So, for all the Electors who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to elect Pope Francis in the hope that a Vatican outsider would finally make a serious attempt at financial reform in the Vatican, here’s some news.
Nothing of any substance has come to pass with regard to those long-hoped for reforms.
At this point, the reasonable person would conclude that any such effort would be futile.
The latest news suggests that such a conclusion is the only one possible.
Earlier this week, Pope Francis named Bishop Nunzio Galantino to take over the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), which controls both the Vatican’s vast and significantly under-valued real estate holdings and also its investment portfolio.
From the outside, it’s often assumed that the big deal in terms of Papal finances is the Institute for the Works of Religion, better known as the “Vatican Bank.” In reality, that’s a misunderstanding for two reasons.
First, the bulk of the Bank’s roughly $8 billion in assets does not belong to the Pope. Instead, they are funds belonging to Religious Orders, Catholic associations and movements, and other entities in the Church.
Second, the process of reform of the Vatican bank began under Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, and by now is largely complete. Those reforms came in the form of individuals who were not supposed to have accounts in the first place having been weeded out of the system, and under the watchful eye of the Vatican’s Financial Information Authority, suspicious transactions are now carefully monitored.
The real reform which needed to be undertaken is at APSA, which controls the vast majority of the assets the Pope actually has at his disposal, and which has a reputation for insularity and resisting efforts at transparency and accountability.
In recent months, the new Council for the Economy, intended to set financial policy, has struggled to find its voice; the Secretariat for the Economy, intended to implement policy, is leaderless as Australian Cardinal George Pell is back home fighting off charges of “historical” sexual abuse; and the allegedly independent Auditor General’s position is vacant after its one occupant was dismissed amid curious circumstances.
In a recent interview with Reuters, the Pope stated that Italian Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, the previous head of APSA and a figure who has himself been accused of involvement in an embezzlement scheme in his previous diocese, was on his way out.
The Holy Father said, “We have to move ahead on transparency, and that depends on APSA.”
But looking at the person he has tapped to do the job, one wonders what the Holy Father has in mind in terms of strategy.
Tuesday brought the answer, as Francis tapped the 69-year-old Galantino to take the reins at APSA.
Bishop Galantino is among Pope Francis closest allies in the Italian Bishops’ Conference and the most outspoken carrier of his agenda in Italian affairs.
It is said that Bishop Galantino came to Pope Francis’ attention while serving as the Bishop of the relatively obscure diocese of Cassano all’Jonio.
In 2013, Pope Francis stunned the Italian Clerical establishment when he named Bishop Galantino as the Secretary of the Conference, known by its acronym CEI. At the time Bishop Galantino had only been bishop in Cassano all’Jonio in the southern Italian region of Calabria for two years, No one would ever have confused that appointment with a launching pad to prominence.
Moreover, when in 2013, Pope Francis asked the President of CEI, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, to poll the bishops about candidates for the secretary’s position, Bishop Galantino reportedly had only one vote from almost 500 prelates.
Nevertheless, Francis bypassed the advice he himself had requested and decided Bishop Galantino was the man for the job, taking the unusual step of writing to the people of the Diocese to “ask permission” to borrow their Bishop.
Four months later, Francis named Galantino to a full five-year term.
Why Galantino?
When he was named a Bishop in 2011 by Pope Benedict XVI, he asked that whatever money people would have spent buying him gifts for the occasion be used instead to serve the poor.
Bishop Galantino opted to live at the diocesan seminary rather than the Bishop’s palace in Cassano all’Jonio, he didn’t want either a secretary or a chauffeur, and he asked people to call him “Don Nunzio” rather than “His Excellency.”
While the Bishop appears to be a man of charity and faith, one need remember that the trash heaps of Vatican history are littered with the carcasses of well-intentioned reformers who turned out to be unable to get the job done.
Truth be told, Bishop Galantino is a largely untested manager of a small diocese, who then moved into a role at the Bishops’ Conference that required him to articulate the Pope’s viewpoint but not really implement it in any administrative or managerial sense.
So, it does not appear there is anything in Bishop Galantino’s pedigree to indicate that, from the point of view of the task he’s been asked to take on, there’s not much that would determine whether he is up to the job.
But the Holy Spirit has a way of surprising those who think they know better.
After all, who would have expected the Bishop of Cassano all’Jonio to have risen to his present position and stature within this Pontificate?
Who knows, may an unknown from a little diocese no one ever heard of will be the guy who gets the job done.
We shall see.
And the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
IRISH HOMOSEXUALITY ADVOCATES TARGET PAPAL VISIT TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE
Pope Francis’ scheduled visit to Ireland in August continues to foment discontent in the once-Catholic nation.
An Irish group campaigning for reform in the Catholic Church has launched a petition calling on the Vatican to change its "theological language that is gravely insulting to LGBTQI people" --The initials stand for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex.
We Are Church Ireland is encouraging anyone offended or angered by the church's use of terms such as "objectively disordered" and "intrinsically evil" in relation to LGBTQI people to sign their petition.
Spokesman for the group, Brendan Butler, said the petition demands an end to the Vatican's "un-Christian language to describe our LGBTQI sisters and brothers."
"For an institution like the Catholic Church to teach that these words are an expression of the mind of God to describe her image in LGBTQI persons is not alone scandalous but blasphemous," Butler stated.
The petition is being spearheaded by former political correspondent at TV3 in Ireland, Ursula Halligan, along with Irish Senator David Norris and Pádraig Ó Tuama, leader of the Corrymeela peace community.
Explaining their involvement, the trio have said that the Church's formal language makes the Catholic Church complicit in the marginalization of LGBTQI people.
"Under the guise of religion and faith, the church models intolerance, breeds prejudices, and attempts to justify discrimination," they criticized in a statement.
Senator Norris, a member of the Anglican community, campaigned for decades for the decriminalization of homosexuality which was achieved in 1993. He is highly critical of the Christian churches' treatment of LGBTQI people.
"As a believing and church-going Christian I have to say that the history of the Christian churches in relation to gay people is a shocking record of criminality and brutality," he said. "At the instigation of the churches, gay people have been routinely ostracized, tortured and murdered. It is unacceptable that there should be any continuation of the savage and insensitive language employed by some of the churches in dealing with gay people. It is salutary to remember that Jesus Christ not once mentions or condemns homosexuality."
Norris, Halligan and Ó Tuama feel it is "imperative" for them to "boldly speak out" against the Church's "continued insistence on calling the LGBTQI community's 'inclinations' as 'objectively disordered' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358), or even worse, 'ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil' (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Person, 1986)."
The petition was launched June 7 but is being touted as only the first step in a much more far-reaching campaign for a change in the Church’s theology of human sexuality.
And the attacks upon the Church never cease in their frequency or audacity!
An Irish group campaigning for reform in the Catholic Church has launched a petition calling on the Vatican to change its "theological language that is gravely insulting to LGBTQI people" --The initials stand for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex.
We Are Church Ireland is encouraging anyone offended or angered by the church's use of terms such as "objectively disordered" and "intrinsically evil" in relation to LGBTQI people to sign their petition.
Spokesman for the group, Brendan Butler, said the petition demands an end to the Vatican's "un-Christian language to describe our LGBTQI sisters and brothers."
"For an institution like the Catholic Church to teach that these words are an expression of the mind of God to describe her image in LGBTQI persons is not alone scandalous but blasphemous," Butler stated.
The petition is being spearheaded by former political correspondent at TV3 in Ireland, Ursula Halligan, along with Irish Senator David Norris and Pádraig Ó Tuama, leader of the Corrymeela peace community.
Explaining their involvement, the trio have said that the Church's formal language makes the Catholic Church complicit in the marginalization of LGBTQI people.
"Under the guise of religion and faith, the church models intolerance, breeds prejudices, and attempts to justify discrimination," they criticized in a statement.
Senator Norris, a member of the Anglican community, campaigned for decades for the decriminalization of homosexuality which was achieved in 1993. He is highly critical of the Christian churches' treatment of LGBTQI people.
"As a believing and church-going Christian I have to say that the history of the Christian churches in relation to gay people is a shocking record of criminality and brutality," he said. "At the instigation of the churches, gay people have been routinely ostracized, tortured and murdered. It is unacceptable that there should be any continuation of the savage and insensitive language employed by some of the churches in dealing with gay people. It is salutary to remember that Jesus Christ not once mentions or condemns homosexuality."
Norris, Halligan and Ó Tuama feel it is "imperative" for them to "boldly speak out" against the Church's "continued insistence on calling the LGBTQI community's 'inclinations' as 'objectively disordered' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358), or even worse, 'ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil' (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Person, 1986)."
The petition was launched June 7 but is being touted as only the first step in a much more far-reaching campaign for a change in the Church’s theology of human sexuality.
And the attacks upon the Church never cease in their frequency or audacity!
Thursday, June 28, 2018
POPE FRANCIS ACCEPTS TWO MORE RESIGNATIONS OF CHILEAN BISHOPS...NOW WHAT ABOUT ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD?
Pope Francis has accepted the resignations of two more Chilean Bishops, the latest fallout from a sex abuse scandal whose scope and gravity were initially underestimated by the Pontiff.
After an emergency meeting of the Bishops’ Conference of Chile called by the Holy Father in Rome, all 31 of Chile’s active Bishops submitted their resignations for collectively failing to protect children from pedophile priests.
The Vatican announced that Pope Francis allowed Rancagua Bishop Alejandro Goic Karmelic and Talca Bishop Horacio del Carmen Valenzuela Abarca to resign, bringing to five the total number of resignations accepted so far.
In the region of the Rancagua Diocese, 14 Priests have been accused of having had sex with minors. Goic had served as head of the Chilean church’s child protection commission.
The Pope had already accepted the resignation of Osorno Bishop Juan Barros, once a top aide to Chile’s most notorious predator priest. Originally Francis had been a staunch defender of Barros, dismissing outcries from many of Chile’s faithful, including some church officials, that the Bishop was unfit for the office because he ignored abuse by the Father Fernando Karadima.
The Vatican in 2011 had sentenced Father Karadima to a life of penance and prayer for his sex crimes.Bishop Barros had denied assertions from victims that he had witnessed abuse by Father Karadima.
Bishop Barros had twice offered to resign his post, but Pope Francis had steadfastly defended him. Then the Pontiff radically changed his view after he invited to the Vatican abuse survivors, including one who had lobbied the Vatican for years to take action.
Two Vatican investigators reported their extensive findings.
Their report exposed a scandal implicating several Religious Orders as well as evidence that the Chilean hierarchy systematically covered up or minimized abuse, including pressuring Church investigators to discredit those making abuse accusations.
But the scandals in Chile are no worse than those in other parts of the world, including among members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
If the Holy Father is going to seriously begin “cleaning house”, I suggest there is a substantial amount of dust and grit with the USCCB that needs attention.
Moreover, scandals revealing systematic abuse and cover-ups have stained the Catholic Church in other countries as well, lately and most notably in Ireland and Australia, where Cardinal Pell is facing trial for personal acts of sexual abuse.
As more cases are exposed, Pope Francis has come to denounce what he calls a “culture of abuse and cover-up” in the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis cannot afford to be arbitrary in his treatment of the Bishops of Chile, for two reasons.
First, it might appear he only decided to personally and forcefully engage the scandal in Chile because he had embarrassed himself by his initial claims that the scandals there were less nothing more than calumny and libel.
Second, it would undermine the confidence of the Catholic faithful that the Holy Father’s words of condemnation are nothing other than a public relation hype.
What the Pope has done in Chile needs like doing in other countries.
Let us see if Pope Francis has the will and stamina to rid the vermin from the House of God.
After an emergency meeting of the Bishops’ Conference of Chile called by the Holy Father in Rome, all 31 of Chile’s active Bishops submitted their resignations for collectively failing to protect children from pedophile priests.
The Vatican announced that Pope Francis allowed Rancagua Bishop Alejandro Goic Karmelic and Talca Bishop Horacio del Carmen Valenzuela Abarca to resign, bringing to five the total number of resignations accepted so far.
In the region of the Rancagua Diocese, 14 Priests have been accused of having had sex with minors. Goic had served as head of the Chilean church’s child protection commission.
The Pope had already accepted the resignation of Osorno Bishop Juan Barros, once a top aide to Chile’s most notorious predator priest. Originally Francis had been a staunch defender of Barros, dismissing outcries from many of Chile’s faithful, including some church officials, that the Bishop was unfit for the office because he ignored abuse by the Father Fernando Karadima.
The Vatican in 2011 had sentenced Father Karadima to a life of penance and prayer for his sex crimes.Bishop Barros had denied assertions from victims that he had witnessed abuse by Father Karadima.
Bishop Barros had twice offered to resign his post, but Pope Francis had steadfastly defended him. Then the Pontiff radically changed his view after he invited to the Vatican abuse survivors, including one who had lobbied the Vatican for years to take action.
Two Vatican investigators reported their extensive findings.
Their report exposed a scandal implicating several Religious Orders as well as evidence that the Chilean hierarchy systematically covered up or minimized abuse, including pressuring Church investigators to discredit those making abuse accusations.
But the scandals in Chile are no worse than those in other parts of the world, including among members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
If the Holy Father is going to seriously begin “cleaning house”, I suggest there is a substantial amount of dust and grit with the USCCB that needs attention.
Moreover, scandals revealing systematic abuse and cover-ups have stained the Catholic Church in other countries as well, lately and most notably in Ireland and Australia, where Cardinal Pell is facing trial for personal acts of sexual abuse.
As more cases are exposed, Pope Francis has come to denounce what he calls a “culture of abuse and cover-up” in the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis cannot afford to be arbitrary in his treatment of the Bishops of Chile, for two reasons.
First, it might appear he only decided to personally and forcefully engage the scandal in Chile because he had embarrassed himself by his initial claims that the scandals there were less nothing more than calumny and libel.
Second, it would undermine the confidence of the Catholic faithful that the Holy Father’s words of condemnation are nothing other than a public relation hype.
What the Pope has done in Chile needs like doing in other countries.
Let us see if Pope Francis has the will and stamina to rid the vermin from the House of God.
RE-ARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC OR PORTENT OF IMPENDING CHANGE
With a rescript dated 26 June 2018, Pope Francis has named four Cardinals to the Order of Bishops within the College of Cardinals.
The rescript, signed by Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, says the new Cardinal Bishops will be equal “in all respects to the Cardinals holding the title of a suburbicarian Church.”
Traditionally, the Order of Bishops within the College is composed of six Bishops who are given the “title” of Bishops of the suburbicarian sees – that is, dioceses in the immediate vicinity of Rome.
The new Cardinal Bishops are Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State; Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches; Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; and Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for Peoples.
From the moment the rescript enters into force on 28 June, the new Cardinal Bishops will be equivalent in all respects to their confreres who hold the title of suburbicarian churches.
“The Roman Pontiffs have always looked with fraternal predilection to the College of Cardinals,” the rescript says. “Indeed, they offer special support to the mission of the Successor of Peter, bringing the precious contribution of their experience and service to the particular Churches dispersed throughout the world and effectively enriching the bond of communion with the Church of Rome.”
Except by special permission of the Pope, all Cardinals of the Roman Church must be Bishops.
However, within the College itself there are three “Orders” or ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons. The titles are related to the historical connection of cardinals to positions within the Church of Rome.
According to canon law, Eastern Patriarchs who are made Cardinals are also in the episcopal order; they have their own Patriarchal See as their title.
The rescript notes that although the numbers of Cardinals who belong to the Orders of Priests and Deacons have increased with the growth of the College, the number of Cardinal Bishops “has remained constant and unchanged over time.”
The elevation of new Cardinals to the Order of Bishops is intended to meet “the need to enlarge the current composition” of the Order.
There are two possible interpretations of this story.
First, the Church is going down in flames and the Holy See directs its attention to such meaningless, archane and aristocratic nonsense such as this?
Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
Or....
All the present Cardinal Bishops are over the age of 80 years of age and are thereby excluded from voting in a Conclave should the Holy Father retire from the Petrine Office, as did Pope Benedict XVI, or die.
Perhaps, Pope Francis thinks it somehow unfitting that a future Conclave might convene without the presence of any Cardinal Bishops as electors.
While that may seem trivial to some, perhaps the more rigorous and traditional advisers to Pope Francis have called this to his attention.
Now, the question is: is this gesture on the part of the Holy Father a waste of time and energy or is it the harbinger of change in the Papacy itself?
What thinkest you?
The rescript, signed by Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, says the new Cardinal Bishops will be equal “in all respects to the Cardinals holding the title of a suburbicarian Church.”
Traditionally, the Order of Bishops within the College is composed of six Bishops who are given the “title” of Bishops of the suburbicarian sees – that is, dioceses in the immediate vicinity of Rome.
The new Cardinal Bishops are Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State; Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches; Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; and Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for Peoples.
From the moment the rescript enters into force on 28 June, the new Cardinal Bishops will be equivalent in all respects to their confreres who hold the title of suburbicarian churches.
“The Roman Pontiffs have always looked with fraternal predilection to the College of Cardinals,” the rescript says. “Indeed, they offer special support to the mission of the Successor of Peter, bringing the precious contribution of their experience and service to the particular Churches dispersed throughout the world and effectively enriching the bond of communion with the Church of Rome.”
Except by special permission of the Pope, all Cardinals of the Roman Church must be Bishops.
However, within the College itself there are three “Orders” or ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons. The titles are related to the historical connection of cardinals to positions within the Church of Rome.
According to canon law, Eastern Patriarchs who are made Cardinals are also in the episcopal order; they have their own Patriarchal See as their title.
The rescript notes that although the numbers of Cardinals who belong to the Orders of Priests and Deacons have increased with the growth of the College, the number of Cardinal Bishops “has remained constant and unchanged over time.”
The elevation of new Cardinals to the Order of Bishops is intended to meet “the need to enlarge the current composition” of the Order.
There are two possible interpretations of this story.
First, the Church is going down in flames and the Holy See directs its attention to such meaningless, archane and aristocratic nonsense such as this?
Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
Or....
All the present Cardinal Bishops are over the age of 80 years of age and are thereby excluded from voting in a Conclave should the Holy Father retire from the Petrine Office, as did Pope Benedict XVI, or die.
Perhaps, Pope Francis thinks it somehow unfitting that a future Conclave might convene without the presence of any Cardinal Bishops as electors.
While that may seem trivial to some, perhaps the more rigorous and traditional advisers to Pope Francis have called this to his attention.
Now, the question is: is this gesture on the part of the Holy Father a waste of time and energy or is it the harbinger of change in the Papacy itself?
What thinkest you?
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
THE AGELESS AND MINDLESS ARROGANCE OF ADAM INFECTS THE HOLY SEE
Ever since Adam was risen by God’s Will from the slime of the earth to be made in the Creator’s own image, humanity has acted with shameless arrogance before his God.
Even the Church which Jesus Himself instituted is not immune from man’s ageless folly and pride.
The Holy See has announced that an International Conference entitled “Saving our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth” is set to take place in the Vatican on 5 and 6 July.
Organized to coincide with the third anniversary of Pope Francis’ Encyclical “Laudato Sì”, the event will see the participation of Vatican Officials and climate change "experts".
Launching the Conference on Tuesday morning in the Holy See Press Office, was Cardinal Peter Turkson, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (another useless agency the modern Church must suffer).
He told Vatican News the Conference intends to reiterate the urgent need for substantial changes in policy and lifestyle in order to safeguard Creation.
With all due respect to Pope Francis, Cardinal Turkson and the rest of the tree huggers who will attend this arrogant and wasteful echo chamber of silly self-affirmation, here’s how things work in the real world.
Mankind and the trash which accumulates in his wake can and neve will be a threat to Creation!
No change “in policy or lifestyle” will safeguard Creation because man is so insignificant a part of the vastness of the universe.
If science itself really means anything to any of these self-appointed experts who wish to protect me and the rest of humanity by imposing their arbitrary wills upon what we eat, wear, drink, drive or otherwise consume, the here’s what scientific facts really tell us.
Whenever an organism on this earth threatens the delicate balance and stasis necessary to promote and sustain life, the earth merely flicks it away as the tail of a dog flicks away a bothersome flea.
Protect Creation?
Who do these charlatans think they are?
Listen to the rhetoric employed by Cardinal Turkson in explaining the aim of this useless consumption of time, energy and resource to convene such a conference: “We all know how the coral reefs are dying; we all know how whales are washed ashore their bellies full of plastic; how the temperature of the sea is rising so methane gas is being released from the ocean; we know the impact of everything happening: the ice caps melting, the sea levels rising, islands disappearing, the hurricanes becoming more and more violent – we know all of this” ,
“What does it take – the Cardinal continued - to decide to make a change?”
Would that the Holy See would be as passionate about men’s souls and salvation as it appears to be about coral reefs and plastic bags!
Would that the real “change” in man’s behavior would be in the actions which proceed from his heart and not from his flesh whose spoils are destined for the latrine.
But didn’t Jesus himself say something similar about all this in Mark 7:12!
And the world keeps spinning and nothing within man’s spirit ever seems to change!
Even the Church which Jesus Himself instituted is not immune from man’s ageless folly and pride.
The Holy See has announced that an International Conference entitled “Saving our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth” is set to take place in the Vatican on 5 and 6 July.
Organized to coincide with the third anniversary of Pope Francis’ Encyclical “Laudato Sì”, the event will see the participation of Vatican Officials and climate change "experts".
Launching the Conference on Tuesday morning in the Holy See Press Office, was Cardinal Peter Turkson, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (another useless agency the modern Church must suffer).
He told Vatican News the Conference intends to reiterate the urgent need for substantial changes in policy and lifestyle in order to safeguard Creation.
With all due respect to Pope Francis, Cardinal Turkson and the rest of the tree huggers who will attend this arrogant and wasteful echo chamber of silly self-affirmation, here’s how things work in the real world.
Mankind and the trash which accumulates in his wake can and neve will be a threat to Creation!
No change “in policy or lifestyle” will safeguard Creation because man is so insignificant a part of the vastness of the universe.
If science itself really means anything to any of these self-appointed experts who wish to protect me and the rest of humanity by imposing their arbitrary wills upon what we eat, wear, drink, drive or otherwise consume, the here’s what scientific facts really tell us.
Whenever an organism on this earth threatens the delicate balance and stasis necessary to promote and sustain life, the earth merely flicks it away as the tail of a dog flicks away a bothersome flea.
Protect Creation?
Who do these charlatans think they are?
Listen to the rhetoric employed by Cardinal Turkson in explaining the aim of this useless consumption of time, energy and resource to convene such a conference: “We all know how the coral reefs are dying; we all know how whales are washed ashore their bellies full of plastic; how the temperature of the sea is rising so methane gas is being released from the ocean; we know the impact of everything happening: the ice caps melting, the sea levels rising, islands disappearing, the hurricanes becoming more and more violent – we know all of this” ,
“What does it take – the Cardinal continued - to decide to make a change?”
Would that the Holy See would be as passionate about men’s souls and salvation as it appears to be about coral reefs and plastic bags!
Would that the real “change” in man’s behavior would be in the actions which proceed from his heart and not from his flesh whose spoils are destined for the latrine.
But didn’t Jesus himself say something similar about all this in Mark 7:12!
And the world keeps spinning and nothing within man’s spirit ever seems to change!
POPE FRANCIS AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA MEET TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGE -- REALLY?
On June 25, Pope Francis met at the Vatican with the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Peter Cosgrove.
Later, the Governor-General met Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin accompanied by the Vatican Secretary for Relations with States Archbishop Paul Gallagher.
According to a Vatican statement released after the meetings, we are supposed to believe:
“During the cordial discussions, the themes of migration, at both global and regional levels, and climate change, were considered. Mention was also made of the role of the Church in Australian society, and the current discussion on the protection of minors and vulnerable people, reiterating the commitment of all members of the Church in this regard.”
The Vatican further stated that the Holy See and the Governor-General reviewed the “social situation” of Australia and the “question of peace and stability in the entire region of the Pacific and of Asia.”
The Governor-General of Australia is the representative of the Australian monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia.
So, we are to believe that while one of the highest ranking Prelates in the Church and perhaps one of the closest advisors of Pope Francis, Cardinal George Pell, awaits trial for allegations of multiple counts of the sexual assault of minors, a meeting takes places with perhaps the second most powerful person in the Australian government and pleasantries about climate change and peaceful relations in Asia and the Pacific Rim are discussed.
South Australia is about to pass legislation (if it has not done so already) which would, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. coerce Priests to violate the Seal of Confession when sins involving the sexual abuse of minors are confessed.
But, the Holy Father chooses to ignore such a blatantly political attack upon the inviolability and sacredness of a Sacrament of the Church to discuss air pollution and the condition of the environment?
But then again, didn't former-President Clinton meeting with the Attorney General of the United States while Hilary, his wife, was under criminal investigation and they discussed grandchildren and camping?
And this Pontificate laments the lack of transparency in the Church!
Really, if there is anyone out there who believes that the Vatican statement regarding this meeting summarizes what was really discussed, well, I’ve got a bridge over the Tiber for sale.
Wanna make an offer?
Later, the Governor-General met Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin accompanied by the Vatican Secretary for Relations with States Archbishop Paul Gallagher.
According to a Vatican statement released after the meetings, we are supposed to believe:
“During the cordial discussions, the themes of migration, at both global and regional levels, and climate change, were considered. Mention was also made of the role of the Church in Australian society, and the current discussion on the protection of minors and vulnerable people, reiterating the commitment of all members of the Church in this regard.”
The Vatican further stated that the Holy See and the Governor-General reviewed the “social situation” of Australia and the “question of peace and stability in the entire region of the Pacific and of Asia.”
The Governor-General of Australia is the representative of the Australian monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia.
So, we are to believe that while one of the highest ranking Prelates in the Church and perhaps one of the closest advisors of Pope Francis, Cardinal George Pell, awaits trial for allegations of multiple counts of the sexual assault of minors, a meeting takes places with perhaps the second most powerful person in the Australian government and pleasantries about climate change and peaceful relations in Asia and the Pacific Rim are discussed.
South Australia is about to pass legislation (if it has not done so already) which would, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. coerce Priests to violate the Seal of Confession when sins involving the sexual abuse of minors are confessed.
But, the Holy Father chooses to ignore such a blatantly political attack upon the inviolability and sacredness of a Sacrament of the Church to discuss air pollution and the condition of the environment?
But then again, didn't former-President Clinton meeting with the Attorney General of the United States while Hilary, his wife, was under criminal investigation and they discussed grandchildren and camping?
And this Pontificate laments the lack of transparency in the Church!
Really, if there is anyone out there who believes that the Vatican statement regarding this meeting summarizes what was really discussed, well, I’ve got a bridge over the Tiber for sale.
Wanna make an offer?
APOSTOLIC VISITATION OF BISHOP HOLLEY IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The Vatican appointed two Archbishops to an Apostolic Visitation to begin an investigation into the leadership of Bishop Martin D. Holley.
The inquiry was led by Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta and Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Both Archbishops were in Memphis for "fact-finding" this past week, speinding three days interviewing an estimated 40 to 50 Clergy as well as a number of lay people.
This Visitation was organized by the Apostolic Nunciature, the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Washington, and focused on complaints related to Bishop Holley's decision last year to reassign a majority of priests in the Catholic Diocese of Memphis in Tennessee. The new assignments removed priests from communities where they had served, many of them for years, and led to upheaval and complaints.
The inquiry also focused on the Bishop’s decision to assign Reverend Monsignor Clement J. Machado, a Canadian priest, to the high-ranking position of Vicar General of the diocese, the sources said. Local clergy have raised questions about whether Monsignor Machado's incardination, or transfer, followed proper legal procedures.
At first glance, this seems to be a tempest in a teapot so the appointment to assign two Archbishops to investigate is curious indeed. After all, Apostolic Visitations are, or least used to be, very rare since they involve the Holy See supervising and critiquing decisions of Bishops.
Of course, I believe we shall see more of this kind of resistance to difficult decisions Bishops make in the governance of their Dioceses, especially in light of the fact that the Holy See caved into demands made by those in Nigeria against a Bishop they would not accept. Eventually, the Bishop was removed from office on account of the complaints.
This story may prove to be quite interesting in that regard. I shall keep attuned to it for further developments, if any.
The inquiry was led by Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta and Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Both Archbishops were in Memphis for "fact-finding" this past week, speinding three days interviewing an estimated 40 to 50 Clergy as well as a number of lay people.
This Visitation was organized by the Apostolic Nunciature, the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Washington, and focused on complaints related to Bishop Holley's decision last year to reassign a majority of priests in the Catholic Diocese of Memphis in Tennessee. The new assignments removed priests from communities where they had served, many of them for years, and led to upheaval and complaints.
The inquiry also focused on the Bishop’s decision to assign Reverend Monsignor Clement J. Machado, a Canadian priest, to the high-ranking position of Vicar General of the diocese, the sources said. Local clergy have raised questions about whether Monsignor Machado's incardination, or transfer, followed proper legal procedures.
At first glance, this seems to be a tempest in a teapot so the appointment to assign two Archbishops to investigate is curious indeed. After all, Apostolic Visitations are, or least used to be, very rare since they involve the Holy See supervising and critiquing decisions of Bishops.
Of course, I believe we shall see more of this kind of resistance to difficult decisions Bishops make in the governance of their Dioceses, especially in light of the fact that the Holy See caved into demands made by those in Nigeria against a Bishop they would not accept. Eventually, the Bishop was removed from office on account of the complaints.
This story may prove to be quite interesting in that regard. I shall keep attuned to it for further developments, if any.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR POPE FRANCIS TO CONDEMN THE REAL AND UNDERLYING CAUSE OF THE MIGRATION CRISIS
One of Pope Francis’ most heartfelt concerns centers upon migration of people forced from their native lands.
Pope Francis is urging the nations of the world to take in as many refugees as possible.
The Pontiff told reporters that he believes it is incumbent on governments to “welcome, to accompany, to place, to integrate” as many refugees as their societies can reasonably accommodate.
“Each country must do this with the virtue of government, which is prudence, and take in as many refugees as it can, as many as it can integrate, educate, give jobs to,” Pope Francis said during the in-flight press conference on his way back from Geneva.
“We are living through a flood of refugees who are fleeing war and hunger,” the Pope said.
In an article I posted related to this story, I called the Holy Father to task for his constant criticism of nations seeking to protect their sovereign borders as well as the fact that he almost never seems to call the corrupt national leaders who cause so much death and suffering (and force their citizens to leave their native lands) to worldwide accountability and outrage.
This week, the entire Police Force of the town of Ocampo in the Western State of Mexico is under arrest, and is being questioned about the shooting death of a businessman who was candidate for Mayor.
Fernando Angeles Juarez was shot dead by a group of gunmen in the town of Ocampo. He's the third mayoral candidate to be murdered in the wild Western State of Michocan in just over a week.
Prosecutors accused the local Police Chief Oscar Gonzalez Garcia of involvement.
But when Federal Police went to arrest him, his Officers, who outnumbered them, prevented it.
So they went away and returned with re-inforcements arresting him and all his colleagues, numbering 28.
This coming Sunday is Presidential Election Day in Mexico.
There are also simultaneous Congressional and local Elections. More than 100 politicians have been murdered by organized crime.
Now, if the Holy Father is as concerned about migration issues and the suffering of so many, I would expect him to bring this story to the court of world opinion and solidly denounce the government of Mexico from the window of the Papal Palace with the same vehemence he musters in criticizing the United States for its policies aimed at securing the nation’s legitimate borders.
I shall be eager to see what the Vatican has to say about this and related stories of terror and corruption in the countries of Central and South America which continue to wash a wave of illegal immigration to the shores of the United States.
If the past is any indication of what to expect, then the Pope’s words concerning the real and underpinning causes of migration will be as misguided as they have always been.
Pope Francis is urging the nations of the world to take in as many refugees as possible.
The Pontiff told reporters that he believes it is incumbent on governments to “welcome, to accompany, to place, to integrate” as many refugees as their societies can reasonably accommodate.
“Each country must do this with the virtue of government, which is prudence, and take in as many refugees as it can, as many as it can integrate, educate, give jobs to,” Pope Francis said during the in-flight press conference on his way back from Geneva.
“We are living through a flood of refugees who are fleeing war and hunger,” the Pope said.
In an article I posted related to this story, I called the Holy Father to task for his constant criticism of nations seeking to protect their sovereign borders as well as the fact that he almost never seems to call the corrupt national leaders who cause so much death and suffering (and force their citizens to leave their native lands) to worldwide accountability and outrage.
This week, the entire Police Force of the town of Ocampo in the Western State of Mexico is under arrest, and is being questioned about the shooting death of a businessman who was candidate for Mayor.
Fernando Angeles Juarez was shot dead by a group of gunmen in the town of Ocampo. He's the third mayoral candidate to be murdered in the wild Western State of Michocan in just over a week.
Prosecutors accused the local Police Chief Oscar Gonzalez Garcia of involvement.
But when Federal Police went to arrest him, his Officers, who outnumbered them, prevented it.
So they went away and returned with re-inforcements arresting him and all his colleagues, numbering 28.
This coming Sunday is Presidential Election Day in Mexico.
There are also simultaneous Congressional and local Elections. More than 100 politicians have been murdered by organized crime.
Now, if the Holy Father is as concerned about migration issues and the suffering of so many, I would expect him to bring this story to the court of world opinion and solidly denounce the government of Mexico from the window of the Papal Palace with the same vehemence he musters in criticizing the United States for its policies aimed at securing the nation’s legitimate borders.
I shall be eager to see what the Vatican has to say about this and related stories of terror and corruption in the countries of Central and South America which continue to wash a wave of illegal immigration to the shores of the United States.
If the past is any indication of what to expect, then the Pope’s words concerning the real and underpinning causes of migration will be as misguided as they have always been.
Monday, June 25, 2018
SERIOUS QUESTIONS REMAIN IN THE CASE OF CARDINAL MCCARRICK
As noted in previous postings on this blogsite, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been accused of sexually assaulting a 16 year-old altar boy in the sacristy of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in 1971. This same young man accuses then-Monsignor McCarrick of assaulting him in the sacristy restroom a year later.
On the basis of those allegations, Cardinal Timothy Dolan was appointed by Pope Francis (who alone judges penal cases involving Cardinals) to conduct a preliminary investigation. The Archdiocese of New York Review Board found the allegation against Cardinal McCarrick to be both “credible” and “substantiated.”
In response, Cardinal McCarrick issued a statement accepting the findings of the Review Board while maintaining his innocence.
Since the news of this scandal broke, several Priests have come forward and revealed the Cardinal’s widely-known undue attention and physical contact with seminarians. These same Priests reveal the nicknames used to refer to His Eminence: “Uncle Ted” and “Teddy Bear”.
Moreover, both the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen have confirmed that then-Bishop McCarrick faced previous allegations of sexual misconduct with adults, which ended in financial settlements to the victims.
These most recent revelations have already caused great scandal within each of these Dioceses and give little credence to the Cardinal’s claims of innocence.
It seems to me that some serious questions need answering.
How is that McCarrick was continually promoted from the rank of Priest to Monsignor to Bishop to Archbishop to Cardinal?
How is that McCarrick was allowed to exercise any semblance of public ministry, even after his retirement, when Church officials knew of the previous claims and financial settlements?
Who were the Diocesan officials holding positions of leadership and authority within their respective curias who turned a blind-eye to the abuse and the settlements and kept silent, all the while allowing McCarrick to rise in stature and power within the American Church?
Why did they remain silent? Was it fear of reprisal? A promise of advancement or protection?
And what about the Vatican?
Wasn’t McCarrick vetted before being promoted up the rungs of the ecclesiastical ladder?
Isn’t it interesting that a Preliminary Investigation by the local Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York could so quickly find that the allegations of the sexual abuse of the altar-boy were “credible and substantiated”. Did the Holy See never conduct a more rigorous vetting (which would have uncovered the same truths) before naming him to be a Bishop let along a member of the College of Cardinals?
Who else might have known or be expected to have known about the accusations and the settlements?
Who might have been aware of the rumors surrounding McCarrick’s penchant for the physical fondling of young boys and men preparing for the Priesthood and not brought such to the attention of Church authorities?
Certainly, questions arise about what Cardinals Dolan, Tobin and Wuerl knew about McCarrick’s past and whether they themselves raised questions or objections to the Holy See about his public ministry, even and especially after his retirement from office.
And who, at the level of the Holy See, was aware of these facts and speculations and did nothing but continue to allow McCarrick to move from promotion to promotion?
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, abdicated the Papacy in part on account of what he called a “gay lobby”, a homosexual cabal within the halls of the Vatican which forcefully attempted to influence or thwart his decisions. The Pope simply couldn't stand the pressure any longer and retired.
In my opinion, the reality of Pope Benedict’s claim explains how McCarrick could have advanced in his career as he did.
Not only does McCarrick warrant investigation, but so do all those other Clerics associated with him throughout his career as well as those in the Vatican, especially within the Congregation for Bishops.
This is a sad and disgusting episode which need never be repeated.
I pray Pope Francis takes this opportunity to get to the bottom of this mess and throw all the scoundrels who permitted and enabled it out into the wilderness where there will be “weeping and the gnashing of teeth”.
On the basis of those allegations, Cardinal Timothy Dolan was appointed by Pope Francis (who alone judges penal cases involving Cardinals) to conduct a preliminary investigation. The Archdiocese of New York Review Board found the allegation against Cardinal McCarrick to be both “credible” and “substantiated.”
In response, Cardinal McCarrick issued a statement accepting the findings of the Review Board while maintaining his innocence.
Since the news of this scandal broke, several Priests have come forward and revealed the Cardinal’s widely-known undue attention and physical contact with seminarians. These same Priests reveal the nicknames used to refer to His Eminence: “Uncle Ted” and “Teddy Bear”.
Moreover, both the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen have confirmed that then-Bishop McCarrick faced previous allegations of sexual misconduct with adults, which ended in financial settlements to the victims.
These most recent revelations have already caused great scandal within each of these Dioceses and give little credence to the Cardinal’s claims of innocence.
It seems to me that some serious questions need answering.
How is that McCarrick was continually promoted from the rank of Priest to Monsignor to Bishop to Archbishop to Cardinal?
How is that McCarrick was allowed to exercise any semblance of public ministry, even after his retirement, when Church officials knew of the previous claims and financial settlements?
Who were the Diocesan officials holding positions of leadership and authority within their respective curias who turned a blind-eye to the abuse and the settlements and kept silent, all the while allowing McCarrick to rise in stature and power within the American Church?
Why did they remain silent? Was it fear of reprisal? A promise of advancement or protection?
And what about the Vatican?
Wasn’t McCarrick vetted before being promoted up the rungs of the ecclesiastical ladder?
Isn’t it interesting that a Preliminary Investigation by the local Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York could so quickly find that the allegations of the sexual abuse of the altar-boy were “credible and substantiated”. Did the Holy See never conduct a more rigorous vetting (which would have uncovered the same truths) before naming him to be a Bishop let along a member of the College of Cardinals?
Who else might have known or be expected to have known about the accusations and the settlements?
Who might have been aware of the rumors surrounding McCarrick’s penchant for the physical fondling of young boys and men preparing for the Priesthood and not brought such to the attention of Church authorities?
Certainly, questions arise about what Cardinals Dolan, Tobin and Wuerl knew about McCarrick’s past and whether they themselves raised questions or objections to the Holy See about his public ministry, even and especially after his retirement from office.
And who, at the level of the Holy See, was aware of these facts and speculations and did nothing but continue to allow McCarrick to move from promotion to promotion?
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, abdicated the Papacy in part on account of what he called a “gay lobby”, a homosexual cabal within the halls of the Vatican which forcefully attempted to influence or thwart his decisions. The Pope simply couldn't stand the pressure any longer and retired.
In my opinion, the reality of Pope Benedict’s claim explains how McCarrick could have advanced in his career as he did.
Not only does McCarrick warrant investigation, but so do all those other Clerics associated with him throughout his career as well as those in the Vatican, especially within the Congregation for Bishops.
This is a sad and disgusting episode which need never be repeated.
I pray Pope Francis takes this opportunity to get to the bottom of this mess and throw all the scoundrels who permitted and enabled it out into the wilderness where there will be “weeping and the gnashing of teeth”.
CARDINAL MCCARRICK: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Now that Cardinal McCarrick has been suspended from public ministry for allegedly having sexually abuse a minor decades ago, the question is what happens next?
Let me try to explain what may appear to be a complex legal process the Church employs in cases when a Bishop and in the extremely uncommon case when a Cardinal has been accused of sexual abuse of a minor or the sexual assault of an adult.
Canon Law mandates a specific legal process which is to be diligently observed. As the process runs its course, the accused is given every opportunity as well as the means to defend himself and assert his innocence.
Since His Eminence belongs to the College of Cardinals, Canon Law mandates that the Pope alone exercises the right to judge in matters related to penal law.
According to a statement from the Archdiocese of Washington, Pope Francis delegated Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York to conduct at least the initial stages of the investigation, which have now been concluded.
Given the fact that Cardinal McCarrick responded to that process by issuing a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board, it is possible and very likely that, at age 87, Cardinal McCarrick will not face a trial or an extrajudicial process.
Certainly, for Pope Francis, this scandal could not have come forward at a more challenging moment in his Pontificate.
Following the debacle of his bumbled handling of the scandals in Chile, the Holy Father must be aware that what he decides to do regarding Cardinal McCarrick will be under intense scrutiny and needs be beyond question or doubt.
In the only other case involving a Cardinal, that of Cardinal Keith O’Brien in Scotland, Pope Francis accepted the disgraced Prelate’s resignation of the rights, privileges and benefits of being a Cardinal.
Sadly, Cardinal O’Brien died having sullied his reputation as well as the dignity of the Church itself.
I presume the same fate awaits Cardinal McCarrick.
Soon, I think, the Cardinal will offer his resignation from the College of Cardinals. Pope Francis will attempt to quietly receive it. The Holy See will issue a terse bulletin announcing such and say nothing further in the hope that the matter will dissipate relatively quickly and any further crisis avoided.
The Church will suffer yet another serious blow to its dignity and the Body of Christ be wounded yet again.
And people of good faith will wonder about and question their allegiance to the Church whose moral authority and credibility has been so critically undermined.
Another sad chapter in the history of the Church in our time.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
Let me try to explain what may appear to be a complex legal process the Church employs in cases when a Bishop and in the extremely uncommon case when a Cardinal has been accused of sexual abuse of a minor or the sexual assault of an adult.
Canon Law mandates a specific legal process which is to be diligently observed. As the process runs its course, the accused is given every opportunity as well as the means to defend himself and assert his innocence.
Since His Eminence belongs to the College of Cardinals, Canon Law mandates that the Pope alone exercises the right to judge in matters related to penal law.
According to a statement from the Archdiocese of Washington, Pope Francis delegated Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York to conduct at least the initial stages of the investigation, which have now been concluded.
Given the fact that Cardinal McCarrick responded to that process by issuing a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board, it is possible and very likely that, at age 87, Cardinal McCarrick will not face a trial or an extrajudicial process.
Certainly, for Pope Francis, this scandal could not have come forward at a more challenging moment in his Pontificate.
Following the debacle of his bumbled handling of the scandals in Chile, the Holy Father must be aware that what he decides to do regarding Cardinal McCarrick will be under intense scrutiny and needs be beyond question or doubt.
In the only other case involving a Cardinal, that of Cardinal Keith O’Brien in Scotland, Pope Francis accepted the disgraced Prelate’s resignation of the rights, privileges and benefits of being a Cardinal.
Sadly, Cardinal O’Brien died having sullied his reputation as well as the dignity of the Church itself.
I presume the same fate awaits Cardinal McCarrick.
Soon, I think, the Cardinal will offer his resignation from the College of Cardinals. Pope Francis will attempt to quietly receive it. The Holy See will issue a terse bulletin announcing such and say nothing further in the hope that the matter will dissipate relatively quickly and any further crisis avoided.
The Church will suffer yet another serious blow to its dignity and the Body of Christ be wounded yet again.
And people of good faith will wonder about and question their allegiance to the Church whose moral authority and credibility has been so critically undermined.
Another sad chapter in the history of the Church in our time.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
Sunday, June 24, 2018
FORMER PRESIDENT OF IRELAND'S PSEUDO CLAIMS OF THE SUPREMACY OF CONSCIENCE
Doing the right thing isn’t hard! Knowing what the right thing is...that’s the hard part. Once you know what the right thing to do is, doing it comes relatively easily.
What a pearl of wisdom so succinctly put!
I found it in a quite engaging movie entitled, The Confession.
It is a remarkable film which I recommend for its story line and plot. Alec Baldwin plays the role of an attorney representing a Chief Financial Officer who kills the doctors and nursing staff who allowed his son to die because of their callous indifference. The role of the Chief Financial Officer is played by Ben Kingsley who wants to confess and take responsibility for his crime but who is thwarted by his boss who wants Baldwin to have Kingsley found incompetent to stand trial in order to protect some shady business practices.
Funny how a movie, an art form, can be the source of such inspiration and truth.
This came to my mind as I read of the most recent comments of the former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese. who is proving how hostile to the Catholic Church she truly is and has been for such a long time in her life.
In a recent interview, McAleese spoke of her completed doctoral thesis, yet to be defended before a team of academics, in which she criticizes the Catholic practice of infant Baptism as enforced membership of the Church which is in breach of fundamental human rights.
Chief among those rights, according to McAleese, is the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to change religion. The Catholic Church yet has to fully embrace that thinking,” she said.
According to the former head of state, on the role of conscience, she stated: “I think it’s very simple. My human right to inform my own conscience, my human right to express my conscience even if it is the case that it contradicts the magisterium, that right to conscience is supreme.”
Another problem the church has yet to deal with was “that tension between a fully informed conscience that disagrees with the magisterium”.
And once again, we are treated to yet another dose of pseudo-appeals to conscience which stress that the dictates of conscience are always either morally obligatory or at least can never be morally wrong.
Such appeals are both fundamentally flawed and equally untenable. They result in an indefensible moral relativism. They should be called out for what they are: untruths which should be abandoned.
The universal imperative of human conscience is very simple: do good and avoid evil. The human conscience does not determine what is right or wrong, but once that determination has been made, the conscience impels the will to act in favor of what is right and good.
For the faculty of human conscience to work properly (in fact, to work at all) it must be informed. That is, the choices presented to it must have already been determined in their rightness or wrongness.
Conscience is not the determining faculty in that judgment.
Rather, judgments about what is good and compelling and what is evil to be avoided are made based upon sound moral principles which come to a person outside his subjective viewpoint and are informed by the Divine Mind and Will of the Creator Himself.
It is precisely the role of the Church to communicate the moral truths revealed to humanity by God through the ministry of the Word and the magisterial teachings of the Church.
McAleese knows this but her deeply-held animosity and bias against the Church will not allow her to assert that which she knows to be honest and true.
To assert the supremacy of conscience alone without reference of objective moral truths is to undermine society itself.
Law would have no meaning. Justice annihilated. Murder, warfare, sexual assault, in essence, every sort of depraved and errant behavior would be permissable and protected under the banner of the freedom of conscience.
The sadness is that the Bishops in Ireland (and the Church in general) do not take the pseudo-moralists like McAleese to immediate task for the dishonesty of their public remarks, leaving the impression that their statements are equivalent to traditional principles of morality.
McAleese is misguided at best or dishonest at worst.
She is wrong nonetheless and should be called out publicly for her error.
What a pearl of wisdom so succinctly put!
I found it in a quite engaging movie entitled, The Confession.
It is a remarkable film which I recommend for its story line and plot. Alec Baldwin plays the role of an attorney representing a Chief Financial Officer who kills the doctors and nursing staff who allowed his son to die because of their callous indifference. The role of the Chief Financial Officer is played by Ben Kingsley who wants to confess and take responsibility for his crime but who is thwarted by his boss who wants Baldwin to have Kingsley found incompetent to stand trial in order to protect some shady business practices.
Funny how a movie, an art form, can be the source of such inspiration and truth.
This came to my mind as I read of the most recent comments of the former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese. who is proving how hostile to the Catholic Church she truly is and has been for such a long time in her life.
In a recent interview, McAleese spoke of her completed doctoral thesis, yet to be defended before a team of academics, in which she criticizes the Catholic practice of infant Baptism as enforced membership of the Church which is in breach of fundamental human rights.
Chief among those rights, according to McAleese, is the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to change religion. The Catholic Church yet has to fully embrace that thinking,” she said.
According to the former head of state, on the role of conscience, she stated: “I think it’s very simple. My human right to inform my own conscience, my human right to express my conscience even if it is the case that it contradicts the magisterium, that right to conscience is supreme.”
Another problem the church has yet to deal with was “that tension between a fully informed conscience that disagrees with the magisterium”.
And once again, we are treated to yet another dose of pseudo-appeals to conscience which stress that the dictates of conscience are always either morally obligatory or at least can never be morally wrong.
Such appeals are both fundamentally flawed and equally untenable. They result in an indefensible moral relativism. They should be called out for what they are: untruths which should be abandoned.
The universal imperative of human conscience is very simple: do good and avoid evil. The human conscience does not determine what is right or wrong, but once that determination has been made, the conscience impels the will to act in favor of what is right and good.
For the faculty of human conscience to work properly (in fact, to work at all) it must be informed. That is, the choices presented to it must have already been determined in their rightness or wrongness.
Conscience is not the determining faculty in that judgment.
Rather, judgments about what is good and compelling and what is evil to be avoided are made based upon sound moral principles which come to a person outside his subjective viewpoint and are informed by the Divine Mind and Will of the Creator Himself.
It is precisely the role of the Church to communicate the moral truths revealed to humanity by God through the ministry of the Word and the magisterial teachings of the Church.
McAleese knows this but her deeply-held animosity and bias against the Church will not allow her to assert that which she knows to be honest and true.
To assert the supremacy of conscience alone without reference of objective moral truths is to undermine society itself.
Law would have no meaning. Justice annihilated. Murder, warfare, sexual assault, in essence, every sort of depraved and errant behavior would be permissable and protected under the banner of the freedom of conscience.
The sadness is that the Bishops in Ireland (and the Church in general) do not take the pseudo-moralists like McAleese to immediate task for the dishonesty of their public remarks, leaving the impression that their statements are equivalent to traditional principles of morality.
McAleese is misguided at best or dishonest at worst.
She is wrong nonetheless and should be called out publicly for her error.
METHINKS I SMELL A RAT
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a stay of proceedings Wednesday, suspending the release of a grand jury investigation regarding sexual abuse by Roman Catholic Priests.
The report was expected to run hundreds of pages long, including interviews with victims, covering six dioceses.
The stay order provides no information as to who filed the appeal for the stay, nor does it state the reasons for suspending release of the report.
In a brief statement, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who spear-headed the investigation, said, I will continue fighting tirelessly to make sure the victims of this abuse are able to tell their stories and the findings of this investigation are made public to the people of Pennsylvania."
In May, Attorney General Shapiro stated that all Dioceses supported the release of the investigation's findings and results.
Something curious and strange is afoot here.
But the story is simply too big to hide the findings of a grand jury proceeding under the carpet.
Sentiments being what they are these days, people will not allow such goings on any longer.
I shall continue to follow developments and see where all this leads.
The report was expected to run hundreds of pages long, including interviews with victims, covering six dioceses.
The stay order provides no information as to who filed the appeal for the stay, nor does it state the reasons for suspending release of the report.
In a brief statement, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who spear-headed the investigation, said, I will continue fighting tirelessly to make sure the victims of this abuse are able to tell their stories and the findings of this investigation are made public to the people of Pennsylvania."
In May, Attorney General Shapiro stated that all Dioceses supported the release of the investigation's findings and results.
Something curious and strange is afoot here.
But the story is simply too big to hide the findings of a grand jury proceeding under the carpet.
Sentiments being what they are these days, people will not allow such goings on any longer.
I shall continue to follow developments and see where all this leads.
LOOMING SCANDAL IN THE DIOCESE OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND?
Two related massive lawsuits (one Federal and the other State) have been filed simultaneously in state and federal court by the receiver in the collapsed St. Joseph Hospital of the State of Rhode Island (SJHSRI) Pension Fund - the largest pension failure in Rhode Island history.
The suit alleges massive fraud in the case which has created a hole in pension assets estimated to be in excess of $115 million.
The Federal Court complaint is 136 pages and includes a 21 count complaint filed against 14 Defendants. Similarly, the State Court complaint is 101 pages and includes 16 count complaint against same defendants.
The defendants include the Diocese of Providence, CharterCare, CharterCare’s parent company Prospect, Angela Pension Group, and a range of other related healthcare and Diocesan entities tied to the sale of the St; Joseph Hospital first in 2009 by the Diocese to Roger Williams Medical Center which created CharterCare and then the sale of CharterCare to Prospect of California in 2014.
Noteworthy is the fact that both sales were approved by the Rhode Island Department of Health and, more importantly, the State Attorney General’s office.
The lawsuits assert that when the hospital was sold both in 2009 and in 2014, it affirmed the Pension Fund status as being a “church plan.” However, the pension fund should have then been thrust into a regulated ERISA plan -- a Federally regulated plan that then would required oversite, regulation, reporting, and mandated contributions.
Instead, the Pension Fund was jettisoned into a future that lead to its collapse just three years later. The fund when into receivership in August of 2017.
The suits further allege that the Diocese and the other healthcare organizations conspired to withhold information from the retirees, regulators and even the Vatican.
According to court documents, it is alleged that Bishop Thomas Tobin did not disclose (in his letter to the Vatican) that the proposed asset sale increased the probability of the Pension Fund failing. Instead, Bishop Tobin omitted that information and, in effect, said the opposite, that approval of the asset sale was actually necessary to secure the Pension Fund.”
The suit further alleges that, "On September 27, 2013, Bishop Tobin signed his letter as altered by counsel and sent it to the Vatican” in order to secure the necessary canonical approval for the sale.
Both the Federal and the State suits contend that the parties knew the implications: “These misrepresentations and omission concerning the Pension Fund in the Bishop’s letter to the Vatican…all understood that Vatican approval was required for the transaction to proceed..”
As a result, over 2,700 participants in the Pension Fund, consisting of nurses and other hospital workers, who, after many years of dedicated service to their patients and Saint Joseph Hospital, learned in August of 2017 that the Plan had not been adequately funded.
This was disclosed when the Plan was placed into receivership, with the request that the Rhode Island Superior Court approve a virtually immediate 40% across-the-board reduction in benefits.
The lawsuits claim that the harm to the Pension Fund participants is the product of (at least) four separate but related factual scenarios and schemes which attest to willful and fraudulent actions on the part of the defendants.
First, for nearly 50 years SJHSRI used the Pension Fund as a marketing tool to hire and retain employees, and promised employees and prospective employees it made of the necessary contributions, assuring them that they had no investment risk.
Second, for the past decade, SJHSRI stopped making necessary contributions with the result that the Pension Fund was grossly underfunded. Moreover, SJHSRI and other defendants conspired to conceal that from participants through fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions.
Third, for many years SJHSRI and other defendants secretly sought a means to terminate the plan without exposing SJHSRI’s substantial operating assets and charitable funds to lawsuits by participants for benefits.
Records reveal that, in December of 2012, SJHSRI considered unilaterally terminating the Plan and paying benefits only to employees who were already retired. This would have deprived over 1,800 other Plan participants of any pension whatsoever. The scheme was reconsidered because SJHSRI feared the excluded plan participants would bring a successful class action that would end up costing SJHSRI more than it would save by terminating the Pension Fund.
Finally, in 2011, SJHSRI and other Defendants put into operation a scheme to transfer SJHSRI’s operating assets, cash and most of its expected future charitable income to entities controlled by SJHSRI’s parent company, intending that such assets thereby would be out of reach of a suit by Pension Fund participants and then terminate the Fund completely.
If the allegations are proven and the lawsuits successful, SJHSRI, the Prospect Entities, and other Defendants violated Federal and State pension mandates, committed fraud, breached their contractual obligations, violated their duty of good faith and fair dealing, and otherwise acted illegally. As a result, they will be required to compensate losses to the Plan and remedy such violations.
But defendants could also run afoul of Rhode Island laws prohibiting fraud.
Participants would be entitled to a judgment awarding them these all the assets of SJHSRI and its parent company, including but not to limited to New Fatima Hospital and New Roger Williams Hospital, or ordering that these properties and other assets be sold and awarding the Pension Fund participants the proceeds from the sale up to the amount necessary to fully compensate the Pension Fund on a termination basis and to ensure the pensions of all participants.
This is a shocking allegation of fraud and mismanagement in which the Diocese of Rhode Island, through the participation of Bishop Tobin and his associates, participated.
Thus far, these are only allegations which need to be subjected to the due process of law and trial.
However, if proven true, the scandal to the Church in Rhode Island would be enormous.
Certainly, this is something with which the Holy See must be concerned and be prepared to hold those responsible accountable for their misdeeds, if proven.
The suit alleges massive fraud in the case which has created a hole in pension assets estimated to be in excess of $115 million.
The Federal Court complaint is 136 pages and includes a 21 count complaint filed against 14 Defendants. Similarly, the State Court complaint is 101 pages and includes 16 count complaint against same defendants.
The defendants include the Diocese of Providence, CharterCare, CharterCare’s parent company Prospect, Angela Pension Group, and a range of other related healthcare and Diocesan entities tied to the sale of the St; Joseph Hospital first in 2009 by the Diocese to Roger Williams Medical Center which created CharterCare and then the sale of CharterCare to Prospect of California in 2014.
Noteworthy is the fact that both sales were approved by the Rhode Island Department of Health and, more importantly, the State Attorney General’s office.
The lawsuits assert that when the hospital was sold both in 2009 and in 2014, it affirmed the Pension Fund status as being a “church plan.” However, the pension fund should have then been thrust into a regulated ERISA plan -- a Federally regulated plan that then would required oversite, regulation, reporting, and mandated contributions.
Instead, the Pension Fund was jettisoned into a future that lead to its collapse just three years later. The fund when into receivership in August of 2017.
The suits further allege that the Diocese and the other healthcare organizations conspired to withhold information from the retirees, regulators and even the Vatican.
According to court documents, it is alleged that Bishop Thomas Tobin did not disclose (in his letter to the Vatican) that the proposed asset sale increased the probability of the Pension Fund failing. Instead, Bishop Tobin omitted that information and, in effect, said the opposite, that approval of the asset sale was actually necessary to secure the Pension Fund.”
The suit further alleges that, "On September 27, 2013, Bishop Tobin signed his letter as altered by counsel and sent it to the Vatican” in order to secure the necessary canonical approval for the sale.
Both the Federal and the State suits contend that the parties knew the implications: “These misrepresentations and omission concerning the Pension Fund in the Bishop’s letter to the Vatican…all understood that Vatican approval was required for the transaction to proceed..”
As a result, over 2,700 participants in the Pension Fund, consisting of nurses and other hospital workers, who, after many years of dedicated service to their patients and Saint Joseph Hospital, learned in August of 2017 that the Plan had not been adequately funded.
This was disclosed when the Plan was placed into receivership, with the request that the Rhode Island Superior Court approve a virtually immediate 40% across-the-board reduction in benefits.
The lawsuits claim that the harm to the Pension Fund participants is the product of (at least) four separate but related factual scenarios and schemes which attest to willful and fraudulent actions on the part of the defendants.
First, for nearly 50 years SJHSRI used the Pension Fund as a marketing tool to hire and retain employees, and promised employees and prospective employees it made of the necessary contributions, assuring them that they had no investment risk.
Second, for the past decade, SJHSRI stopped making necessary contributions with the result that the Pension Fund was grossly underfunded. Moreover, SJHSRI and other defendants conspired to conceal that from participants through fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions.
Third, for many years SJHSRI and other defendants secretly sought a means to terminate the plan without exposing SJHSRI’s substantial operating assets and charitable funds to lawsuits by participants for benefits.
Records reveal that, in December of 2012, SJHSRI considered unilaterally terminating the Plan and paying benefits only to employees who were already retired. This would have deprived over 1,800 other Plan participants of any pension whatsoever. The scheme was reconsidered because SJHSRI feared the excluded plan participants would bring a successful class action that would end up costing SJHSRI more than it would save by terminating the Pension Fund.
Finally, in 2011, SJHSRI and other Defendants put into operation a scheme to transfer SJHSRI’s operating assets, cash and most of its expected future charitable income to entities controlled by SJHSRI’s parent company, intending that such assets thereby would be out of reach of a suit by Pension Fund participants and then terminate the Fund completely.
If the allegations are proven and the lawsuits successful, SJHSRI, the Prospect Entities, and other Defendants violated Federal and State pension mandates, committed fraud, breached their contractual obligations, violated their duty of good faith and fair dealing, and otherwise acted illegally. As a result, they will be required to compensate losses to the Plan and remedy such violations.
But defendants could also run afoul of Rhode Island laws prohibiting fraud.
Participants would be entitled to a judgment awarding them these all the assets of SJHSRI and its parent company, including but not to limited to New Fatima Hospital and New Roger Williams Hospital, or ordering that these properties and other assets be sold and awarding the Pension Fund participants the proceeds from the sale up to the amount necessary to fully compensate the Pension Fund on a termination basis and to ensure the pensions of all participants.
This is a shocking allegation of fraud and mismanagement in which the Diocese of Rhode Island, through the participation of Bishop Tobin and his associates, participated.
Thus far, these are only allegations which need to be subjected to the due process of law and trial.
However, if proven true, the scandal to the Church in Rhode Island would be enormous.
Certainly, this is something with which the Holy See must be concerned and be prepared to hold those responsible accountable for their misdeeds, if proven.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
POPE FRANCIS' FAILURE TO HEED THE SOUND AND WISE COUNSEL OF VENERABLE POPE PAUL VI
On May 25th, 1968, Venerable (soon to be canonized) Pope Paul VI spoke to those who took part in the Second International Congress of Canon Lawyers held in Rome under the direction of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law.
In his address, the Holy Father articulated what amounts to the essential role of law in the life of the Church.
The Holy Father stated that it is the Will of the Creator that law order, promote and defend the common good, while at the same time guaranteeing and protecting against arbitrary actions which would violate the autonomy of the individual human person.
The Pope further insisted that the goal of law is to assure that each human being can effectively and responsibly achieve the perfection of his personality.
Regarding human beings as Christians and members of the People of God, the Pope stated that law is not foreign to the mystery of salvation but embraces that mystery by concerning itself with justice and the innate dignity of the human person.
Consequently, the Pope stated, law is not merely a crucial element in the essential structure of the community of Faith, but it protects and safeguards the dignity of the Christian believer inasmuch as he or she is constituted by Baptism in the likeness of Christ Himself.
Events in the life of the Church convince me that Pope Francis (as did his predecessors) have forgotten these simple but critical truths which affect and promote the good of the Church itself.
Venerable Pope Paul VI rightfully taught that law is ordered to protect its subjects from all that is arbitrary or whimsical in the decisions and actions of those with the authority to govern.
Yet, when one considers the decisions and actions of the Holy See regarding the massive wound inflicted upon the Church by the scandal of Clerics having sexually abused minors entrusted to their care, it is clear that the application of the law and the administration of justice has been wholly forgotten or ignored.
In fact, the record shows that the response of the Holy See has been nothing short of arbitrary and whimsical in cases where justice to victims was obstructed or frustrated, where Cleric-offenders were laicized but the Bishops who perpetuated their abuse remained in office and unaccountable to the Church at-large as well as to their local dioceses.
Pope Francis' public denunciation of the horrors associated with the sexual abuse of minors notwithstanding, he has done little to insure that the administration of justice will be swift and impartial providing recourse for victims and punishment for offenders and their enablers.
A case in point.
When publicly embarrassed over his public and insensitive comments regarding accusations of sexual abuse of minors by a Chilean Bishop, Pope Francis called the entire Conference of Chile’s Bishops to Rome to admonish them for their behavior.
In response, the whole Conference of Bishops resigned.
To date, the Pope has only accepted the resignation of the Bishop-abuser and two other Bishop-enablers, both of whom are passed the age of 75 years when Bishops are expected by law to submit their resignations anyway.
Is this the way the law plays out in the Church? Is this justice, the ordering and protection of the common good of the community of Faith?
Why hasn’t Pope Francis (or his predecessors) called the entire Conference of Bishops of the United States (where almost a billion dollars in settlements have been paid) to Rome for similar admonishment and accountability?
Is this the protection against the arbitrary and whimsical which the law envisions?
Little wonder that victims and their families have sought justice from secular courts when their Church leadership failed to protect and heal their wounds.
Little wonder that, in their righteous anger, these same victims have sought to punish the Church both publicly and financially.
Pope Francis is about to canonize Pope Paul VI and declare infallibly that he is a Saint of God to be rightfully venerated and remembered by the faithful of present and future generations.
It would be well for Pope Francis, in preparing for that canonization ceremony, to study and heed the wise teaching of Pope Paul and insure that laws are instituted and administered which provide the long ignored and forgotten rights of so many innocent members who have been so horribly violated and mistreated.
In his address, the Holy Father articulated what amounts to the essential role of law in the life of the Church.
The Holy Father stated that it is the Will of the Creator that law order, promote and defend the common good, while at the same time guaranteeing and protecting against arbitrary actions which would violate the autonomy of the individual human person.
The Pope further insisted that the goal of law is to assure that each human being can effectively and responsibly achieve the perfection of his personality.
Regarding human beings as Christians and members of the People of God, the Pope stated that law is not foreign to the mystery of salvation but embraces that mystery by concerning itself with justice and the innate dignity of the human person.
Consequently, the Pope stated, law is not merely a crucial element in the essential structure of the community of Faith, but it protects and safeguards the dignity of the Christian believer inasmuch as he or she is constituted by Baptism in the likeness of Christ Himself.
Events in the life of the Church convince me that Pope Francis (as did his predecessors) have forgotten these simple but critical truths which affect and promote the good of the Church itself.
Venerable Pope Paul VI rightfully taught that law is ordered to protect its subjects from all that is arbitrary or whimsical in the decisions and actions of those with the authority to govern.
Yet, when one considers the decisions and actions of the Holy See regarding the massive wound inflicted upon the Church by the scandal of Clerics having sexually abused minors entrusted to their care, it is clear that the application of the law and the administration of justice has been wholly forgotten or ignored.
In fact, the record shows that the response of the Holy See has been nothing short of arbitrary and whimsical in cases where justice to victims was obstructed or frustrated, where Cleric-offenders were laicized but the Bishops who perpetuated their abuse remained in office and unaccountable to the Church at-large as well as to their local dioceses.
Pope Francis' public denunciation of the horrors associated with the sexual abuse of minors notwithstanding, he has done little to insure that the administration of justice will be swift and impartial providing recourse for victims and punishment for offenders and their enablers.
A case in point.
When publicly embarrassed over his public and insensitive comments regarding accusations of sexual abuse of minors by a Chilean Bishop, Pope Francis called the entire Conference of Chile’s Bishops to Rome to admonish them for their behavior.
In response, the whole Conference of Bishops resigned.
To date, the Pope has only accepted the resignation of the Bishop-abuser and two other Bishop-enablers, both of whom are passed the age of 75 years when Bishops are expected by law to submit their resignations anyway.
Is this the way the law plays out in the Church? Is this justice, the ordering and protection of the common good of the community of Faith?
Why hasn’t Pope Francis (or his predecessors) called the entire Conference of Bishops of the United States (where almost a billion dollars in settlements have been paid) to Rome for similar admonishment and accountability?
Is this the protection against the arbitrary and whimsical which the law envisions?
Little wonder that victims and their families have sought justice from secular courts when their Church leadership failed to protect and heal their wounds.
Little wonder that, in their righteous anger, these same victims have sought to punish the Church both publicly and financially.
Pope Francis is about to canonize Pope Paul VI and declare infallibly that he is a Saint of God to be rightfully venerated and remembered by the faithful of present and future generations.
It would be well for Pope Francis, in preparing for that canonization ceremony, to study and heed the wise teaching of Pope Paul and insure that laws are instituted and administered which provide the long ignored and forgotten rights of so many innocent members who have been so horribly violated and mistreated.
Friday, June 22, 2018
POPE FRANCIS MISGUIDED VIEWS ON MASS IMMIGRATION
Pope Francis has put the plight of migrants in Europe at the heart of his concerns.
The Holy Father has repeatedly referred to his four criteria for welcoming migrants: "to welcome, accompany, accommodate, integrate".
Recently, during his return from Geneva, the Pope engaged in his now-customary in-flight question and answer sessions with journalists and added a novel but sensible word of caution.
"Every country has to do this with the government virtue of prudence, because a country has to host as many refugees as it can, that it can integrate and educate," the Pope said.
While the sentiments of the Holy Father are sincere and heartfelt, to be sure, his advocacy for migrants is, like so many who have made pleas for open borders and unlimited mass immigration, misguided and misdirected.
Why does Pope Francis put the burden of the suffering of migrants on the shoulders of the countries he admonishes to be welcoming while almost always saying nothing critical or condemnatory of the government policies and corruption which force so many to leave their native lands?
Why criticize populist movements which seek to protect sovereign national borders, while never calling migrants’ native leaders to accountability for the misery and poverty they create and perpetuate?
I have repeated ad nauseam the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of a state to protect and preserve the integrity of its borders, while at the same time coming to the aid of neighboring states in times of emergency or crisis.
I can only conclude that Pope Francis’ intimate awareness of poverty, the kind he personally witnessed in Argentina and the neighboring nations of South and Latin America, has clouded his judgment to the point that he is incapable of distinguishing between the right of sovereignty versus the moral imperative to assist the suffering in other nations to the extent that a country is able to do so without imperiling the safety and security of its own citizens.
Certainly, I insist upon and defend the infallibility of the Pope regarding matters of Faith and Morals. In this regard, the Pope has no equal.
But, as regards matters of international law and politics, his opinions are just that: opinions.
And Catholics (including Priests) may, in good faith and conscience, disagree with the Holy Father’s political or legal opinions.
I have gone on record that I disagree with the Pope’s demands that nations open themselves to the unfettered welcoming of migrants.
I have further suggested, and do so again, that Holy Father might do better for the migrants he wishes to serve to engage the leaders of their native lands and call them to judgment and the accountability of world opinion.
Consistently criticizing and “biting the hand” of nations that have done so much to assist but have been overwhelmed in the process does little for the migrant and undermines the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy itself.
The Holy Father has repeatedly referred to his four criteria for welcoming migrants: "to welcome, accompany, accommodate, integrate".
Recently, during his return from Geneva, the Pope engaged in his now-customary in-flight question and answer sessions with journalists and added a novel but sensible word of caution.
"Every country has to do this with the government virtue of prudence, because a country has to host as many refugees as it can, that it can integrate and educate," the Pope said.
While the sentiments of the Holy Father are sincere and heartfelt, to be sure, his advocacy for migrants is, like so many who have made pleas for open borders and unlimited mass immigration, misguided and misdirected.
Why does Pope Francis put the burden of the suffering of migrants on the shoulders of the countries he admonishes to be welcoming while almost always saying nothing critical or condemnatory of the government policies and corruption which force so many to leave their native lands?
Why criticize populist movements which seek to protect sovereign national borders, while never calling migrants’ native leaders to accountability for the misery and poverty they create and perpetuate?
I have repeated ad nauseam the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of a state to protect and preserve the integrity of its borders, while at the same time coming to the aid of neighboring states in times of emergency or crisis.
I can only conclude that Pope Francis’ intimate awareness of poverty, the kind he personally witnessed in Argentina and the neighboring nations of South and Latin America, has clouded his judgment to the point that he is incapable of distinguishing between the right of sovereignty versus the moral imperative to assist the suffering in other nations to the extent that a country is able to do so without imperiling the safety and security of its own citizens.
Certainly, I insist upon and defend the infallibility of the Pope regarding matters of Faith and Morals. In this regard, the Pope has no equal.
But, as regards matters of international law and politics, his opinions are just that: opinions.
And Catholics (including Priests) may, in good faith and conscience, disagree with the Holy Father’s political or legal opinions.
I have gone on record that I disagree with the Pope’s demands that nations open themselves to the unfettered welcoming of migrants.
I have further suggested, and do so again, that Holy Father might do better for the migrants he wishes to serve to engage the leaders of their native lands and call them to judgment and the accountability of world opinion.
Consistently criticizing and “biting the hand” of nations that have done so much to assist but have been overwhelmed in the process does little for the migrant and undermines the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy itself.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
READING MORE CHAPTERS OF POPE FRANCIS "BOOK"
On May 24 last, I made mention an oft-repeated anecdote about General George Patton who is quoted as having attributed his defeat over Nazi General Romel in North Africa because, as Patton stated, “Romel, you (ephithet deleted), I read your book!”
In that same article, I stated that while I have not exactly read Pope Franics’ “book”, I believe that I at least had read the "first chapter".
Well, curiously enough, on a return flight to Rome following a day-long pilgrimage to Geneva, Pope Francis once again held an impromptu in-flight press conference.
Only this time, the Holy Father’s comments left little question as to what the remaining chapters of his “book” might contain.
Let me cite just a few of the more remarkable revelations the Pope made.
First, it appears that the Holy Father did not personally draft a response to the German Bishops regarding their proposal to establish Conference-wide policies for intercommunion with Protestants.
Rather, the Pope said he supported the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal-elect Luis Ladaria, in whose opinion the draft-propsal was “not sufficiently mature to be published” and needed to be rethought in such a manner that the entire Conference could be unanimous in accepting the proposed policy.
Pope Francis said that Cardinal Ladaria did not act unilaterally, but with the his permission.
The question is whether that permission came before the Cardinal’s response or afterward. In other words, did the Pope direct the Cardinal to issue a response or did the Cardinal on his own initiative issue a response which he subsequently received permission to publish.
The question is of particular interest to me since I have begun wondering if many of the Pope’s mis-steps in recent months weren’t really attributable to decisions that high-level Vatican diplomats made without seeking Papal approbation or approval.
For the Pope’s comments regarding Cardinal Lardaria acting with permission notwithstanding, it is curious indeed that the Francis’ last word on the issue is that, under the Code of Cannon Law, it is up to the local Bishop to decide under what conditions communion can be administered to non-Catholics, not local Bishops’ Conferences.
Thus, any mention of unanimity or maturity of policy becomes mute as the Bishop of the local Church is, in the words of the Holy Father, “responsible for this… it’s in his hands.”
Yet, even more telling was the Pope’s comments to reporters in effect praising the German Bishops, saying their document was “well thought out with a Christian spirit.”
In the end, Pope Francis contradicts Cardinal Lardaria in saying that, “Whatever the German conference may come up with in the end likely will be an orientational document so that every one of the diocesan bishops can determine by himself what the Code of Canon Law already permits.”
What do I glean from this?
It seems to be a repeat of what I mentioned in the earlier article, the Pope is very comfortable using his subordinates to test the waters of reaction to Vatican statements or judgments. It allows him the wriggle room he feels he needs to refine his position in direct response to how those judgments are received.
I am so convinced that this is the Pope's modus operandi that, should the Amazonian Synod take place in 2019 and should any question about the Ordination of married men of proven virtue be raised, the Pope's answer will eventually be that it is up to the individual Bishop in his local Church.
That won't sit well with the neo-reactionary conservatives, but it will be this Pope's response nonetheless.
Second, the Pope clearly has a blind spot when it comes to immigration both on the Continent and in America.
In response to the recent US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) denunciation of President Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, the Holy Father did not mince words in throwing his support behind the U.S. bishops.
"I am proud of what the Bishops of that country said,” Pope Francis added.
More broadly, Francis said that “every country should [welcome new arrivals] with the virtue of government, which is that of prudence, because they should welcome as many refugees as they can, educate, integrate, relieve hunger, and help them find work. I would say this is the tranquil, serene plan for refugees,” the Pope said. “Here we’re living a wave of refugees fleeing war and hunger.”
Surely, if the Pope does not see the crippling effect unrestrained immigration has had upon Europe and the rising populist movements throughout the Continent seeking to protect and preserve European culture, then he is beyond any hope of being realistic or helpful in finding a solution to the crisis.
Third, Pope Francis is a dreamer.
That’s okay, all prophets are dreamers of one sort or another offering visions of hope or doom.
The Pope appears to be a hopeful dreamer, insisting that most global challenges can be resolved.
“The problem of war, of persecution of Christians in the Middle East and also in Nigeria, the problem of hunger can be resolved,” he said. “Many countries are thinking about how to invest in those countries, invest intelligently…to give work and education.”
And, finally and very revealing, Pope Francis recognized Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, who has served as his sostituto, or “substitute,” in effect a sort of chief of staff. Next week, Francis will name Becciu, along with 13 other individuals to the College of Cardinals.
The fact that Cardinal-elect Becciu, a lifetime diplomat, was assigned as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been very puzzling to me and others who doubt that His Eminence-to-be even knows where the office of the Congregation is located, let alone how it operates.
It remains my contention that the Cardinal-elect was only assigned there to be placed in a kind of holding pattern until such a time that Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia on charges of sexual abuse of minors results in a verdict. In the meantime, Becciu will continue to act as the Pope's chief of staff.
In any case, the Pope’s recent in-flight presser added a number of chapters to the Pope’s “book” for those willing and interested enough to read it.
In that same article, I stated that while I have not exactly read Pope Franics’ “book”, I believe that I at least had read the "first chapter".
Well, curiously enough, on a return flight to Rome following a day-long pilgrimage to Geneva, Pope Francis once again held an impromptu in-flight press conference.
Only this time, the Holy Father’s comments left little question as to what the remaining chapters of his “book” might contain.
Let me cite just a few of the more remarkable revelations the Pope made.
First, it appears that the Holy Father did not personally draft a response to the German Bishops regarding their proposal to establish Conference-wide policies for intercommunion with Protestants.
Rather, the Pope said he supported the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal-elect Luis Ladaria, in whose opinion the draft-propsal was “not sufficiently mature to be published” and needed to be rethought in such a manner that the entire Conference could be unanimous in accepting the proposed policy.
Pope Francis said that Cardinal Ladaria did not act unilaterally, but with the his permission.
The question is whether that permission came before the Cardinal’s response or afterward. In other words, did the Pope direct the Cardinal to issue a response or did the Cardinal on his own initiative issue a response which he subsequently received permission to publish.
The question is of particular interest to me since I have begun wondering if many of the Pope’s mis-steps in recent months weren’t really attributable to decisions that high-level Vatican diplomats made without seeking Papal approbation or approval.
For the Pope’s comments regarding Cardinal Lardaria acting with permission notwithstanding, it is curious indeed that the Francis’ last word on the issue is that, under the Code of Cannon Law, it is up to the local Bishop to decide under what conditions communion can be administered to non-Catholics, not local Bishops’ Conferences.
Thus, any mention of unanimity or maturity of policy becomes mute as the Bishop of the local Church is, in the words of the Holy Father, “responsible for this… it’s in his hands.”
Yet, even more telling was the Pope’s comments to reporters in effect praising the German Bishops, saying their document was “well thought out with a Christian spirit.”
In the end, Pope Francis contradicts Cardinal Lardaria in saying that, “Whatever the German conference may come up with in the end likely will be an orientational document so that every one of the diocesan bishops can determine by himself what the Code of Canon Law already permits.”
What do I glean from this?
It seems to be a repeat of what I mentioned in the earlier article, the Pope is very comfortable using his subordinates to test the waters of reaction to Vatican statements or judgments. It allows him the wriggle room he feels he needs to refine his position in direct response to how those judgments are received.
I am so convinced that this is the Pope's modus operandi that, should the Amazonian Synod take place in 2019 and should any question about the Ordination of married men of proven virtue be raised, the Pope's answer will eventually be that it is up to the individual Bishop in his local Church.
That won't sit well with the neo-reactionary conservatives, but it will be this Pope's response nonetheless.
Second, the Pope clearly has a blind spot when it comes to immigration both on the Continent and in America.
In response to the recent US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) denunciation of President Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, the Holy Father did not mince words in throwing his support behind the U.S. bishops.
"I am proud of what the Bishops of that country said,” Pope Francis added.
More broadly, Francis said that “every country should [welcome new arrivals] with the virtue of government, which is that of prudence, because they should welcome as many refugees as they can, educate, integrate, relieve hunger, and help them find work. I would say this is the tranquil, serene plan for refugees,” the Pope said. “Here we’re living a wave of refugees fleeing war and hunger.”
Surely, if the Pope does not see the crippling effect unrestrained immigration has had upon Europe and the rising populist movements throughout the Continent seeking to protect and preserve European culture, then he is beyond any hope of being realistic or helpful in finding a solution to the crisis.
Third, Pope Francis is a dreamer.
That’s okay, all prophets are dreamers of one sort or another offering visions of hope or doom.
The Pope appears to be a hopeful dreamer, insisting that most global challenges can be resolved.
“The problem of war, of persecution of Christians in the Middle East and also in Nigeria, the problem of hunger can be resolved,” he said. “Many countries are thinking about how to invest in those countries, invest intelligently…to give work and education.”
And, finally and very revealing, Pope Francis recognized Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, who has served as his sostituto, or “substitute,” in effect a sort of chief of staff. Next week, Francis will name Becciu, along with 13 other individuals to the College of Cardinals.
The fact that Cardinal-elect Becciu, a lifetime diplomat, was assigned as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been very puzzling to me and others who doubt that His Eminence-to-be even knows where the office of the Congregation is located, let alone how it operates.
It remains my contention that the Cardinal-elect was only assigned there to be placed in a kind of holding pattern until such a time that Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia on charges of sexual abuse of minors results in a verdict. In the meantime, Becciu will continue to act as the Pope's chief of staff.
In any case, the Pope’s recent in-flight presser added a number of chapters to the Pope’s “book” for those willing and interested enough to read it.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
THE BATTLE OVER THE BODY OF VENERABLE ARCHBISHOP SHEEN: A GROTESQUE AND GRUESOME DISPLAY
The Archdiocese of New York announced on Friday that the Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral are appealing a court decision that would allow Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s body to be moved to Peoria, Illinois, as his cause for beatification proceeds.
The Trustees, who oversee archdiocesan seminaries, “believe that the recent court case concerning the earthly remains of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was again incorrectly decided, and will seek an appeal of that decision along with a stay on moving the remains while the appellate court considers the case,” said a June 15 statement.
“At issue in the case, as the appellate court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s original decision, is what were Archbishop’s Sheen’s personal wishes concerning his final resting place,” the statement said.
“As Trustees, it is our responsibility to respect those wishes, and we believe that this most recent decision once again fails to consider those wishes and instead relies on the speculation and conjecture of others.”
Last week, the Superior Court of New York ruled in favor of Joan Sheen Cunningham, who had petitioned to move the body of her uncle, Fulton Sheen, to the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria. The body of the late archbishop is currently in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Judge Arlene Bluth, ruled that “the location of Archbishop Sheen’s final resting place would not have been his primary concern” and that “it makes no sense, given his lifelong devotion to the Catholic Church, that he would choose a location over the chance to become a saint.”
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s canonization in 2002 after the Archdiocese of New York said it would not explore the case. In 2012, Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the archbishop.
However, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
This grotesque and gruesome display brings nothing but disdain upon the Church.
Quietly at work behind the claims of “personal wishes” and “causes for sainthood” is the callous desire to locate the late Archbishop’s body in a place which, should he indeed be declared a Saint, might become a mecca for pilgrimages and certain for donations to the coffers of the diocese in which he is finally interred.
The whole matter is unseemly and every party to it should be rightfully ashamed of themselves.
But situations of this nature are not unknown elsewhere.
In the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, it was almost universally accepted that Joseph Cardinal Ritter had expressed a desire to be buried in the Priests’ Lot at Calvary Cemetery.
His predecessor, John Cardinal Glennon, had been enormously popular and was buried in the upper of a two tomb crypt in the unfinished basement of the Cathedral Basilica. Cardinal Ritter is rumored to have stated, “I lived under the shadow of Cardinal Glennon. I shall not rest under that shadow in death.”
Nevertheless, when the basement of the Cathedral Basilica was finally made suitable for public use, a crypt was built around the tomb of Cardinal Glennon with spaces for the earthly remains of future Archbishops. Cardinal Ritter’s desires notwithstanding, his body was removed from Calvary Cemetery and placed in the new crypt of the Cathedral Basilica wherein now along side him lay the bodies of John Cardinal Carberry and Archbishop John Lawrence May.
We Catholics offer a prayer which pleads, “May they rest in peace.”
It seems as though even that simple and dignified plea is no longer respected by the likes of the New York, Peoria and elsewhere.
The Trustees, who oversee archdiocesan seminaries, “believe that the recent court case concerning the earthly remains of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was again incorrectly decided, and will seek an appeal of that decision along with a stay on moving the remains while the appellate court considers the case,” said a June 15 statement.
“At issue in the case, as the appellate court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s original decision, is what were Archbishop’s Sheen’s personal wishes concerning his final resting place,” the statement said.
“As Trustees, it is our responsibility to respect those wishes, and we believe that this most recent decision once again fails to consider those wishes and instead relies on the speculation and conjecture of others.”
Last week, the Superior Court of New York ruled in favor of Joan Sheen Cunningham, who had petitioned to move the body of her uncle, Fulton Sheen, to the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria. The body of the late archbishop is currently in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Judge Arlene Bluth, ruled that “the location of Archbishop Sheen’s final resting place would not have been his primary concern” and that “it makes no sense, given his lifelong devotion to the Catholic Church, that he would choose a location over the chance to become a saint.”
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s canonization in 2002 after the Archdiocese of New York said it would not explore the case. In 2012, Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the archbishop.
However, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
This grotesque and gruesome display brings nothing but disdain upon the Church.
Quietly at work behind the claims of “personal wishes” and “causes for sainthood” is the callous desire to locate the late Archbishop’s body in a place which, should he indeed be declared a Saint, might become a mecca for pilgrimages and certain for donations to the coffers of the diocese in which he is finally interred.
The whole matter is unseemly and every party to it should be rightfully ashamed of themselves.
But situations of this nature are not unknown elsewhere.
In the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, it was almost universally accepted that Joseph Cardinal Ritter had expressed a desire to be buried in the Priests’ Lot at Calvary Cemetery.
His predecessor, John Cardinal Glennon, had been enormously popular and was buried in the upper of a two tomb crypt in the unfinished basement of the Cathedral Basilica. Cardinal Ritter is rumored to have stated, “I lived under the shadow of Cardinal Glennon. I shall not rest under that shadow in death.”
Nevertheless, when the basement of the Cathedral Basilica was finally made suitable for public use, a crypt was built around the tomb of Cardinal Glennon with spaces for the earthly remains of future Archbishops. Cardinal Ritter’s desires notwithstanding, his body was removed from Calvary Cemetery and placed in the new crypt of the Cathedral Basilica wherein now along side him lay the bodies of John Cardinal Carberry and Archbishop John Lawrence May.
We Catholics offer a prayer which pleads, “May they rest in peace.”
It seems as though even that simple and dignified plea is no longer respected by the likes of the New York, Peoria and elsewhere.
ACCUSATION AGAINST CARDINAL MCCARRICK DEEMED CREDIBLE AND SUBSTANTIATED
Following an investigation by the Archdiocese of New York, allegations of sexual abuse against retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. have been deemed “credible and substantiated.”
The alleged abuse took place nearly 45 years ago against a teenager while McCarrick was still a priest in New York and before later being named a Bishop and Cardinal.
On Wednesday, both the Archdiocese of New York and the Archdiocese of Washington, released statements stating that the Holy See has been informed and involved in the investigation process and that the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin “at the direction of Pope Francis,” has instructed McCarrick to cease to continue public exercise of his office.
Cardinal McCarrick has issued a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board.
“While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process,” he said.
He went on to add that he had “no recollection” of the abuse, while stating “I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people.”
News of the allegations against McCarrick comes as Church continues to suffer from the fallout of clerical sexual abuse.
One reader commented, “Everywhere you go nowadays, the Church is different. Different languages, different teachings, different practices. The only thing universal about the Universal Church is that almost every diocese is being sued because a Priest or Priests sexually abused a child. How creepy is that!”
How creepy indeed!
Dear God, when will these horror stories end and when will those who knew and continued to allow this violation of everything noble and decent be removed from office and any influence or authority?
Come, Holy Spirit, a purify a Church corrupted by these horrific sins against the innocent!
The alleged abuse took place nearly 45 years ago against a teenager while McCarrick was still a priest in New York and before later being named a Bishop and Cardinal.
On Wednesday, both the Archdiocese of New York and the Archdiocese of Washington, released statements stating that the Holy See has been informed and involved in the investigation process and that the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin “at the direction of Pope Francis,” has instructed McCarrick to cease to continue public exercise of his office.
Cardinal McCarrick has issued a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board.
“While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process,” he said.
He went on to add that he had “no recollection” of the abuse, while stating “I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people.”
News of the allegations against McCarrick comes as Church continues to suffer from the fallout of clerical sexual abuse.
One reader commented, “Everywhere you go nowadays, the Church is different. Different languages, different teachings, different practices. The only thing universal about the Universal Church is that almost every diocese is being sued because a Priest or Priests sexually abused a child. How creepy is that!”
How creepy indeed!
Dear God, when will these horror stories end and when will those who knew and continued to allow this violation of everything noble and decent be removed from office and any influence or authority?
Come, Holy Spirit, a purify a Church corrupted by these horrific sins against the innocent!
THE WOUND UPON THE BODY OF CHRIST CAUSED BY CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS CONTINUES TO FESTER
A Catholic Priest, who at one time served as a Vatican diplomat in Washington, has been indicted by the Holy See on accusations of possessing and sharing "a large quantity" of child abuse imagery.
In an article posted by Reuters, the Vatican said Monsignor Carlo Capella would face a trial starting on June 22. He is presently being held in a cell in the Vatican's police barracks.
Authorities in the United States and Canada had been investigating Capella for nearly two years.
Canadian police charged that the Priest allegedly uploaded material featuring sexual abuse of children from a social networking site over the 2016 Christmas holiday.
In August, the US State Department notified the Vatican of a "possible violation of laws related to child pornography images," by one of its diplomats. Soon after, the Vatican recalled Capella, who as a diplomat was one of four staff members who had immunity from prosecution in the United States.
The Vatican has denied that there have been efforts to have Monsignorn Cappella prosecuted in an American court.
Monsignor Cappella The 50-year-old has had a wide-ranging career that brought him to the United States only this past year. Born in the town of Carpi in Northern Italy, he was ordained as a Priest in 1993, pursued a degree in Canon Law and then entered the Vatican's corps of diplomats in 2004. In that role, he was posted in India and then Hong Kong before another stint at the Vatican.
In 2008, according to a document from the Archdiocese of Milan, Pope Benedict XVI conferred the rank of "Chaplain of His Holiness" upon him - a recognition of service to the Church that bestowed on him the title of Monsignor.
He could face consequences in two disciplinary systems: Under Church law, he could be laicized and under civil law in the Holy See, which is also an independent nation, he could face criminal penalties.
The City-state's criminal law says people convicted of possessing material showing child sex abuse face up to two years in prison and $12,000 in fines, and those convicted of producing or distributing the images face steeper penalties.
The arrest is another blow for the church, which has faced abuse scandals threatening to undermine the faithful’s confidence in the Clergy.
In an unprecedented decision, Pope Francis recently announced his acceptance of the resignation of three Bishops in Chile who were accused of concealing their knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors within the boundaries of their pastoral competence and authority.
The deep wound to the Body of Christ caused by these scandals continues to fester.
May the Holy Spirit guide the Church in bringing the perpetrators of these grave crimes against minors to justice and may the same Spirit give assurance and comfort to those harmed and to the countless numbers of Catholic faithful who have been scandalized by these reports.
In an article posted by Reuters, the Vatican said Monsignor Carlo Capella would face a trial starting on June 22. He is presently being held in a cell in the Vatican's police barracks.
Authorities in the United States and Canada had been investigating Capella for nearly two years.
Canadian police charged that the Priest allegedly uploaded material featuring sexual abuse of children from a social networking site over the 2016 Christmas holiday.
In August, the US State Department notified the Vatican of a "possible violation of laws related to child pornography images," by one of its diplomats. Soon after, the Vatican recalled Capella, who as a diplomat was one of four staff members who had immunity from prosecution in the United States.
The Vatican has denied that there have been efforts to have Monsignorn Cappella prosecuted in an American court.
Monsignor Cappella The 50-year-old has had a wide-ranging career that brought him to the United States only this past year. Born in the town of Carpi in Northern Italy, he was ordained as a Priest in 1993, pursued a degree in Canon Law and then entered the Vatican's corps of diplomats in 2004. In that role, he was posted in India and then Hong Kong before another stint at the Vatican.
In 2008, according to a document from the Archdiocese of Milan, Pope Benedict XVI conferred the rank of "Chaplain of His Holiness" upon him - a recognition of service to the Church that bestowed on him the title of Monsignor.
He could face consequences in two disciplinary systems: Under Church law, he could be laicized and under civil law in the Holy See, which is also an independent nation, he could face criminal penalties.
The City-state's criminal law says people convicted of possessing material showing child sex abuse face up to two years in prison and $12,000 in fines, and those convicted of producing or distributing the images face steeper penalties.
The arrest is another blow for the church, which has faced abuse scandals threatening to undermine the faithful’s confidence in the Clergy.
In an unprecedented decision, Pope Francis recently announced his acceptance of the resignation of three Bishops in Chile who were accused of concealing their knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors within the boundaries of their pastoral competence and authority.
The deep wound to the Body of Christ caused by these scandals continues to fester.
May the Holy Spirit guide the Church in bringing the perpetrators of these grave crimes against minors to justice and may the same Spirit give assurance and comfort to those harmed and to the countless numbers of Catholic faithful who have been scandalized by these reports.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
US SUPREME COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIAN BAKER AGAINST PRESSURES OF HOMOSEXUAL ADVOCATES
Here’s a story I missed while I was in San Diego visiting with friends.
The United States Supreme Court has sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said in a 7-2 decision June 4, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, leftist idealogues that they are, dissented as one would expect.
Justice Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the issue "must await further elaboration". Across the country, appeals in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding.
The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker's action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal and self-contradictory courts in the country. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn't take the case, letting the ruling stand. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.
The ruling's opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and religious neutrality, saying the baker's refusal was based on "sincere religious beliefs and convictions" and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, the court said: "It did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."
The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in this case, saying: "Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
But delving further, the court curiously deemed the specific cake in question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. The ruling says: "If a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter," noting that the state would have a strong case that this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a baker.
Here, the court said the issue was the baker's argument that he "had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation".
That specious reasoning aside, the court opinion went on to say that as Phillips' contention "has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.
In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the Court's opinion, stating that it was based on "concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people."
Of course, we haven’t heard the end of cases such as this as the homosexual community continues to seek advancement of their cause through courts, knowing they cannot achieve their agenda by legislative initiatives.
For the time being, then, this decision appears to confirm that, according to the Constitution, people of faith have rights that should be respected by government bureaucrats.
Whether this principle of law will endure future assaults by the homosexual community remains to be seen.
The United States Supreme Court has sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said in a 7-2 decision June 4, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, leftist idealogues that they are, dissented as one would expect.
Justice Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the issue "must await further elaboration". Across the country, appeals in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding.
The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker's action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal and self-contradictory courts in the country. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn't take the case, letting the ruling stand. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.
The ruling's opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and religious neutrality, saying the baker's refusal was based on "sincere religious beliefs and convictions" and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, the court said: "It did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."
The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in this case, saying: "Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
But delving further, the court curiously deemed the specific cake in question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. The ruling says: "If a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter," noting that the state would have a strong case that this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a baker.
Here, the court said the issue was the baker's argument that he "had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation".
That specious reasoning aside, the court opinion went on to say that as Phillips' contention "has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.
In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the Court's opinion, stating that it was based on "concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people."
Of course, we haven’t heard the end of cases such as this as the homosexual community continues to seek advancement of their cause through courts, knowing they cannot achieve their agenda by legislative initiatives.
For the time being, then, this decision appears to confirm that, according to the Constitution, people of faith have rights that should be respected by government bureaucrats.
Whether this principle of law will endure future assaults by the homosexual community remains to be seen.