many Catholics and members of the wider community. In one case involving a minor the Archdiocese of New York, after investigation, has found the accusation to be credible and substantiated. While another accusation concerning a minor is yet to be investigated, the reports are devastating for the victims, their families and for the Church itself. Each new report of clerical abuse at any level creates doubt in the minds of many that we are effectively addressing this catastrophe in the Church.

“These cases and others require more than apologies. They raise up the fact that when charges are brought regarding a bishop or a cardinal, a major gap still exists in the Church’s policies on sexual conduct and sexual abuse. While the Church in the United States has adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding the sexual abuse of minors by priests we must have clearer procedures for cases involving bishops. Transparent and consistent protocols are needed to provide justice for the victims and to adequately respond to the legitimate indignation of the community. The Church needs a strong and comprehensive policy to address bishops’ violations of the vows of celibacy in cases of the criminal abuse of minors and in cases involving adults.

“My experience in several dioceses and my work with the members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors have brought me to this conclusion. The Church needs to swiftly and decisively take action regarding these matters of critical importance. In every instance of claims made by victims of sexual abuse, whether criminal violations or the abuse of power, the primary concern must be for the victim, their family and their loved ones. The victims are to be commended for bringing to light their tragic experience and must be treated with respect and dignity. Recent media reports also have referenced a letter sent to me from Rev. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. in June of 2015, which I did not personally receive. In keeping with the practice for matters concerning the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, at the staff level the letter was reviewed and determined that the matters presented did not fall under the purview of the Commission or the Archdiocese of Boston, which was shared with Fr. Ramsey in reply.

“These accusations are understandably a source of great disappointment and anger for many. These cases, involving a cardinal, must be viewed in light of the last two decades of the Church’s experience with clerical sexual abuse. It is my conviction that three specific actions are required at this time. First, a fair and rapid adjudication of these accusations; second, an assessment of the adequacy of our standards and policies in the Church at every level, and especially in the case of bishops; and third, communicating more clearly to the Catholic faithful and to all victims the process for reporting allegations against bishops and cardinals. Failure to take these actions will threaten and endanger the already weakened moral authority of the Church and can destroy the trust required for the Church to minister to Catholics and have a meaningful role in the wider civil society. In this moment there is no greater imperative for the Church than to hold itself accountable to address these matters, which I will bring to my upcoming meetings with the Holy See with great urgency and concern.”

What will it take for Pope Francis to strip the homosexual, pervert, predator McCarrick of his red?

Homosexual pervert "Father" Theodore McCarrick and his victim, James

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/nyregion/mccarrick-cardinal-sexual-abuse.html

James was 11 years old when Father Theodore E. McCarrick came into his bedroom in Northern New Jersey, looking for the bathroom. Father McCarrick, then 39 and a rising star in the Roman Catholic church, was a close family friend, whom James and his six siblings called Uncle Teddy. James was changing out of his bathing suit to get ready for dinner. “He said, turn around,” James, who is now 60, recalled in an interview last week. “And I really don’t want to, because I don’t want to show anybody anything.” But he did, he said, and was shocked when Father McCarrick dropped his pants, too. “See, we are the same,” James said he told him. “It’s O.K., we are the same.”

By then, James said, Father McCarrick had begun abusing him sexually. When he was 13, he said, the priest first touched his penis. At 14, he said, Father McCarrick masturbated him in a beach parking lot. When he was 15, James said, Father McCarrick took him to a restaurant in San Francisco, the Tonga Room, and poured vodka in his drinks. He then brought him back to his hotel room and masturbated him and brought himself to orgasm, James said.

The Bishops who remained and continues to remain silent about McCarrick are complicit in a crime

The New York Times has reported on the disgraceful coverup of the homosexual predator Cardinal, Timothy McCarrick. There is no need to write more here of that filthy monster, the label name at the bottom can take the reader to the history which I have written about this pathetic man. From his long known homosexual predator life to his illegal lobbying for the election of Bergoglio, it is legion.

In the Times article; "He Preyed on Men Who Wanted to Be Priests, Then He Became a Cardinal," the times reveals one of the seminarians who this pervert McCarrick went after. 

As a young man studying to be a priest in the 1980s, Robert Ciolek was flattered when his brilliant, charismatic bishop in Metuchen, N.J., Theodore E. McCarrick, told him he was a shining star, cut out to study in Rome and rise high in the church.
 Bishop McCarrick began inviting him on overnight trips, sometimes alone and sometimes with other young men training to be priests. There, the bishop would often assign Mr. Ciolek to share his room, which had only one bed. The two men would sometimes say night prayers together, before Bishop McCarrick would make a request — “come over here and rub my shoulders a little”— that extended into unwanted touching in bed.

Matt C. Abbott wrote years ago about the pervert sodomite predator Cardinal and later took the column down. I read it archived a number of years ago. Now, Abbott has named the man who was the reason he hid the column originally. Former priest Bart Aslin wrote to Matt and provided a full disclosure of his history. 

To my readers in here Toronto, don't think this Archdiocese is so holy, so clean, so moral. I can assure you that the filth and homosexual penetration of St. Augustine's Seminary in past decades is legendary. What I know about the filth in Toronto would fill a book. I do not report it in order to protect those whom I know that were victims and others who have confided in me, the truth of the sordid history here from the era of Philip Pocock, Emmett Carter and Aloysius Ambrozic. 

Returning to McCarrick, every American bishop must be suspect of the cover up. They knew, all or most of them knew and did nothing, said nothing. Men who are now bishops and cardinals covered it up, think about that.

Think not that Bergoglio is unaware. Bergoglio is the most complicit, he has failed to clean out the filth from the stables and in fact, has pushed the agenda of the homosexualists and done their bidding.

May God free us soon from this perverted juggernaut.

Bergoglio's work is summed up as an "Obliteration of the Sacraments"

There is so much to write on, so much to report on. As usual, this is my most demanding time of year professionally speaking, so blogging is going to be light. Even so, I do hope you will continue to come by, at least to get access to many of the best Catholic bloggers in the English speaking world all linked at the left. I will have less of an opportunity to write original posts, but I will try to post articles of interest and importance. Personally, I do enjoy all of your comments and the debate in the comment box, so do please keep it going.

Recently, Sandro Magister wrote and included this article from "Catholica."

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/07/09/a-monk-and-theologian-breaks-the-silence-on-the-churchs-metamorphosis/

“AMORIS LAETITIA” AND THE OBLITERATION OF THE SACRAMENTS

by Giulio Meiattini, OSB

(passages selected from the interview in “Catholica” no. 140)

NOT DISCERNMENT, BUT CUNNING

The situation of confusion is evident. Naturally, there are those who deny that this is a matter of confusion, maintaining that this is the positive result of a style of ecclesial governance aimed at “initiating processes rather than possessing spaces” (cf. “Evangelii Gaudium” 223). Therefore, the first discernment to be made would be precisely on the nature of this situation: can confusion, disagreement among bishops on sensitive doctrinal points, be fruits of the Spirit? To me it seems not. To discern also means understanding if it is appropriate or not to initiate processes in certain fields, and also with what timing, modalities, and objectives.

Let us observe, for example, the manner in which the new discipline for the “divorced and remarried” was reached.

After Cardinal Kasper’s talk at the consistory had prepared the terrain so to speak, the two synods, with an intermediate year of heated discussions, were unable to give rise to a common approach on the problem discussed. Those who read the accounts of the “circuli minores” of the 2015 synod realize very well that on the point in question there was not a shared perspective.

But one thing is clear: that a large majority of the fathers had not developed the conviction to change the traditional discipline. So much so that the authors of the “Relatio finalis,” on the controversial point, took care not to introduce innovations.

But - here is another small step - they drafted formulas of an indefinite tone that, while not providing for access to the sacraments, changed the atmosphere so to speak. Thus the “non-opposition” to those hesitant formulas (which had trouble getting two thirds of the votes) was enough to allow another subsequent small step: a couple of ambiguous little footnotes in “Amoris Laetitia,” which do not affirm or deny but hint at a certain direction.

This further passage smashed the interpretive boundaries, until in the autumn of 2017 - another step - there came the pope’s official approval of the “Criteria” of the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires on chapter VIII of “Amoris Laetitia.”

But these criteria, if one is honest, are not a simple interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia.” They add and say things that are not to be found in “Amoris Laetitia” and that, above all, had never been approved at the synods and never would have been. […]

Thus, through small successive steps, over the course of three years a very large one was made and the discipline was slowly changed, but certainly not in a synodal manner, in my view.

I may be wrong, but this “modus operandi” is not discernment, but rather cunning. In place of reasonable and open debate (the famous “dubia” have never received a response!), the strategy of persuasion and of the fait accompli took hold.

FAITH REDUCED TO ETHICS

Among the ethical demands and the sacramental foundation of Christian existence, the center is undoubtedly the sacrament, which is the communication to the believer of the grace that saves, and, in that it is welcomed by and transforms man, is also an act of glorification, doxology. […] Ethics is neither the first word not the last.

In “Amoris Laetitia,” however, the opposite logic is followed: the starting points are categories taken from the natural law and principles of general ethics (attenuating factors, the relationship between universal norm and subjective situation, non-imputability, etc.), and from these major premises are drawn the consequences for the pastoral practice of the sacraments.

In this way, the dimension of the symbolic and the sacramental, which should anchor, embrace, and transcend the moral sphere, loses its significance and becomes a mere appendix to ethics. […] The demonstration is given by the fact that in concrete terms the sin of adultery loses its public significance linked to the testimonial aspect of the sacrament, and can be remitted in the “internal forum” without any need to explain before the community why a spouse who publicly contradicts the sacramental sign of fidelity should publicly receive the Eucharist.

In short, the result of the decisions of “Amoris Laetitia” is the reduction of the sacramental to the moral, meaning of faith to ethics, which to me does not seem to be a mere question of pastoral practice. What is at stake here is something essential to the nature of Christianity.

A “TREMENDOUS BURDEN”?

I sincerely do not understand how a bishop, above all that of Rome, could write phrases of this kind: “There is no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church” (“Amoris Laetitia” 122).

Here is the glaring exemplification of what I stated before in a general way: if the evangelical ethic is isolated from the sacrament and reduced to a general norm it becomes “a tremendous burden,” like the Mosaic law, instead of “an easy yoke and a light burden.” Whatever happened, in this perspective, to the transformative effect of the sacrament? […] So then we could ask ourselves whether the encouragement of bearing witness to faith in Christ to the point of bloodshed is not an even more tremendous burden, not to be placed on the shoulders of the people. […]

One arrives at this point only if one is accustomed to conceiving of Christianity - perhaps without fully realizing it - as ethics.

“SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR”

“Amoris Laetitia” goes so far as to say that even if according to outward appearances one is living in a condition of objective sin, on account of attenuating factors one could be in the state of grace and even “grow in the life of grace” (no. 305).

It is clear that if this is the way things are, the interruption between sacrament and moral action, as already highlighted, leads to outcomes that overlap with the Lutheran conception of “simul iustus et peccator,” condemned by the Council of Trent. […] In this way, one could be at the same time just (before God, invisibly) and a sinner (before the Church, visibly). Works are at risk of having no more significance in the “discernment” of grace.

CATHOLIC COMMUNION EVEN FOR A BUDDHIST?

The direction that is taking shape around intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants obeys the same logic: it is not symbolic realism that determines the decision, but the simple evaluation of the presumed interior condition: if a Protestant is presumably in the state of grace (based on the attenuating factors of invincible ignorance, diminished responsibility, an honest way of life, etc.), why could he not receive the Catholic Eucharist? Perhaps one does not realize that posing the question this way could lead to making the same argument for a Buddhist or a Hindu who lives a good and just life. Tampering with the relationship between morality and the sacraments ultimately can lead to ecclesiological conceptions that are not Catholic.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Calling out an adulterer means you need your medication!

Ontario's radical sex-education has been trampled under foot

This is Benjamin Levin. You can read all about him here. Benny was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education for the Province of Ontario under the then "Catholic" Premier, Dalton McGuinty. Levin was responsible for developing a radical sex-education program that was abhorrent to many parents for its explicitness. The McGuinty government, in face of tremendous pressure and backlash, pulled the curriculum. Not long after, Levin was arrested and later convicted of various charges relating to child-pornography. Though his daughters denied it, Levin claimed to have had committed incestuous acts with them. After his release from prison, only three years, his "depraved world" continued. 

This is Kathleen Wynne (in blue). She is a lesbian and former Premier of Ontario defeated, no; politically obliterated this past June by the good people of Ontario. Much to the horror of her children, Kathleen kicked her husband out of the marriage bed for her lesbian lover, Jane who is pictured in the grey and white at left. Wynne has damn near bankrupted this Province. Jobs have left. Electricity prices are the highest in North America and Ontario is the largest debtor sub-sovereign state in the entire world. Whilst Premier, Wynne implemented the radical sex education agenda of the convicted child-porn aficionado, Benjamin Levin.  

This is the feminist Justin "Groper" Trudeau sitting between the two of them at a gay pride parade.

This is Tanya Granic-Allen. 

Tanya is a Catholic wife and mother who led a multi-year campaign for an organization called Parents Are First Educators against the radical agenda of Levin/Wynne. Tanya ran for the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party and raised this issue to the top of the agenda. She crowned the new leader Doug Ford, by taking her votes to him. She attempted to run in the election but was removed by Doug because of certain comments made years ago. She may not agree, you may not; but I believe Doug Ford did the right thing and saved her and her family, her children, from an all-out assault that would have even included death threats by a whacked out radical Left not unlike what Americans are now seeing. Tanya Granic-Allen will do more good as a lobbyist than just another Member of the Legislature. She already has. She is a heroine. A lioness.

And this is Douglas Ford, the Premier of Ontario. 

Doug won the election and promised Tanya and Ontarians that he would take action. 

Today, Doug Ford, through his Minister of Education took that perverted radical sex-education program developed by the convicted child pornographer Benjamin Levin and implemented by the lesbian Wynne and threw it on the trash heap.

Doug Ford, like Donald Trump, has put the people first.

Promises made.

Promises kept. 

Calling out the globalist conspiracy of liberal fascist thugs!

Not a day goes by when I don't find myself liking this man more and more. What a man. What a leader.

They are all afraid of him because he is with the people.

Their rotten little fascist, globalist, Christ-hating game is being called out and exposed for the rot and filth and finanical scam that it is.

God bless Donald John Trump.

God bless the United States of America!

Beware of False Prophets

The Gospel for today, the Seventh Sunday After Pentecost according to the only Latin Rite that matters is taken from the Book of St. Matthew, 7:15-21.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Be wary friend, there are many false prophets dressed up as priests and bishops. They are liars, they hate Christ and they hate you.

No faithful priest or bishop can hide the homosexual clergy mafia any longer!

Out.

Them.

All!

Tell me, Fathers; how is it possible for you to go about your priestly life to serve Christ and His people, his Church and tolerate this filth? How many of you know with conclusive proof that the pastor in the next parish or the auxiliary bishop not only has the "objective disorder" of same-sex attraction but is "objectively disordered" because he acts out on them? How do you sit there and do nothing? What are you afraid of?

A failing parish? A suspension? Mocked?

Do you know what I've noticed?

Since I have ramped up the discussion about the homosexual mafia in the Church, how it must be outed and how no homosexual is fit for the priesthood, I have, as Steve Skojec states below, been ostracised. Certain priests want nothing more to do with me. I guess it is true, for some, it was "all lace and no grace."

Their loss, now and forever.