On July 28, 2018 the Vatican announced that Pope Francis had accepted Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals.
Along with the disgrace which attended that announcement, one of its immediate effects was the severing of McCarrick’s nearly thirty-year relationship with the Papal Foundation, a charitable organization he helped to found, which is based in suburban Philadelphia and has an endowment of $200 million.
It comes now to the attention of interested parties that, as an ex officio member of the Board of Cardinals which controls the Foundation, McCarrick advocated and voted four times to approve an extraordinary, expedited grant of $25 million to the Vatican, in order to help it bail out a scandal-plagued dermatology hospital that it controls, the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata (IDI) in Rome.
McCarrick voted first in Executive Session in June 2017, then at the Foundation’s Annual Meeting in December 2017, again in January 2018, and finally in April 2018.
During at least the latter three votes, McCarrick may have known that he was under a Vatican-authorized investigation, carried out by the Archdiocese of New York, for sexually molesting a boy.
But, McCarrick likely would have known by October 2017 at the latest that he was under investigation.
Here’s the problem and its impact not only upon McCarrick himself, but upon the Papal Foundation and the $ 25 million grant to the Vatican.
Because the recipient of the grant was the Vatican, the very entity that would determine McCarrick’s fate as a result of the investigation it authorized into his conduct, McCarrick appears to have had a manifest and gross conflict of interest in considering whether the grant request was in the best interest of the Papal Foundation.
On its very face, a case could be made that McCarrick stood to benefit personally by helping to secure $25 million for the Vatican, and thus influence how it handled the accusations against him.
Now, under Pennsylvania law, the Directors of Non-profits such as the Papal Foundation are under an obligation to disclose material conflicts of interest to their organization’s Directors and Officers, and to recuse themselves from board decisions in which their conflict of interest is implicated.
But, according to those present at the Board Meetings in 2017 and 2018, McCarrick failed to make any disclosures to the Papal Foundation’s Board or to recuse himself from Board decisions.
If, as it increasingly seems to be likely, that McCarrick knew that he was under investigation during any of the four Board votes in which he participated, then under settled principles of corporate law, he appears to have committed a fraud upon the board of the Papal Foundation.
According to Robert T. Miller, a Professor of corporate law at the University of Iowa, “The legal effect of McCarrick’s apparent fraud upon the Board is to taint the vote of every board member participating in the decision.” This may render the grant voidable and returnable to the Foundation at the instigation of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania or any of the clerical or lay members of the Foundation’s Boards.
In June 2017 Cardinal Donald Wuerl received the grant request for $25 million from the Holy See’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, at the behest of Pope Francis.
Cardinal Wuerl pushed hard to meet it immediately.
According to the draft of Board Minutes, he said the grant was an emergency measure on which the hospital’s survival depended and moved formally to take it up later in June, outside of the Foundation’s normal grant cycle. Moreover, the Cardinal convened an Executive Session of the Cardinals’ Board—including McCarrick, who also lobbied for making the grant—and called for a summary vote to approve the grant.
Meanwhile, in May 2017, just weeks before Cardinal Wuerl received the grant request from Vatican Secretary of State Parolin, McCarrick’s alleged victim had contacted the Archdiocese of New York’s Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program with the charges against him. Before the Archdiocese of New York could investigate the charges, it had to receive authorization from the Holy See, for as a Cardinal McCarrick lay under the canonical jurisdiction of the Holy See alone.
In August of 2017, the Papal Foundation sent $8 million to the Vatican Secretariat of State.
It was only after $8 million had been sent to the Secretariat of State that the Foundation’s entire tiered Board—Cardinals, Bishops, and laymen—was presented with the extraordinary request, and they were asked to approve the full $25 million (including the already-sent $8 million installment) at the Foundation’s annual meeting in Washington on December 12, 2017.
After some tense discussion, and a presentation by Foundation attorneys about the Board’s fiduciary duties, Cardinal Wuerl made the extraordinary decision to hold the vote by secret ballot.
Fifteen Cardinals and Bishops and 9 laymen comprise the Papal Foundation’s full Board of Directors. According to a Board member present at the December 12th meeting, the result of the secret ballot was 15 votes in favor, 8 against, and 1 abstention. Only 1 of the remaining 8 laymen, who chose to cast a vote, voted in favor of the grant.
Secret ballots are virtually unheard of in corporate board meetings. The members of corporate Boards are meant to speak freely in order to persuade each other how to vote in the best interests of their corporation; the idea of a secret ballot, which is used in political elections where people fear retribution for their vote is incongruous with the very idea of a deliberative fiduciary Board.
A second installment of $5 million was sent to the Secretariat of State in January of 2018, again over strenuous objections from a number of lay donors to the Foundation who were involved.
To help quell the lay dissent on the Papal Foundation board, Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, the head of the Catholic Health Association, was dispatched by Wuerl to Rome to visit the IDI and report back. Keehan returned with an assortment of documents from the hospital in a binder.
Still missing, however, were any financial statements or balance sheet from the hospital, or any professional due diligence addressing its recent history of fraud or the sudden resignation, after just eight months on the job, of the CEO who had recently been appointed to clean up the hospital’s administration.
The Cardinals and Bishops on the Foundation Board nevertheless voted to send the $5 million.
The controversy over the $25 million made its way into the press in February 2018.
Those reports prompted Cardinal Wuerl to ask the Vatican to halt the grant, and to announce that the remaining $12 million due in the final installment would be canceled.
Yet the Cardinal reversed course again during the Papal Foundation’s annual visit to Rome in April 2018, announcing to a shocked gathering of lay donors at dinner in the Vatican that the Board had decided to proceed after all with completing the full $25 million grant to the Secretariat of State to meet the financial emergency of the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata.
Yet, more than a year since the first $8 million installment was sent, it has been reported that the Papal Foundation’s emergency grant sits today in a Vatican bank account, undisbursed.
No prelate has been more consistently and intimately involved in the Papal Foundation than McCarrick, who helped to found the non-profit in 1988 alongside the late Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia and Cardinal O’Connor of New York.
The current chairman of the controlling Board of Cardinals is Cardinal Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor as Archbishop of Washington.
Before he was elevated to the Cardinalate and moved to Rome, then-Bishop Kevin Farrell, McCarrick’s protégé and former housemate in Washington, was a member of the Papal Foundation’s Board of Trustees.
The current President of the Board of Trustees is another McCarrick protégé, Bishop Michael Bransfield, himself accused of sexual abuse and forced to resign from the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston on September 13 of this year.
But there is more.
The first Executive Director of the Papal Foundation, who served from 1988 until 2001, was a priest named Monsignor Thomas Benestad. Benestad, who retired early from his home Diocese of Allentown and now lives in Boca Raton, Florida.
He is accused in the Pennsylvania Grant Jury Report of sexually abusing a boy over a period of years in the early 1980s, beginning when he was nine years old.
The Diocese of Allentown forwarded Benestad’s case to the Vatican which restored his priestly faculties in 2014. However, the Diocese of Palm Beach where he now lives has still apparently refused to authorize him to celebrate the sacraments there.
Lay members of the Papal Foundation are now calling for a serious investigation of this spidery web of influence and possible corruption.
Such an investigation would not face canonical impediments or infringe upon the proper authority of Bishops since the Papal Foundation is not an ecclesiastical entity, but an ordinary 501(c)(3) religious non-profit.
No permission from Rome is necessary.
The Foundation’s Board could commission an investigation with a simple vote. If the Foundation does not authorize its own independent investigation, it may nonetheless find itself facing one from State or Federal authorities.
Pope Francis challenged journalists to look into the accusations made against the Church and himself.
The information being reported to the public is not what the Pope may have anticipated and may provide law enforcement the impetus it has thus far lacked to begin holding Church officials legally accountable for their actions and omissions.
Tough times lie ahead for so many who once enjoyed the dignity of the Offices they themselves appear to have besmirched.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
WHO ARE POPE FRANCIS' "DEMONS"?
At Mass on Saturday, Pope Francis asked again for daily prayers to protect the Catholic Church from what he says are "attacks by the devil," in his latest response to the Clerical sex abuse and cover-up scandal roiling his Papacy.
I hope His Holiness is asking that we join together to pray that the Church will be rid of the demonic infestation of homosexual predation that has so wounded the Church at every level of Priestly ministry from parish Pastors to the Vicar of Christ himself.
But I fear, in the context of Pope Francis' continuing silence in response to now the second letter of Archbishop Vigano, it may appear the Pope is insinuating some other motive for which he requests we pray.
This is the voice of the Vicar of Christ speaking to His Church!
Pope Francis must know that his words are powerful indeed. But they are unclear.
In fact, what he has said might be understood to be intimidating to anyone who would advocate for the finding of the truth regarding the most serious of accusations perhaps ever made against a Supreme Pontiff and the global hierarchy of the Church.
Thus, as I have joined my voice to those Bishops and people whom I have known all my life to be sincere members of the Church, am I now being put in the company of the “demons from hell” who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls and of the Body of Christ itself?
As the Pope made these remarks at Mass yesterday, the traditionally observed Feast of Saint Michael the Archangel, he should have reminded all of us that, within the arsenal of weapons with which Christ Jesus has armed the Church in the battle against the Powers of Darkness, is the Light of Truth!
The Light of Truth, Your Holiness.
Not silence, not obfuscation, not abdication of the duties of Office to secular journalists, but the announcement of the Truth which makes all things new and frees humanity from the shackles of deception and corruption.
Your Holiness asks the Church for prayers to combat “satanic attacks” and yet, even in your request, there is an indirectness that is deeply troubling: to perhaps use the vehicle of the pulpit to make glancing responses to the accusations which have been leveled against Your Holiness yourself and the members of the Catholic hierarchy.
You call upon us, the Catholic Faithful, to unite and pray the Rosary, but to what end?
Your Holiness alone has the Supreme Apostolic Authority to “protect the Church from the devil, who is looking to divide us from God and one another".
Use that Supreme Authority to combat what you have called "satanic attacks". You have the authority to get to the bottom of these accusations.
You have the power to release the documents Archbishop Vigano himself has said will establish the facts which, once revealed, can be the only means by which unity and harmony within the Church can be restored.
I shall offer the prayers you request, but for the purpose that the Truth be revealed and those accountable accept the burden of the responsibility for their actions and omissions.
If this places me in company of “demons”, then I have failed not only to understand and cherish what the Catholic Faith has asked of me all my life; but as a Son of the Church, as a Priest, I must have led others astray whenever I called them to confess the truth and accept responsibility as the only avenue of salvation and Divine Redemption.
I shall pray for Your Holiness and for the Church which, in this dark hour, appears to have lost not only its way but perhaps its very soul.
I hope His Holiness is asking that we join together to pray that the Church will be rid of the demonic infestation of homosexual predation that has so wounded the Church at every level of Priestly ministry from parish Pastors to the Vicar of Christ himself.
But I fear, in the context of Pope Francis' continuing silence in response to now the second letter of Archbishop Vigano, it may appear the Pope is insinuating some other motive for which he requests we pray.
This is the voice of the Vicar of Christ speaking to His Church!
Pope Francis must know that his words are powerful indeed. But they are unclear.
In fact, what he has said might be understood to be intimidating to anyone who would advocate for the finding of the truth regarding the most serious of accusations perhaps ever made against a Supreme Pontiff and the global hierarchy of the Church.
Thus, as I have joined my voice to those Bishops and people whom I have known all my life to be sincere members of the Church, am I now being put in the company of the “demons from hell” who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls and of the Body of Christ itself?
As the Pope made these remarks at Mass yesterday, the traditionally observed Feast of Saint Michael the Archangel, he should have reminded all of us that, within the arsenal of weapons with which Christ Jesus has armed the Church in the battle against the Powers of Darkness, is the Light of Truth!
The Light of Truth, Your Holiness.
Not silence, not obfuscation, not abdication of the duties of Office to secular journalists, but the announcement of the Truth which makes all things new and frees humanity from the shackles of deception and corruption.
Your Holiness asks the Church for prayers to combat “satanic attacks” and yet, even in your request, there is an indirectness that is deeply troubling: to perhaps use the vehicle of the pulpit to make glancing responses to the accusations which have been leveled against Your Holiness yourself and the members of the Catholic hierarchy.
You call upon us, the Catholic Faithful, to unite and pray the Rosary, but to what end?
Your Holiness alone has the Supreme Apostolic Authority to “protect the Church from the devil, who is looking to divide us from God and one another".
Use that Supreme Authority to combat what you have called "satanic attacks". You have the authority to get to the bottom of these accusations.
You have the power to release the documents Archbishop Vigano himself has said will establish the facts which, once revealed, can be the only means by which unity and harmony within the Church can be restored.
I shall offer the prayers you request, but for the purpose that the Truth be revealed and those accountable accept the burden of the responsibility for their actions and omissions.
If this places me in company of “demons”, then I have failed not only to understand and cherish what the Catholic Faith has asked of me all my life; but as a Son of the Church, as a Priest, I must have led others astray whenever I called them to confess the truth and accept responsibility as the only avenue of salvation and Divine Redemption.
I shall pray for Your Holiness and for the Church which, in this dark hour, appears to have lost not only its way but perhaps its very soul.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
HOW CAN THE CHINESE - VATICAN ACCORD BE ANYTHING BUT A BETRAYAL OF FAITHFUL CATHOLICS?
Vatican spokesman, Greg Burke, speaking in Lithuania, where Pope Francis visited, told reporters that the aim of the Chinese - Vatican agreement which was recently penned “is not political but pastoral, allowing the faithful to have Bishops who are in communion with Rome but at the same time recognized by Chinese authorities.”
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, indicated – but did not specifically confirm – that the Pope and Chinese authorities would jointly approve the appointment of new Bishops.
"What is required now is unity, trust and a new impetus," Cardinal Parolin said in a video message recorded before he left Rome to join the Pope in Vilnius.
"To the Catholic community in China – the Bishops, Priests, Religious and faithful – the Pope entrusts, above all, the commitment to make concrete fraternal gestures of reconciliation among themselves, and so to overcome past misunderstandings, past tensions, even the recent ones."
But no one but Pope Francis, Cardinal Parolin and his Staff and members of the Chinese Communist Party know the details of the accord since both China and the Vatican have refused to release it public scrutiny.
For example, no one knows how the new accord will affect Catholic leaders who continue to oppose Chinese authorities. Bishop Guo Xijin of Shanghai, head of a so-called “underground diocese, was “detained” by government agents in March.
All that is known is that Bishop Guo and others have been placed under house arrest, and some Priests have been in prison in Hebei province near Beijing for about a year. There have been no reports about their current condition.
How anyone can judge that this accord is not an abandonment, or worse a betrayal, of the thousands of faithful Chinese Catholics who remained loyal to the Bishop of Rome is beyond me.
Church history reveals that Popes often deferred to European monarchs in the selection and appointment of Bishops, that is without question or dispute.
Cardinal Parolin has referred to that history in his remarks relative to the Chinese - Vatican agreement just inked.
But here is the galactic difference.
European monarch were themselves Catholic, personally subject to the spiritual and moral authority of the Roman Pontiff with him they were cooperating in the appointment of Bishops within their realms.
The Chinese Communist government bears no such similarity nor spiritual allegiance to either the Bishop of Rome or, most consequentially, to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Himself.
My father always cautioned our family with these words of wisdom: “Watch the company you keep.”
Pope Francis himself and, by his encouragement, is forcing the Church to keep company with atheistic Marxist Communists with whom he believes (apparently on the basis of his charism alone) he can establish diplomatic ties which will serve the best interests of the Body of Christ.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"...another wisdom of bygone days.
Jesus cautioned the Church to be aware of “wolves who prowl about in sheep’s clothing”.
The Chinese Communists, however, haven’t even bothered to camouflage the ravenous beasts they truly are.
Let us pray that our Pontifical Shepherd has not led the lambs of faithful Chinese Catholics to the slaughter.
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, indicated – but did not specifically confirm – that the Pope and Chinese authorities would jointly approve the appointment of new Bishops.
"What is required now is unity, trust and a new impetus," Cardinal Parolin said in a video message recorded before he left Rome to join the Pope in Vilnius.
"To the Catholic community in China – the Bishops, Priests, Religious and faithful – the Pope entrusts, above all, the commitment to make concrete fraternal gestures of reconciliation among themselves, and so to overcome past misunderstandings, past tensions, even the recent ones."
But no one but Pope Francis, Cardinal Parolin and his Staff and members of the Chinese Communist Party know the details of the accord since both China and the Vatican have refused to release it public scrutiny.
For example, no one knows how the new accord will affect Catholic leaders who continue to oppose Chinese authorities. Bishop Guo Xijin of Shanghai, head of a so-called “underground diocese, was “detained” by government agents in March.
All that is known is that Bishop Guo and others have been placed under house arrest, and some Priests have been in prison in Hebei province near Beijing for about a year. There have been no reports about their current condition.
How anyone can judge that this accord is not an abandonment, or worse a betrayal, of the thousands of faithful Chinese Catholics who remained loyal to the Bishop of Rome is beyond me.
Church history reveals that Popes often deferred to European monarchs in the selection and appointment of Bishops, that is without question or dispute.
Cardinal Parolin has referred to that history in his remarks relative to the Chinese - Vatican agreement just inked.
But here is the galactic difference.
European monarch were themselves Catholic, personally subject to the spiritual and moral authority of the Roman Pontiff with him they were cooperating in the appointment of Bishops within their realms.
The Chinese Communist government bears no such similarity nor spiritual allegiance to either the Bishop of Rome or, most consequentially, to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Himself.
My father always cautioned our family with these words of wisdom: “Watch the company you keep.”
Pope Francis himself and, by his encouragement, is forcing the Church to keep company with atheistic Marxist Communists with whom he believes (apparently on the basis of his charism alone) he can establish diplomatic ties which will serve the best interests of the Body of Christ.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"...another wisdom of bygone days.
Jesus cautioned the Church to be aware of “wolves who prowl about in sheep’s clothing”.
The Chinese Communists, however, haven’t even bothered to camouflage the ravenous beasts they truly are.
Let us pray that our Pontifical Shepherd has not led the lambs of faithful Chinese Catholics to the slaughter.
Friday, September 28, 2018
MCCARRICK RESIDING AT CAPUCHIN FRIARY IN KANSAS
In a release sent Friday morning, the Archdiocese of Washington announced Theodore McCarrick, who served as archbishop of Washington from 2000 to 2006, is residing at the St. Fidelis Friary in Victoria, Kansas.
In late July, after the allegations of sexual misconduct with boys and men surfaced, Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to withdraw from all public events and to conduct a “life of prayer and penance,” at a yet-to-be-determined location as the church investigated claims McCarrick fondled an altar boy in the 1970s. Since then, several other men have come forward alleging abuse.
The Vatican said it will examine the allegations in a canonical trial.
Separately, the current Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl is facing intense criticism over his handling of sex abuse allegations by Catholic Clergy in Pennsylvania when he was Bishop there nearly 30 years ago.
The friary where McCarrick is now living is made of what are known as Capuchin Franciscan Friars, known for their devotion to contemplative prayer and what the church calls “rigorous austerity.”
If Clerics are gong to do the crime, they should also do the time.
A friary sure beats prison.
Of course, I wish McCarrick the grace of Divine Forgiveness for his actions, while at the same time, remain disappointed he was not subject to the due process of criminal law for his sexual attacks upon the altar boy and upon adult seminarians and Priests in his charge.
In late July, after the allegations of sexual misconduct with boys and men surfaced, Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to withdraw from all public events and to conduct a “life of prayer and penance,” at a yet-to-be-determined location as the church investigated claims McCarrick fondled an altar boy in the 1970s. Since then, several other men have come forward alleging abuse.
The Vatican said it will examine the allegations in a canonical trial.
Separately, the current Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl is facing intense criticism over his handling of sex abuse allegations by Catholic Clergy in Pennsylvania when he was Bishop there nearly 30 years ago.
The friary where McCarrick is now living is made of what are known as Capuchin Franciscan Friars, known for their devotion to contemplative prayer and what the church calls “rigorous austerity.”
If Clerics are gong to do the crime, they should also do the time.
A friary sure beats prison.
Of course, I wish McCarrick the grace of Divine Forgiveness for his actions, while at the same time, remain disappointed he was not subject to the due process of criminal law for his sexual attacks upon the altar boy and upon adult seminarians and Priests in his charge.
FROM OUTRAGE TO APOLOGY: THE EMBARRASSING ANTICS OF CARDINAL CUPICH
Chicago’s Cardinal Blasé Cupich is apologizing for remarks he made earlier this year about the sex abuse crisis facing the Catholic Church in the wake of new allegations made by the former Papal Ambassador to the United States.
In an interview with NBC 5 in August, Cardinal Cupich said that the Church had a “bigger agenda,” and that it would be a mistake for Pope Francis to “get into each and every one of” the sex abuse cases the Church is facing, and he apologized for that comment in a Chicago Tribune op-ed.
“It was a mistake for me to even mention that the Church has a bigger agenda than responding to the charges in the letter by former Papal Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano,” he said.
“What I should have said, because it has been my conviction throughout my ministry, is that nothing is more important for the Church than protecting young people,” he continued. “I apologize for the offense caused by my comments. It pains me deeply to think that my poor choice of words may have added to the suffering of victim-survivors.”
Shortly after video-taping an interview, His Eminence accused the reporters and editors of the NBC Chicago affiliate of editing his remarks in a way which actually contradicted what he claims he said.
In response, the station published a transcript of the Cardinal’s remarks. Here is what Cardinal Cupich’s actually said in the NBC 5 interview in August:
“But for the Holy Father, I think to get into each and every one of those aspects, in some way is inappropriate and secondly, the Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s gotta get on with other things of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
Cardinal Cupich and the Church have been under scrutiny since Archbishop Vigano testified that Pope Francis had removed restrictions on the disgraced McCarrick that had been imposed by Pope Benedict XVI. McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals earlier this year amid allegations of sexual abuse of minors, seminarians, and Priests.
Archbishop Vigano also testified that Cardinal Cupich’s appointment to the Archdiocese of Chicago was entirely engineered by McCarrick, since Cupich’s name was not on the list of candidates which Archbishop forwarded to Rome for consideration.
Cardinal Cupich has said that McCarrick’s lobbying had little to do with his appointment, saying in a statement that he had been appointed to different positions by three different popes and that “people knew me in Rome.”
Cardinal Cupich’s antics, from feigned outrage to apology, brings dishonor not only to himself, but to the Body of Christ itself.
It’s time for His Eminence just to be seated and be still.
He himself and the Church would be well served in this.
In an interview with NBC 5 in August, Cardinal Cupich said that the Church had a “bigger agenda,” and that it would be a mistake for Pope Francis to “get into each and every one of” the sex abuse cases the Church is facing, and he apologized for that comment in a Chicago Tribune op-ed.
“It was a mistake for me to even mention that the Church has a bigger agenda than responding to the charges in the letter by former Papal Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano,” he said.
“What I should have said, because it has been my conviction throughout my ministry, is that nothing is more important for the Church than protecting young people,” he continued. “I apologize for the offense caused by my comments. It pains me deeply to think that my poor choice of words may have added to the suffering of victim-survivors.”
Shortly after video-taping an interview, His Eminence accused the reporters and editors of the NBC Chicago affiliate of editing his remarks in a way which actually contradicted what he claims he said.
In response, the station published a transcript of the Cardinal’s remarks. Here is what Cardinal Cupich’s actually said in the NBC 5 interview in August:
“But for the Holy Father, I think to get into each and every one of those aspects, in some way is inappropriate and secondly, the Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s gotta get on with other things of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”
Cardinal Cupich and the Church have been under scrutiny since Archbishop Vigano testified that Pope Francis had removed restrictions on the disgraced McCarrick that had been imposed by Pope Benedict XVI. McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals earlier this year amid allegations of sexual abuse of minors, seminarians, and Priests.
Archbishop Vigano also testified that Cardinal Cupich’s appointment to the Archdiocese of Chicago was entirely engineered by McCarrick, since Cupich’s name was not on the list of candidates which Archbishop forwarded to Rome for consideration.
Cardinal Cupich has said that McCarrick’s lobbying had little to do with his appointment, saying in a statement that he had been appointed to different positions by three different popes and that “people knew me in Rome.”
Cardinal Cupich’s antics, from feigned outrage to apology, brings dishonor not only to himself, but to the Body of Christ itself.
It’s time for His Eminence just to be seated and be still.
He himself and the Church would be well served in this.
CARDINAL GIOVANNI BATTISTA RE: A Man Who Knows the Truth
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, 84, spent the better part of his life and career among the ranks of the Roman Curia, working for nearly 25 years in Rome since his 1987 appointment as Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, until his retirement as the body’s Prefect in 2010.
Born in Borno, Italy in 1934, Re was ordained a Priest for the Italian diocese of Brescia in 1957 and holds a degree in Canon Law from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
He taught at the Brescia seminary before his appointment in 1964 as the personal secretary of the late Archbishop Giovanni Benelli, who also had a lengthy career in diplomatic service, including important posts in the Roman Curia.
After serving in a number of other diplomatic positions in countries such as Panama and Iran, in 1987 Re was named secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, and given the title of Titular Archbishop of Forum Novum. He held the role for two years before being named the Sostituto, or “Substitute” for General Affairs of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, making him a top Papal aide.
The Cardinal held the position as Sostituto for 11 years, until in 2000 he was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America by St. John Paul II, who gave him a red hat less than a year later.
According to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States who published an 11-page letter August 25th detailing a behind-the-scenes account of disgraced McCarrick’s rise to power and allegations that several high-ranking prelates, including Pope Francis, covered-up for him, Cardinal Re was someone opposed to McCarrick from the beginning.
Not only did Cardinal Re, a long-time Curial insider, voice disapproval for McCarrick’s appointment as Archbishop of Washington in 2000, but, according to Viganò, he allegedly also knew about sanctions imposed against the American Prelate, and communicated those to certain Curial officials, including Archbishop Viganò himself.
Cardinal Re’s appointment to the Congregation for Bishops in 2000 is significant, as it was the same year that the Father Boniface Ramsey sent his first letter to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington D.C. complaining about McCarrick’s conduct with seminarians.
According to ArchbishopViganò, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States at the time, Colombian Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, immediately passed Father Ramsey’s letter on to Rome, meaning that within months of taking office, Cardinal Re would have had the first formal McCarrick complaint on his desk.
Archbishop Viganò asserts that Archbishop Montalvo’s action was followed up on by his predecessor, Pietro Sambi, who allegedly wrote to Rome about further complaints against McCarrick and sent documents from a former Priest who said he had been abused by the Prelate. This would also have been during Cardinal Re’s tenure at the Congregation for Bishops.
In his letter, Archbishop Vigano states that Cardinal Re had been opposed to McCarrick’s appointment as Archbishop of Washington from the beginning, even before Father Ramsey’s complaint was made, saying there is a note inside the Vatican embassy in Washington “written in his hand,” in which Cardinal Re “disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.”
And yet, despite Cardinal Re’s opposition, McCarrick’s appointment went through. He did not retire until 2006, meaning Cardinal Re oversaw the Vatican’s office for Bishops during the McCarrick’s entire tenure as Archbishop of Washington.
To date, Cardinal Re has chosen to remain silent and disassociate himself from the controversies which Archbishop Vigano’s letter have raised.
But Cardinal Re would be in a position to know the facts and to know the truth regarding Archbishop Vigano’s claims.
Cardinal Re is 84 and, according to many,is showing signs of the infirmities that often accompany advanced age. Certainly, one could be sympathetic that, at this stage in his life, Cardinal Re does not wish to engage in the many controversies which Archbishop Vigano’s letter raises.
To do so would require much energy and would expose the Cardinal to the glare of spotlights and the hounding of journalists from around the world.
Getting involved would require heroic virtue on the part of Cardinal Re. Many understand this.
But, given the sad state of affairs in which the Church, its hierarchy and the Papacy itself find itself, perhaps only men of heroic virtue may be the ones who can bring dignity and honor back to the Body of Christ and assist in its mission to be a source of truth and light to the world.
Cardinal Re is aware of the facts. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit will move him to share those facts
with a wounded Church in need of truth and solace.
Born in Borno, Italy in 1934, Re was ordained a Priest for the Italian diocese of Brescia in 1957 and holds a degree in Canon Law from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
He taught at the Brescia seminary before his appointment in 1964 as the personal secretary of the late Archbishop Giovanni Benelli, who also had a lengthy career in diplomatic service, including important posts in the Roman Curia.
After serving in a number of other diplomatic positions in countries such as Panama and Iran, in 1987 Re was named secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, and given the title of Titular Archbishop of Forum Novum. He held the role for two years before being named the Sostituto, or “Substitute” for General Affairs of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, making him a top Papal aide.
The Cardinal held the position as Sostituto for 11 years, until in 2000 he was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America by St. John Paul II, who gave him a red hat less than a year later.
According to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States who published an 11-page letter August 25th detailing a behind-the-scenes account of disgraced McCarrick’s rise to power and allegations that several high-ranking prelates, including Pope Francis, covered-up for him, Cardinal Re was someone opposed to McCarrick from the beginning.
Not only did Cardinal Re, a long-time Curial insider, voice disapproval for McCarrick’s appointment as Archbishop of Washington in 2000, but, according to Viganò, he allegedly also knew about sanctions imposed against the American Prelate, and communicated those to certain Curial officials, including Archbishop Viganò himself.
Cardinal Re’s appointment to the Congregation for Bishops in 2000 is significant, as it was the same year that the Father Boniface Ramsey sent his first letter to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington D.C. complaining about McCarrick’s conduct with seminarians.
According to ArchbishopViganò, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States at the time, Colombian Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, immediately passed Father Ramsey’s letter on to Rome, meaning that within months of taking office, Cardinal Re would have had the first formal McCarrick complaint on his desk.
Archbishop Viganò asserts that Archbishop Montalvo’s action was followed up on by his predecessor, Pietro Sambi, who allegedly wrote to Rome about further complaints against McCarrick and sent documents from a former Priest who said he had been abused by the Prelate. This would also have been during Cardinal Re’s tenure at the Congregation for Bishops.
In his letter, Archbishop Vigano states that Cardinal Re had been opposed to McCarrick’s appointment as Archbishop of Washington from the beginning, even before Father Ramsey’s complaint was made, saying there is a note inside the Vatican embassy in Washington “written in his hand,” in which Cardinal Re “disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.”
And yet, despite Cardinal Re’s opposition, McCarrick’s appointment went through. He did not retire until 2006, meaning Cardinal Re oversaw the Vatican’s office for Bishops during the McCarrick’s entire tenure as Archbishop of Washington.
To date, Cardinal Re has chosen to remain silent and disassociate himself from the controversies which Archbishop Vigano’s letter have raised.
But Cardinal Re would be in a position to know the facts and to know the truth regarding Archbishop Vigano’s claims.
Cardinal Re is 84 and, according to many,is showing signs of the infirmities that often accompany advanced age. Certainly, one could be sympathetic that, at this stage in his life, Cardinal Re does not wish to engage in the many controversies which Archbishop Vigano’s letter raises.
To do so would require much energy and would expose the Cardinal to the glare of spotlights and the hounding of journalists from around the world.
Getting involved would require heroic virtue on the part of Cardinal Re. Many understand this.
But, given the sad state of affairs in which the Church, its hierarchy and the Papacy itself find itself, perhaps only men of heroic virtue may be the ones who can bring dignity and honor back to the Body of Christ and assist in its mission to be a source of truth and light to the world.
Cardinal Re is aware of the facts. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit will move him to share those facts
with a wounded Church in need of truth and solace.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
POPE FRANCIS RECEIVES "A SIGN": But of what, pray tell?
Pope Francis says he received a “sign from God”, via two Chinese bishops, in response to the controversial testimony of former Vatican ambassador Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
Despite calls from US bishops for an inquiry, the Vatican has not answered the 11-page testimony of its former Vatican ambassador to the US, Archbishop Carlo Vigano that claimed Francis discarded the sanctions imposed on disgrace McCarrick by Benedict XVI.
Francis told journalists on board the plane returning to Rome from Estonia on Tuesday that the “sign’’ he received came from two Chinese bishops — one from the traditional underground church and one from the Patriotic Association, appointed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Asked by a Spanish journalist to respond to Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen’s criticism that the Vatican had “sold out’’ to Beijing’s Communist government with its recent agreement allowing it a say in the appointment of Bishops, the transcript shows Francis said:
“A simple anecdote and a historical fact, two things before ending. When there was that famous statement by a former Apostolic Nuncio the Bishops of the world wrote to me saying that they felt close, that they were praying for me.
“The Chinese faithful wrote, and the signature on the letter was that of the Bishop — so to speak — of the traditional Catholic Church and the Bishop of the patriotic Church: together, both of them, and the faithful of both. For me, this was a sign from God.”
A sign of what, Your Holiness?
What is it you are implying?
What are we, the faithful, to conclude from what you have said?
And why the curious qualification of the legitimately Ordained Bishop of the so-called “underground Church” which has suffered for decades for maintaining adherence and loyalty to the Bishop of Rome? Why do you refer to him as “the Bishop -- so to speak” and offer no
such qualification with respect to the Bishop appointed by the Chinese Communists whose ordination -- so to speak has just recognized as the result of diplomatic exchanges and agreements?
Sometimes I feel that I have been transported to an alternate universe where nothing makes sense anymore.
You too?
Despite calls from US bishops for an inquiry, the Vatican has not answered the 11-page testimony of its former Vatican ambassador to the US, Archbishop Carlo Vigano that claimed Francis discarded the sanctions imposed on disgrace McCarrick by Benedict XVI.
Francis told journalists on board the plane returning to Rome from Estonia on Tuesday that the “sign’’ he received came from two Chinese bishops — one from the traditional underground church and one from the Patriotic Association, appointed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Asked by a Spanish journalist to respond to Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen’s criticism that the Vatican had “sold out’’ to Beijing’s Communist government with its recent agreement allowing it a say in the appointment of Bishops, the transcript shows Francis said:
“A simple anecdote and a historical fact, two things before ending. When there was that famous statement by a former Apostolic Nuncio the Bishops of the world wrote to me saying that they felt close, that they were praying for me.
“The Chinese faithful wrote, and the signature on the letter was that of the Bishop — so to speak — of the traditional Catholic Church and the Bishop of the patriotic Church: together, both of them, and the faithful of both. For me, this was a sign from God.”
A sign of what, Your Holiness?
What is it you are implying?
What are we, the faithful, to conclude from what you have said?
And why the curious qualification of the legitimately Ordained Bishop of the so-called “underground Church” which has suffered for decades for maintaining adherence and loyalty to the Bishop of Rome? Why do you refer to him as “the Bishop -- so to speak” and offer no
such qualification with respect to the Bishop appointed by the Chinese Communists whose ordination -- so to speak has just recognized as the result of diplomatic exchanges and agreements?
Sometimes I feel that I have been transported to an alternate universe where nothing makes sense anymore.
You too?
ARCHBISHOP VIGANO PUBLISHES A SECOND LETTER
And this is just breaking over the newswires across the Continent.
The following is the text of a subsequent letter written by Carlo Maria Vigano, former Nuncio to the United States. The letter was published today thought it is dated for this Saturday. It was originally written in Italian and is presented here translated.
The letter reads as follows:
Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.
“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
(Psalm 103:33-34)
It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former Archbishop of that capital.
My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young Priests and Religious disturbed. The silence of the Pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the Successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.
Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the Pontifical Secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the Pontifical Secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.
Neither the Pope, nor any of the Cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?
The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the Pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good Pastor would have taken, the Pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.
Now, the Pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The Pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.
Moreover, the Pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Father Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Father Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its President Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other Prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the Pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.
I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as Nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ Pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for Episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender.
Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the Curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.
Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.
“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).
To commemorate my Episcopal Ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St.
John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It
represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of
Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the
bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?”
Meanwhile the Apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and
rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you
afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).
The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing
through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.
Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his Vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?
The Lord is in full control of the boat!
May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
September 29th, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel
The following is the text of a subsequent letter written by Carlo Maria Vigano, former Nuncio to the United States. The letter was published today thought it is dated for this Saturday. It was originally written in Italian and is presented here translated.
The letter reads as follows:
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
Apostolic Nuncio
Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)
(2 Tim 1:12)
Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.
“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
(Psalm 103:33-34)
It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former Archbishop of that capital.
My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young Priests and Religious disturbed. The silence of the Pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the Successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.
Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the Pontifical Secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the Pontifical Secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.
Neither the Pope, nor any of the Cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?
The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the Pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good Pastor would have taken, the Pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.
Now, the Pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The Pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.
Moreover, the Pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Father Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Father Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its President Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other Prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the Pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.
I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as Nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ Pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for Episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender.
Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the Curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.
Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.
“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).
To commemorate my Episcopal Ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St.
John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It
represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of
Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the
bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?”
Meanwhile the Apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and
rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you
afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).
The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing
through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.
Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his Vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?
The Lord is in full control of the boat!
May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
September 29th, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel
AND THE BEAT GOES ON
So much for bravado!
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), announced -- with great bravado -- that he was going to meet with Pope Francis and insist that the only way to resolve the many questions regarding the scandal which the disgraced McCarrick has brought to the Church would be by way of an official Vatican investigation, an Apostolic Visitation.
Well, a meeting with the Pope did take place.
During that meeting, the Pope simply handed Cardinal DiNardo his hat and whisked him on his merry way.
There will be no Apostolic Visitation. That is for certain.
And to show his disdain for DiNardo’s bravado, it is rumored that Pope Francis delicately suggested that he cancel the November General Assembly of the USCCB in favor of a week-long Jesuit, Ignation-style retreat for the Episcopal brethren.
DiNardo didn't know what hit him!
For the present, it appears that the November meeting of the USCCB will go on as scheduled. Some have suggested that the Bishops may add a day at the end for retreat-like prayer and reflection.
But fear not. With no Apostolic Visitation in sight, the intrepid leaders of the USCCB have chosen instead to conduct their own investigation which will focus on the four Dioceses in which McCarrick served: New York; Metuchen, New Jersey; Newark; and Washington, D.C.
Of course, the USCCB has no authority to conduct such an investigation and any cooperation with the effort will only be limited to the voluntary cooperation of the four Dioceses.
Meanwhile, the Holy See announced that it will be releasing “clarifications” (whatever that means) regarding McCarrick. Those “clarifications” are being assembled by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
So, let me see if I got this right.
Cardinal DiNardo insists that the Vatican investigate McCarrick and the four Dioceses in which he served. Pope Francis dismisses him. And the Holy See announces that it will issue a declaration clarifying the McCarrick situation after the Vatican, itself implicated in the affair, collects and redacts pertinent documents.
At this point, I am certain of two things.
One, the four Diocese mentioned will hand the USCCB investigating team their hats just as swiftly as Pope Francis handed DiNardo his own.
Two, the two questions that need answering, why McCarrick was allowed to ascend the ranks of leadership and who were the players involved, will remain unanswered by the Vatican “clarifications”.
And the beat goes on.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), announced -- with great bravado -- that he was going to meet with Pope Francis and insist that the only way to resolve the many questions regarding the scandal which the disgraced McCarrick has brought to the Church would be by way of an official Vatican investigation, an Apostolic Visitation.
Well, a meeting with the Pope did take place.
During that meeting, the Pope simply handed Cardinal DiNardo his hat and whisked him on his merry way.
There will be no Apostolic Visitation. That is for certain.
And to show his disdain for DiNardo’s bravado, it is rumored that Pope Francis delicately suggested that he cancel the November General Assembly of the USCCB in favor of a week-long Jesuit, Ignation-style retreat for the Episcopal brethren.
DiNardo didn't know what hit him!
For the present, it appears that the November meeting of the USCCB will go on as scheduled. Some have suggested that the Bishops may add a day at the end for retreat-like prayer and reflection.
But fear not. With no Apostolic Visitation in sight, the intrepid leaders of the USCCB have chosen instead to conduct their own investigation which will focus on the four Dioceses in which McCarrick served: New York; Metuchen, New Jersey; Newark; and Washington, D.C.
Of course, the USCCB has no authority to conduct such an investigation and any cooperation with the effort will only be limited to the voluntary cooperation of the four Dioceses.
Meanwhile, the Holy See announced that it will be releasing “clarifications” (whatever that means) regarding McCarrick. Those “clarifications” are being assembled by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
So, let me see if I got this right.
Cardinal DiNardo insists that the Vatican investigate McCarrick and the four Dioceses in which he served. Pope Francis dismisses him. And the Holy See announces that it will issue a declaration clarifying the McCarrick situation after the Vatican, itself implicated in the affair, collects and redacts pertinent documents.
At this point, I am certain of two things.
One, the four Diocese mentioned will hand the USCCB investigating team their hats just as swiftly as Pope Francis handed DiNardo his own.
Two, the two questions that need answering, why McCarrick was allowed to ascend the ranks of leadership and who were the players involved, will remain unanswered by the Vatican “clarifications”.
And the beat goes on.
TRUST ME
After announcing (but not revealing the details) of a groundbreaking agreement with the Chinese Communist Party regarding the appointment of Bishops, Pope Francis issued a letter to Chinese Catholics who have suffered decades of persecution and harassment for remaining loyal to the Bishop of Rome asking that they simply “trust” him and his diplomatic advisers who surely know more of what it means to be Catholic in China than they.
“Trust me,” the Pope insists despite the fact that all those years faithful Catholics remained loyal to Rome amount to nothing now that their resistance to the Communist intrusion into Catholicism has been embraced with open arms by the Pope himself.
But what Pope Francis has apparently forgotten or purposely ignored is the fact that trust is a reciprocal relationship that both parties impart on the basis of promises made and fulfilled. Most most importantly, trust requires, demands honesty and truthfulness.
“Trust me," the Holy Father insists despite the fact that little or nothing of detail is know about the agreement.
The Pope has said that in negotiations, both parties “lose something".
Well, what exactly and precisely have faithful Catholics lost in this deal?
The Vatican has not revealed those details and has given no indication that the agreement itself will be made public. Why? Aren’t Chinese Catholics faithful to the Church to be trusted with the truth?
Still, the Pope tells them “trust me".
How out of touch can a Pope be?
Trust is the one commodity the Church is totally lacking these days.
The betrayal of the trust which the innocent and faithful placed in their Bishops and Pastors is at the very heart of the sexual abuse scandals that have wounded the Church in almost every part of the world.
“Trust me,” the Pope asks of Chinese Catholics.
Well, here’s the rub, Your Holiness.
Faithful Catholics in China understand that the Vatican has betrayed them repeatedly since the era of Paul VI, who made promises and declarations of resolve to mount vigorous efforts to defend and protect them only to be disappointed when it came to follow-through.
May I be so bold as to suggest that, if Pope Francis is asking Chinese Catholics to trust him, he might initiate a movement toward establishing that trust by being forthcoming about the actual content of the agreement he has approved with the Chinese Communist Party.
Only then will Chinese Catholics know what has been “lost” versus what has been gained.
But then again, it’s always easier to insist upon trust than it is to actually engage in the efforts which trust itself requires.
The price tag for trust is proof that one is trustworthy.
Thus far, the Vatican has indicated that that price is much too costly to pay.
One last point is worth noting.
Communism has been and always will be doomed. Its socio-political underpinnings are flawed and ignore the fundamental and universal desire that is within a human being to be free, to be creative, to personally prosper from one’s labors.
And so, Chinese Communism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The Communist Revolution in China has endured for a scant 60 years or so.
Already, there are signs that Chinese culture is shifting toward Western values. The Chinese economy appears to be succumbing to the pressures of the free market. And technology is becoming more available, especially in terms of exposure to Western cultural influences.
At present, Protestant churches continue to remain resistant to the intrusion of the Communist Party in the affairs of the denominations.
In the end, Chinese Communism will fall.
What then?
What loyalty can the Holy See expect from those faithful Catholics who believe the Church abandoned them in their darkest hours?
But, then again, I guess the Holy Father would allay my concerns by simply telling me to
“trust him”.
“Trust me,” the Pope insists despite the fact that all those years faithful Catholics remained loyal to Rome amount to nothing now that their resistance to the Communist intrusion into Catholicism has been embraced with open arms by the Pope himself.
But what Pope Francis has apparently forgotten or purposely ignored is the fact that trust is a reciprocal relationship that both parties impart on the basis of promises made and fulfilled. Most most importantly, trust requires, demands honesty and truthfulness.
“Trust me," the Holy Father insists despite the fact that little or nothing of detail is know about the agreement.
The Pope has said that in negotiations, both parties “lose something".
Well, what exactly and precisely have faithful Catholics lost in this deal?
The Vatican has not revealed those details and has given no indication that the agreement itself will be made public. Why? Aren’t Chinese Catholics faithful to the Church to be trusted with the truth?
Still, the Pope tells them “trust me".
How out of touch can a Pope be?
Trust is the one commodity the Church is totally lacking these days.
The betrayal of the trust which the innocent and faithful placed in their Bishops and Pastors is at the very heart of the sexual abuse scandals that have wounded the Church in almost every part of the world.
“Trust me,” the Pope asks of Chinese Catholics.
Well, here’s the rub, Your Holiness.
Faithful Catholics in China understand that the Vatican has betrayed them repeatedly since the era of Paul VI, who made promises and declarations of resolve to mount vigorous efforts to defend and protect them only to be disappointed when it came to follow-through.
May I be so bold as to suggest that, if Pope Francis is asking Chinese Catholics to trust him, he might initiate a movement toward establishing that trust by being forthcoming about the actual content of the agreement he has approved with the Chinese Communist Party.
Only then will Chinese Catholics know what has been “lost” versus what has been gained.
But then again, it’s always easier to insist upon trust than it is to actually engage in the efforts which trust itself requires.
The price tag for trust is proof that one is trustworthy.
Thus far, the Vatican has indicated that that price is much too costly to pay.
One last point is worth noting.
Communism has been and always will be doomed. Its socio-political underpinnings are flawed and ignore the fundamental and universal desire that is within a human being to be free, to be creative, to personally prosper from one’s labors.
And so, Chinese Communism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The Communist Revolution in China has endured for a scant 60 years or so.
Already, there are signs that Chinese culture is shifting toward Western values. The Chinese economy appears to be succumbing to the pressures of the free market. And technology is becoming more available, especially in terms of exposure to Western cultural influences.
At present, Protestant churches continue to remain resistant to the intrusion of the Communist Party in the affairs of the denominations.
In the end, Chinese Communism will fall.
What then?
What loyalty can the Holy See expect from those faithful Catholics who believe the Church abandoned them in their darkest hours?
But, then again, I guess the Holy Father would allay my concerns by simply telling me to
“trust him”.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
POPE FRANCIS' WORDS ARE STRANGER AND MORE BAFFLING WITH EACH PASSING DAY
Pope Francis has said that it's unfair to apply modern standards to the Catholic Church's sex abuse cover up.
Speaking to reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday, the Pope suggested that everyone covered up crimes in the past, and that the Catholic Church shouldn't be singled out.
But that is the point, Your Holiness.
The leadership within the Catholic Church was just as corrupt and immoral as those in the secular world.
Only one standard should have mattered then as it must matter now: the obligation on the part of the Shepherds of the Church to minister the Gospel truths and the Sacraments and to be examples of Faith to those entrusted to their care.
The red herrings of colonizing and converting pagans and upholding the traditional teachings of the Church regarding the death penalty which the Pope raises are baseless and embarrassing, coming as they do from the Vicar of Christ.
Pope Francis said he was not excusing the Church's actions.
But if his latest words do not constitute an excuse, then I do not know what does.
While in in Estonia, Francis told a crowd that he was aware that many young people felt the Church had nothing to offer them.
I am not sure that is true.
What might be more accurate to say is that this Pontificate, devoid as it increasingly appears to be of the guidance of both Scripture and Tradition, has nothing to offer young people or anyone else.
With each passing day, the Pope’s comments as well as the statements of his closest advisers seem stranger and more foreign to the ancient moral values embraced by the Church.
I have served as a Priest for over four decades, but find myself wondering what has happened to the Church and its clear and consistent voice of dignity, honor, truth and righteousness.
These are confusing and sad times for the Body of Christ.
We need to put our trust in the Lord and the Holy Spirit to guide us through these trials to our faith.
Speaking to reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday, the Pope suggested that everyone covered up crimes in the past, and that the Catholic Church shouldn't be singled out.
But that is the point, Your Holiness.
The leadership within the Catholic Church was just as corrupt and immoral as those in the secular world.
Only one standard should have mattered then as it must matter now: the obligation on the part of the Shepherds of the Church to minister the Gospel truths and the Sacraments and to be examples of Faith to those entrusted to their care.
The red herrings of colonizing and converting pagans and upholding the traditional teachings of the Church regarding the death penalty which the Pope raises are baseless and embarrassing, coming as they do from the Vicar of Christ.
Pope Francis said he was not excusing the Church's actions.
But if his latest words do not constitute an excuse, then I do not know what does.
While in in Estonia, Francis told a crowd that he was aware that many young people felt the Church had nothing to offer them.
I am not sure that is true.
What might be more accurate to say is that this Pontificate, devoid as it increasingly appears to be of the guidance of both Scripture and Tradition, has nothing to offer young people or anyone else.
With each passing day, the Pope’s comments as well as the statements of his closest advisers seem stranger and more foreign to the ancient moral values embraced by the Church.
I have served as a Priest for over four decades, but find myself wondering what has happened to the Church and its clear and consistent voice of dignity, honor, truth and righteousness.
These are confusing and sad times for the Body of Christ.
We need to put our trust in the Lord and the Holy Spirit to guide us through these trials to our faith.
THE HIGHLY SELECTIVE OUTRAGE OF SOME PROTESTANT BROTHERS AND SISTERS
Reports have been published that over 150 members of the Protestant faith and Clerical of Chicago community have sent a letter to Cardinal Blase Cupich Tuesday morning insisting that he more strongly reject the recent burning of the LGTBQ-friendly flag by Father Paul Kalchik, a Pastor of the Archdiocese.
The rainbow-colored flag which featured a cross was ceremoniously lit on fire behind the Resurrection Catholic Church earlier this month in what the Pastor dubbed an “exorcism.”
“We write to request a full investigation of these actions and for full transparency from the Archdiocese concerning Father Kalchik” and his future with the Church, the letter states.
Father Kalchik burned the flag even though the Cardinal instructed him not to do so.
I, and I am sure others, are waiting for our outraged Protestant sisters and brothers’ letter which will insist that Cardinal Cupich “request a full investigation and full transparency from the Archdiocese” concerning the two Priests of Chicago who were arrested in Miami, Florida while engaging in fellatio in the front seat of a car in full view of passers by.
I fear, however, that for a host of reasons such a demand will not be forthcoming.
Curious, indeed, the times we live in!
The rainbow-colored flag which featured a cross was ceremoniously lit on fire behind the Resurrection Catholic Church earlier this month in what the Pastor dubbed an “exorcism.”
“We write to request a full investigation of these actions and for full transparency from the Archdiocese concerning Father Kalchik” and his future with the Church, the letter states.
Father Kalchik burned the flag even though the Cardinal instructed him not to do so.
I, and I am sure others, are waiting for our outraged Protestant sisters and brothers’ letter which will insist that Cardinal Cupich “request a full investigation and full transparency from the Archdiocese” concerning the two Priests of Chicago who were arrested in Miami, Florida while engaging in fellatio in the front seat of a car in full view of passers by.
I fear, however, that for a host of reasons such a demand will not be forthcoming.
Curious, indeed, the times we live in!
I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
I am trying to understand this.
Father Paul Kalchick burns a flag, owned by the parish of which he is the Pastor. It was relegated to a storage room for decades, but was once a symbol of the openness of the Chicago Catholic Church to the homosexual community during the tenure of Cardinal Bernardin.
So Father Kalchik announces he will publicly burn the flag during a special ceremony for that purpose.
Cardinal Cupich is so outraged that he orders the Pastor not to proceed with destroying what the Pastor finds to be a morally objectionable piece of parish property.
Father Kalchik decides to proceed with the flag burning, but in a more private setting with members of the parish leadership in attendance.
Immediately (without affording the Pastor the exercise of his canonical rights) Cardinal Cupich responds by removing Father Kalchik from his Office as Pastor, insisting that he undergo psychiatric evaluation. Two Archdiocesan Clergymen deliver the Cardinal’s orders under threat that Father Kalchik will be arrested for criminal trespass if he remains on duty as Pastor (the threats being witnessed by parishioners during the confrontation).
Admitting that I glossed over bits and pieces of this incident, I contend that this is pretty much what has occurred.
Now I juxtapose this incident with that of two homosexual Priests (serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago) arrested in Miami, Florida for engaging in oral sex in the front of a car with clear windows on a sunny day, on a sunny street, in view of public passers by who reported the matter to police officers.
One of the Priests arrested is a Judge appointed to the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal in Chicago, thus a member of the Cardinal's administrative staff.
So far, not a word whatsoever from the Cardinal.
I am trying to understand this.
What is happening in Chicago and elsewhere in our Church these days?
Father Paul Kalchick burns a flag, owned by the parish of which he is the Pastor. It was relegated to a storage room for decades, but was once a symbol of the openness of the Chicago Catholic Church to the homosexual community during the tenure of Cardinal Bernardin.
So Father Kalchik announces he will publicly burn the flag during a special ceremony for that purpose.
Cardinal Cupich is so outraged that he orders the Pastor not to proceed with destroying what the Pastor finds to be a morally objectionable piece of parish property.
Father Kalchik decides to proceed with the flag burning, but in a more private setting with members of the parish leadership in attendance.
Immediately (without affording the Pastor the exercise of his canonical rights) Cardinal Cupich responds by removing Father Kalchik from his Office as Pastor, insisting that he undergo psychiatric evaluation. Two Archdiocesan Clergymen deliver the Cardinal’s orders under threat that Father Kalchik will be arrested for criminal trespass if he remains on duty as Pastor (the threats being witnessed by parishioners during the confrontation).
Admitting that I glossed over bits and pieces of this incident, I contend that this is pretty much what has occurred.
Now I juxtapose this incident with that of two homosexual Priests (serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago) arrested in Miami, Florida for engaging in oral sex in the front of a car with clear windows on a sunny day, on a sunny street, in view of public passers by who reported the matter to police officers.
One of the Priests arrested is a Judge appointed to the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal in Chicago, thus a member of the Cardinal's administrative staff.
So far, not a word whatsoever from the Cardinal.
I am trying to understand this.
What is happening in Chicago and elsewhere in our Church these days?
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WORKING DOCUMENT OF THE UPCOMING SYNOD ON YOUTH
I thought we should take a closer look at the upcoming Synod on Youth which will be taking place in Rome this October 3 through 28.
It comes at a time when literally the “world” has been rocked by scandals involving the homosexual predation of minors by Catholic Clergymen.
Certainly, the timing of the Synod is bad, especially since so many open questions remain regarding the scandal itself and the role which highly-placed Churchmen have played in covering up the scandals. Even Pope Francis himself has been accused of covering up for a disgraced American Cardinal and slow-walking investigations of sexual abuse by Cardinals within his own inner circle.
Today, while visiting the Baltics, the Pope admitted that the sexual abuse scandal is driving many away from the Church. And indeed, it is clear that people are angry and frustrated by the Pope’s and the Bishops’ lack of response to the crisis.
A Dutch Bishop, Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, an Auxiliary of the Hertogenbosch Diocese, has announced that he will not attend the October session of the Synod of Bishops, because it is “not the right time” for a discussion of youth and mission. Bishop Mutsaerts, who was elected to represent the Dutch hierarchy, cited the sex-abuse scandal as the reason for his decision.
This, the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment will take place but under new canonical norms.
Pope Paul VI created the Synod of Bishops in 1965. Pope Francis just updated its procedures and made it a permanent structure with his apostolic constitution Episcopalis Communio, aimed at accepting and recognizing the Synod’s final document as part of the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, the official teaching authority of the Church.
Those responsible for the creation of that final report are the voting members of the Synod itself: mostly Bishops, but also non-Ordained voting participants (two Religious Brothers).
For some unexplained reason (which makes the Church look particularly foolish) the Women's International Union of Superiors General was not invited to send voting delegates, even though Synodal norms allow that "others who are not honored with episcopal duties can be called to the Synod assembly."
According to Bishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops, "As for women, they are already present as observers and participate in the synodal assembly and the small groups and have a right to speak."
What nonsense!
Thus far, the “Working Document” which constitutes the agenda for the Synod has included responses to multilingual questionnaires aimed at its target group: people 16-29 years of age.
Each Bishops' Conference had been mandated to collate local responses and provide a report.
In the United States, 100 of 194 Dioceses, 25 Catholic organizations, and several Bishops' Conferences participated in that process.
The Working Document notes that the Synod's March 2018 preliminary meeting, at which young people were able to voice their opinions, found great distance between what the Church says and what the Church does.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has issued a critique of the Working Document which highlights five principal theological difficulties.
Archbishop Chaput is one of five representatives who were chosen by the US Bishops' Conference to attend the meeting.
Having sought the counsel of a non-identified North American theologian, the Archbishop identifes 5 principal problems with the text of the Working Document: naturalism, an inadequate grasp of the Church's spiritual authority, a partial theological anthropology, a relativistic conception of vocation, and an impoverished understanding of Christian joy.
Four examples of this naturalism are given. One of them is the discussion in section 144, where “there is much discussion about what young people want; little about how these wants must be transformed by Grace in a life that conforms to God’s will for their lives.”
“After pages of analysis of their material conditions, the Working Document offers no guidance on how these material concerns might be elevated and oriented toward their supernatural end … the majority of the document painstakingly catalogues the varied socio-economic and cultural realities of young adults while offering no meaningful reflection on spiritual, existential, or moral concerns. The reader may easily conclude that the latter are of no importance to the Church.”
Then, there is the document's “inadequate grasp of the Church’s spiritual authority,” saying that “the entire document is premised on the belief that the principal role of the Magisterial Church is 'listening.'”
By its emphasis on listening and dialogue, the Working Document suggests that “the Church does not possess the truth but must take its place alongside other voices. Those who have held the role of teacher and preacher in the Church must replace their authority with dialogue.”
Third, the document proposes a “partial theological anthropology which fails to make any mention of the will” in its discussion of the human person. It is the will that is fundamentally directed toward the good. The theological consequence of this glaring omission is extraordinarily important, since the seat of the moral life resides in the will and not in human emotions.”
The Working Document next proposes a “relativistic conception of vocation”, which gives the impression “that vocation concerns the individual’s search for private meaning and truth.”
An example of this problem is section 139, which “gives the impression that the Church cannot propose the (singular) truth to people and that they must decide for themselves. The role of the Church consists only in accompaniment. This false humility risks diminishing the legitimate contributions that the Church can and ought to make.”
The last principal difficulty of the Working Document is its impoverished understanding of Christian joy, which are “reduced to the affective dimension, proposing that joy is “a purely affective state, a happy emotion …” But, despite its constant reference to 'joy,' nowhere does the Working Document describe it as the fruit of the theological virtue of charity. Nor is charity characterized as the proper ordering of love, putting God first and then ordering all other loves with reference to God.”
It will be very interesting to observe both the dynamics of the Synodal discussions and the methodology which Pope Francis will apply in the preparation and publication of the Synod’s final document, all the more crucial because it will be the first such document to enjoy the status of being part of the official teaching of the Church.
I do not think I am far from the mark in predicting that the upcoming Synod will be very controversial indeed!
It comes at a time when literally the “world” has been rocked by scandals involving the homosexual predation of minors by Catholic Clergymen.
Certainly, the timing of the Synod is bad, especially since so many open questions remain regarding the scandal itself and the role which highly-placed Churchmen have played in covering up the scandals. Even Pope Francis himself has been accused of covering up for a disgraced American Cardinal and slow-walking investigations of sexual abuse by Cardinals within his own inner circle.
Today, while visiting the Baltics, the Pope admitted that the sexual abuse scandal is driving many away from the Church. And indeed, it is clear that people are angry and frustrated by the Pope’s and the Bishops’ lack of response to the crisis.
A Dutch Bishop, Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, an Auxiliary of the Hertogenbosch Diocese, has announced that he will not attend the October session of the Synod of Bishops, because it is “not the right time” for a discussion of youth and mission. Bishop Mutsaerts, who was elected to represent the Dutch hierarchy, cited the sex-abuse scandal as the reason for his decision.
This, the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment will take place but under new canonical norms.
Pope Paul VI created the Synod of Bishops in 1965. Pope Francis just updated its procedures and made it a permanent structure with his apostolic constitution Episcopalis Communio, aimed at accepting and recognizing the Synod’s final document as part of the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, the official teaching authority of the Church.
Those responsible for the creation of that final report are the voting members of the Synod itself: mostly Bishops, but also non-Ordained voting participants (two Religious Brothers).
For some unexplained reason (which makes the Church look particularly foolish) the Women's International Union of Superiors General was not invited to send voting delegates, even though Synodal norms allow that "others who are not honored with episcopal duties can be called to the Synod assembly."
According to Bishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops, "As for women, they are already present as observers and participate in the synodal assembly and the small groups and have a right to speak."
What nonsense!
Thus far, the “Working Document” which constitutes the agenda for the Synod has included responses to multilingual questionnaires aimed at its target group: people 16-29 years of age.
Each Bishops' Conference had been mandated to collate local responses and provide a report.
In the United States, 100 of 194 Dioceses, 25 Catholic organizations, and several Bishops' Conferences participated in that process.
The Working Document notes that the Synod's March 2018 preliminary meeting, at which young people were able to voice their opinions, found great distance between what the Church says and what the Church does.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has issued a critique of the Working Document which highlights five principal theological difficulties.
Archbishop Chaput is one of five representatives who were chosen by the US Bishops' Conference to attend the meeting.
Having sought the counsel of a non-identified North American theologian, the Archbishop identifes 5 principal problems with the text of the Working Document: naturalism, an inadequate grasp of the Church's spiritual authority, a partial theological anthropology, a relativistic conception of vocation, and an impoverished understanding of Christian joy.
Four examples of this naturalism are given. One of them is the discussion in section 144, where “there is much discussion about what young people want; little about how these wants must be transformed by Grace in a life that conforms to God’s will for their lives.”
“After pages of analysis of their material conditions, the Working Document offers no guidance on how these material concerns might be elevated and oriented toward their supernatural end … the majority of the document painstakingly catalogues the varied socio-economic and cultural realities of young adults while offering no meaningful reflection on spiritual, existential, or moral concerns. The reader may easily conclude that the latter are of no importance to the Church.”
Then, there is the document's “inadequate grasp of the Church’s spiritual authority,” saying that “the entire document is premised on the belief that the principal role of the Magisterial Church is 'listening.'”
By its emphasis on listening and dialogue, the Working Document suggests that “the Church does not possess the truth but must take its place alongside other voices. Those who have held the role of teacher and preacher in the Church must replace their authority with dialogue.”
Third, the document proposes a “partial theological anthropology which fails to make any mention of the will” in its discussion of the human person. It is the will that is fundamentally directed toward the good. The theological consequence of this glaring omission is extraordinarily important, since the seat of the moral life resides in the will and not in human emotions.”
The Working Document next proposes a “relativistic conception of vocation”, which gives the impression “that vocation concerns the individual’s search for private meaning and truth.”
An example of this problem is section 139, which “gives the impression that the Church cannot propose the (singular) truth to people and that they must decide for themselves. The role of the Church consists only in accompaniment. This false humility risks diminishing the legitimate contributions that the Church can and ought to make.”
The last principal difficulty of the Working Document is its impoverished understanding of Christian joy, which are “reduced to the affective dimension, proposing that joy is “a purely affective state, a happy emotion …” But, despite its constant reference to 'joy,' nowhere does the Working Document describe it as the fruit of the theological virtue of charity. Nor is charity characterized as the proper ordering of love, putting God first and then ordering all other loves with reference to God.”
It will be very interesting to observe both the dynamics of the Synodal discussions and the methodology which Pope Francis will apply in the preparation and publication of the Synod’s final document, all the more crucial because it will be the first such document to enjoy the status of being part of the official teaching of the Church.
I do not think I am far from the mark in predicting that the upcoming Synod will be very controversial indeed!
Monday, September 24, 2018
FROM ONE JESUIT TO ANOTHER WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
The founder of U.S. Catholic publishing house Ignatius Press has called for Pope Francis to answer Archbishop Viganò’s allegations that he knowingly promoted an American cardinal accused of abusing seminarians and priests.
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, said that he finds the Pontiffs refusal to give an answer “deplorable”.
In recent weeks, commentators have interpreted Pope Francis’ homilies about “the Great Accuser” and Christ’s “silence” as coded commentary on the Vatican whistleblower’s testimony and the pontiff’s own reluctance to answer it.
“He’s attacking Viganò and everyone who is asking for answers,” Father Fessio said. "I just find that deplorable.”
“Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions,” he added.
The publisher-Priest added that he meant no disrespect for the Pope by saying this. Father Fessio observed that words said in conversation look “worse” in print but defended his opinions.
“I think the idea that I’m expressing there is a valid idea, and even if I tempered it somewhat, I think it should be said. And maybe ... it will help the Pope to have some straight-talking. He seems to want to have openness, doesn’t he? He talks about frankness and openness and don’t be afraid to say what’s on your mind.”
“So I said what was on my mind--and not just my mind; it’s on a lot of people’s minds.”
Nevertheless, the Jesuit Priest was careful to underscore the importance of respect for the papal office.
“As Catholics we have to respect the Office of the Papacy and, to the extent that we can, respect the person who is holding that Office,” he said. “And as a Priest, [I should] even more so. And as a Jesuit, even more so than that!”
Well spoken, Father Fessio, well said.
DINOSAURS, THIS WAY PLEASE....
For the first time in the Church’s existence, a secular authority will choose Bishops with Vatican approval.
That remarkable development has caused me to reflect upon the present state of the ecclesiastical affairs and how different the Catholic Church is nowadays.
Without any question or doubt, the Church today is not the Church I grew up in or the Church which called me to Holy Orders.
In fact, more and more, the Catholic Church is becoming unrecognizable to me.
The recent Vatican-Chinese accord is just the latest example.
I grew up during the Cold War. Communism was the greatest evil and the greatest threat to freedom and to the Faith. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary was hailed as the great symbol of resistance and suffering under Communism.
Prayers for the conversion of Russia were offered after each Mass on every weekend.
Rosary crusades were organized to crush the godlessness of the Communist Party and its avowed goal over overtaking the world.
Now, the Church appears to have fully capitulated to the Communist Chinese Party which may continue to persecute the Catholic faithful with impunity. But even more disheartening, faithful Catholics will be made to appear to be disloyal to the Holy Father if they resist or refuse to march in lockstep with the government and its newest ally, the Holy See.
Which has gotten me to thinking.
What is my place in the Church today, a Priest who still believes in moral absolutes and ageless dogma?
More and more, being a Catholic today appears to mean embracing not the person of Jesus Christ, His Word and His Sacraments.
Today, there are clear indications that the Church has succumbed to the pervasive redefinition of morality in which there are no absolutes, in which no act is intrinsically evil, and the preservation of the environment is the Church’s greatest mission.
This latest wink at Communist China in what clearly appears to be the betrayal of loyalist Catholics who have suffered for decades to remain loyal to the Pope is just another indication that the Church has abandoned its affirmation of traditional truths and values and has instead accepted the rejection of dogmatic stability and fundamental moral values.
We are witnessing a deconstruction of Catholicism in the situational ethical considerations it espouses as the new moral norm.
Recently (September 15), Cardinal Müller preached at a priestly Ordination in Rome. He stated:
“The Church, founded by God and made up of human beings, is, according to its human side, in a deep, man-made crisis of its credibility. ... Not clericalism, whatever that may be, but the turning away from the truth and moral lawlessness are the roots of the evil. ... The real danger to today’s humanity is the greenhouse gases of sin and the global warming of unbelief and the decay of morality when no one knows and teaches the difference between good and evil.”
Lord knows, I am not a fan of His Eminence!
But I believe he has made a legitimate observation.
Is Cardinal Muller, am I, are you just dinosaurs of the Faith unwilling to pass into extinction?
Are we obstructing the impetus of the Holy Spirit or are we defending the Faith?
Some days, I just don't know anymore.
Anyway, my thoughts of late as I read news reports that I could never have ever imagined being written about the Church I have loved and served all my life.
That remarkable development has caused me to reflect upon the present state of the ecclesiastical affairs and how different the Catholic Church is nowadays.
Without any question or doubt, the Church today is not the Church I grew up in or the Church which called me to Holy Orders.
In fact, more and more, the Catholic Church is becoming unrecognizable to me.
The recent Vatican-Chinese accord is just the latest example.
I grew up during the Cold War. Communism was the greatest evil and the greatest threat to freedom and to the Faith. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary was hailed as the great symbol of resistance and suffering under Communism.
Prayers for the conversion of Russia were offered after each Mass on every weekend.
Rosary crusades were organized to crush the godlessness of the Communist Party and its avowed goal over overtaking the world.
Now, the Church appears to have fully capitulated to the Communist Chinese Party which may continue to persecute the Catholic faithful with impunity. But even more disheartening, faithful Catholics will be made to appear to be disloyal to the Holy Father if they resist or refuse to march in lockstep with the government and its newest ally, the Holy See.
Which has gotten me to thinking.
What is my place in the Church today, a Priest who still believes in moral absolutes and ageless dogma?
More and more, being a Catholic today appears to mean embracing not the person of Jesus Christ, His Word and His Sacraments.
Today, there are clear indications that the Church has succumbed to the pervasive redefinition of morality in which there are no absolutes, in which no act is intrinsically evil, and the preservation of the environment is the Church’s greatest mission.
This latest wink at Communist China in what clearly appears to be the betrayal of loyalist Catholics who have suffered for decades to remain loyal to the Pope is just another indication that the Church has abandoned its affirmation of traditional truths and values and has instead accepted the rejection of dogmatic stability and fundamental moral values.
We are witnessing a deconstruction of Catholicism in the situational ethical considerations it espouses as the new moral norm.
Recently (September 15), Cardinal Müller preached at a priestly Ordination in Rome. He stated:
“The Church, founded by God and made up of human beings, is, according to its human side, in a deep, man-made crisis of its credibility. ... Not clericalism, whatever that may be, but the turning away from the truth and moral lawlessness are the roots of the evil. ... The real danger to today’s humanity is the greenhouse gases of sin and the global warming of unbelief and the decay of morality when no one knows and teaches the difference between good and evil.”
Lord knows, I am not a fan of His Eminence!
But I believe he has made a legitimate observation.
Is Cardinal Muller, am I, are you just dinosaurs of the Faith unwilling to pass into extinction?
Are we obstructing the impetus of the Holy Spirit or are we defending the Faith?
Some days, I just don't know anymore.
Anyway, my thoughts of late as I read news reports that I could never have ever imagined being written about the Church I have loved and served all my life.
VATICAN - CHINESE ACCORD: Foolish or Naive Diplomacy?
I offer a few more reflections about the proposed agreement which the Vatican has announced it has negotiated with Communist China.
The Holy See originally proposed that China follow the terms of an agreement it had reached with the Vietnamese government over the appointment of Bishops. Under its terms, the Vatican and the Vietnamese government establish a turnus (a list) of Episcopal candidates. The Pope chooses someone from the list who, after Hanoi ratifies the choice, is consecrated as a Bishop. Such a model clearly preserves Papal authority.
The Chinese government rejected such a proposal.
Instead, the Chinese have insisted upon having total discretion over the choice of the individual who will be presented to the Pope as the Episcopal candidate. The Pope will then approve or reject that candidate. If the Pope reject’s the government’s choice, the Chinese Communist Patry will nominate another. And on, and on, until the Pope approves.
But the Communist Party has warned that the Pope’s “veto power,”is not unlimited.
As a Chinese official stated that the government will not submit endless candidate lists to the Vatican if the Pontiff keeps rejecting its choice. We may have to appoint bishops unapproved by the pontiff after a set number of rounds of negotiations. Such bishops may not be legitimate under the Church doctrine, but they can still give Church services to Chinese Catholics.”
In other words, the Pope may veto a candidate or two, but Beijing has made it clear that there is a limit to the number of times a Papal veto can be used. It has also limited the amount of time that the Vatican has to respond once a candidate’s name is submitted.
This means that at the end of the day, it is the Communist authorities, and not Pope Francis, who will have the final say over who becomes a Bishop in the Chinese Catholic Church.
How could this be possible?
The Vatican apparently has made other concessions as well.
Perhaps the most important is that Pope Francis will formally consecrate as Bishops seven men who were made “bishops” by the Communist authorities over the past decade. All of these men have been previously rejected by the Vatican as Bishop candidates for various reasons having to do with personal morality, public actions, or both.
In yet another further concession, the Vatican has promised that the Pope will lift the excommunication of the seven illicit “bishops” of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association even before the new agreement is signed.
But still more incredibly, the Pope will order two Bishops of the underground Church, who have faithfully served for decades under intense persecution, to hand over their Dioceses to Bishops appointed by the Communist authorities. Shantou Bishop Zhuang Jianjian has been ordered to retire, a decision that has caused enormous pain to the local Church, while Mindong Bishop Guo Xijin has been told that he will be made an “auxiliary” of the Shantou Diocese he has long headed.
Communist authorities are expected to recognize the “underground” Bishop of Qiqihar, in Heilongjiang province, Bishop Wei Jingyi.
These concessions and the agreement itself take place against the backdrop of the Communist Party engaging in widespread suppression of all religious expression in the country.
The same government which has been churches and burning Bibles is now to suddenly cease and desist simply because it has penned an agreement with the Vatican?
Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State has insisted that, since the agreement will be singed by President Xi Jinping himself, will the government then not abide by it?
Is he serious?
A simple review of the history of the Chinese Communist Party reveals that it has signed any number of agreements and treaties, only to viloate them within weeks of the signing. These include the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Sino-British Agreement over Hong Kong, and the World Trade Organization covenants.
Those in the Underground Church, who have suffered so much over the decades, may be in for yet another season of suffering.
Agreements are as binding as the integrity of the persons who enter into them.
On the face of it, the Vatican is either foolish or incredibly naive in inking the terms of this ill-fated accord which is in the words of Cardinal Zen “a betrayal of faithful Catholics who have suffered much for maintaining their loyalty to the Bishop of Rome”.
What thinkest you?
The Holy See originally proposed that China follow the terms of an agreement it had reached with the Vietnamese government over the appointment of Bishops. Under its terms, the Vatican and the Vietnamese government establish a turnus (a list) of Episcopal candidates. The Pope chooses someone from the list who, after Hanoi ratifies the choice, is consecrated as a Bishop. Such a model clearly preserves Papal authority.
The Chinese government rejected such a proposal.
Instead, the Chinese have insisted upon having total discretion over the choice of the individual who will be presented to the Pope as the Episcopal candidate. The Pope will then approve or reject that candidate. If the Pope reject’s the government’s choice, the Chinese Communist Patry will nominate another. And on, and on, until the Pope approves.
But the Communist Party has warned that the Pope’s “veto power,”is not unlimited.
As a Chinese official stated that the government will not submit endless candidate lists to the Vatican if the Pontiff keeps rejecting its choice. We may have to appoint bishops unapproved by the pontiff after a set number of rounds of negotiations. Such bishops may not be legitimate under the Church doctrine, but they can still give Church services to Chinese Catholics.”
In other words, the Pope may veto a candidate or two, but Beijing has made it clear that there is a limit to the number of times a Papal veto can be used. It has also limited the amount of time that the Vatican has to respond once a candidate’s name is submitted.
This means that at the end of the day, it is the Communist authorities, and not Pope Francis, who will have the final say over who becomes a Bishop in the Chinese Catholic Church.
How could this be possible?
The Vatican apparently has made other concessions as well.
Perhaps the most important is that Pope Francis will formally consecrate as Bishops seven men who were made “bishops” by the Communist authorities over the past decade. All of these men have been previously rejected by the Vatican as Bishop candidates for various reasons having to do with personal morality, public actions, or both.
In yet another further concession, the Vatican has promised that the Pope will lift the excommunication of the seven illicit “bishops” of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association even before the new agreement is signed.
But still more incredibly, the Pope will order two Bishops of the underground Church, who have faithfully served for decades under intense persecution, to hand over their Dioceses to Bishops appointed by the Communist authorities. Shantou Bishop Zhuang Jianjian has been ordered to retire, a decision that has caused enormous pain to the local Church, while Mindong Bishop Guo Xijin has been told that he will be made an “auxiliary” of the Shantou Diocese he has long headed.
Communist authorities are expected to recognize the “underground” Bishop of Qiqihar, in Heilongjiang province, Bishop Wei Jingyi.
These concessions and the agreement itself take place against the backdrop of the Communist Party engaging in widespread suppression of all religious expression in the country.
The same government which has been churches and burning Bibles is now to suddenly cease and desist simply because it has penned an agreement with the Vatican?
Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State has insisted that, since the agreement will be singed by President Xi Jinping himself, will the government then not abide by it?
Is he serious?
A simple review of the history of the Chinese Communist Party reveals that it has signed any number of agreements and treaties, only to viloate them within weeks of the signing. These include the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Sino-British Agreement over Hong Kong, and the World Trade Organization covenants.
Those in the Underground Church, who have suffered so much over the decades, may be in for yet another season of suffering.
Agreements are as binding as the integrity of the persons who enter into them.
On the face of it, the Vatican is either foolish or incredibly naive in inking the terms of this ill-fated accord which is in the words of Cardinal Zen “a betrayal of faithful Catholics who have suffered much for maintaining their loyalty to the Bishop of Rome”.
What thinkest you?
Sunday, September 23, 2018
PARISHIONERS REACT TO PASTOR'S REMOVAL BY CARDINAL CUPICH
Parishioners at a Catholic church in Avondale where a priest who burned a gay pride flag was removed by Cardinal Blase Cupich shared a range of feelings Sunday about the absence of their pastor.
“If he’s not going to be here, I’m not going to be here either,” one elderly woman said brusquely as she walked into Mass at Resurrection Catholic Church, offering unwavering support for Father Paul Kalchik and adding no further comment.
Cupich sent two of his top deputies to the church on Friday to notify Kalchik he was being removed as pastor, according to two sources close to the Priest.
The 56-year-old priest first announced in a September 2 church bulletin that he planned to burn the LGBTQ-friendly flag — which featured a cross superimposed over a rainbow — after he found it in storage where it apparently sat for more than a decade.
Cardinal Cupich told Kalchik not to burn the flag, but the priest said he did it anyway “in a quiet way” during a closed ceremony on September 14 with seven parishioners, featuring a prayer of exorcism over the torched banner.
Longtime parishioner Ricardo Vargas said he hopes the church gets its p\Pastor back, but that he finds Father Kalchik’s views on the connection between child sex abuse and homosexuality to be misguided.
“He doesn’t realize that the people who hurt him who may have had gay tendencies were not loving gay people,” Vargas said. “I support Father Kalchik, but I don’t support his statements that it was gayness that caused the problems or it was gayness that hurt these people. It was the people themselves and the evil that they were doing,” he said.
In an interview three days before that visit, Kalchik told the Sun-Times: “What have we done wrong other than destroy a piece of propaganda that was used to put out a message other than what the church is about?”
The Reverend James Kaczorowski, pastor of Queen of Angels parish, was appointed administrator of Resurrection.
The Most Reverend Mark Bartosic, an Auxuliary Bishop who oversees about 50 churches, of which Resurrection is one, presided over Mass Sunday.
“I’m here today simply to invite you to trust in the power of the word,” Bartosic told parishioners. “The word is much more powerful than any chaos, interior or exterior, that we can come up with as a race, as human beings,” he said.
Bishop Bartosic, who claims to be a friend of Father Kalchick and belongs to the same book club, said the Priest left Saturday voluntarily.
“If he’s not going to be here, I’m not going to be here either,” one elderly woman said brusquely as she walked into Mass at Resurrection Catholic Church, offering unwavering support for Father Paul Kalchik and adding no further comment.
Cupich sent two of his top deputies to the church on Friday to notify Kalchik he was being removed as pastor, according to two sources close to the Priest.
The 56-year-old priest first announced in a September 2 church bulletin that he planned to burn the LGBTQ-friendly flag — which featured a cross superimposed over a rainbow — after he found it in storage where it apparently sat for more than a decade.
Cardinal Cupich told Kalchik not to burn the flag, but the priest said he did it anyway “in a quiet way” during a closed ceremony on September 14 with seven parishioners, featuring a prayer of exorcism over the torched banner.
Longtime parishioner Ricardo Vargas said he hopes the church gets its p\Pastor back, but that he finds Father Kalchik’s views on the connection between child sex abuse and homosexuality to be misguided.
“He doesn’t realize that the people who hurt him who may have had gay tendencies were not loving gay people,” Vargas said. “I support Father Kalchik, but I don’t support his statements that it was gayness that caused the problems or it was gayness that hurt these people. It was the people themselves and the evil that they were doing,” he said.
In an interview three days before that visit, Kalchik told the Sun-Times: “What have we done wrong other than destroy a piece of propaganda that was used to put out a message other than what the church is about?”
The Reverend James Kaczorowski, pastor of Queen of Angels parish, was appointed administrator of Resurrection.
The Most Reverend Mark Bartosic, an Auxuliary Bishop who oversees about 50 churches, of which Resurrection is one, presided over Mass Sunday.
“I’m here today simply to invite you to trust in the power of the word,” Bartosic told parishioners. “The word is much more powerful than any chaos, interior or exterior, that we can come up with as a race, as human beings,” he said.
Bishop Bartosic, who claims to be a friend of Father Kalchick and belongs to the same book club, said the Priest left Saturday voluntarily.