On May 25th, 1968, Venerable (soon to be canonized) Pope Paul VI spoke to those who took part in the Second International Congress of Canon Lawyers held in Rome under the direction of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law.
In his address, the Holy Father articulated what amounts to the essential role of law in the life of the Church.
The Holy Father stated that it is the Will of the Creator that law order, promote and defend the common good, while at the same time guaranteeing and protecting against arbitrary actions which would violate the autonomy of the individual human person.
The Pope further insisted that the goal of law is to assure that each human being can effectively and responsibly achieve the perfection of his personality.
Regarding human beings as Christians and members of the People of God, the Pope stated that law is not foreign to the mystery of salvation but embraces that mystery by concerning itself with justice and the innate dignity of the human person.
Consequently, the Pope stated, law is not merely a crucial element in the essential structure of the community of Faith, but it protects and safeguards the dignity of the Christian believer inasmuch as he or she is constituted by Baptism in the likeness of Christ Himself.
Events in the life of the Church convince me that Pope Francis (as did his predecessors) have forgotten these simple but critical truths which affect and promote the good of the Church itself.
Venerable Pope Paul VI rightfully taught that law is ordered to protect its subjects from all that is arbitrary or whimsical in the decisions and actions of those with the authority to govern.
Yet, when one considers the decisions and actions of the Holy See regarding the massive wound inflicted upon the Church by the scandal of Clerics having sexually abused minors entrusted to their care, it is clear that the application of the law and the administration of justice has been wholly forgotten or ignored.
In fact, the record shows that the response of the Holy See has been nothing short of arbitrary and whimsical in cases where justice to victims was obstructed or frustrated, where Cleric-offenders were laicized but the Bishops who perpetuated their abuse remained in office and unaccountable to the Church at-large as well as to their local dioceses.
Pope Francis' public denunciation of the horrors associated with the sexual abuse of minors notwithstanding, he has done little to insure that the administration of justice will be swift and impartial providing recourse for victims and punishment for offenders and their enablers.
A case in point.
When publicly embarrassed over his public and insensitive comments regarding accusations of sexual abuse of minors by a Chilean Bishop, Pope Francis called the entire Conference of Chile’s Bishops to Rome to admonish them for their behavior.
In response, the whole Conference of Bishops resigned.
To date, the Pope has only accepted the resignation of the Bishop-abuser and two other Bishop-enablers, both of whom are passed the age of 75 years when Bishops are expected by law to submit their resignations anyway.
Is this the way the law plays out in the Church? Is this justice, the ordering and protection of the common good of the community of Faith?
Why hasn’t Pope Francis (or his predecessors) called the entire Conference of Bishops of the United States (where almost a billion dollars in settlements have been paid) to Rome for similar admonishment and accountability?
Is this the protection against the arbitrary and whimsical which the law envisions?
Little wonder that victims and their families have sought justice from secular courts when their Church leadership failed to protect and heal their wounds.
Little wonder that, in their righteous anger, these same victims have sought to punish the Church both publicly and financially.
Pope Francis is about to canonize Pope Paul VI and declare infallibly that he is a Saint of God to be rightfully venerated and remembered by the faithful of present and future generations.
It would be well for Pope Francis, in preparing for that canonization ceremony, to study and heed the wise teaching of Pope Paul and insure that laws are instituted and administered which provide the long ignored and forgotten rights of so many innocent members who have been so horribly violated and mistreated.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
POPE FRANCIS MISGUIDED VIEWS ON MASS IMMIGRATION
Pope Francis has put the plight of migrants in Europe at the heart of his concerns.
The Holy Father has repeatedly referred to his four criteria for welcoming migrants: "to welcome, accompany, accommodate, integrate".
Recently, during his return from Geneva, the Pope engaged in his now-customary in-flight question and answer sessions with journalists and added a novel but sensible word of caution.
"Every country has to do this with the government virtue of prudence, because a country has to host as many refugees as it can, that it can integrate and educate," the Pope said.
While the sentiments of the Holy Father are sincere and heartfelt, to be sure, his advocacy for migrants is, like so many who have made pleas for open borders and unlimited mass immigration, misguided and misdirected.
Why does Pope Francis put the burden of the suffering of migrants on the shoulders of the countries he admonishes to be welcoming while almost always saying nothing critical or condemnatory of the government policies and corruption which force so many to leave their native lands?
Why criticize populist movements which seek to protect sovereign national borders, while never calling migrants’ native leaders to accountability for the misery and poverty they create and perpetuate?
I have repeated ad nauseam the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of a state to protect and preserve the integrity of its borders, while at the same time coming to the aid of neighboring states in times of emergency or crisis.
I can only conclude that Pope Francis’ intimate awareness of poverty, the kind he personally witnessed in Argentina and the neighboring nations of South and Latin America, has clouded his judgment to the point that he is incapable of distinguishing between the right of sovereignty versus the moral imperative to assist the suffering in other nations to the extent that a country is able to do so without imperiling the safety and security of its own citizens.
Certainly, I insist upon and defend the infallibility of the Pope regarding matters of Faith and Morals. In this regard, the Pope has no equal.
But, as regards matters of international law and politics, his opinions are just that: opinions.
And Catholics (including Priests) may, in good faith and conscience, disagree with the Holy Father’s political or legal opinions.
I have gone on record that I disagree with the Pope’s demands that nations open themselves to the unfettered welcoming of migrants.
I have further suggested, and do so again, that Holy Father might do better for the migrants he wishes to serve to engage the leaders of their native lands and call them to judgment and the accountability of world opinion.
Consistently criticizing and “biting the hand” of nations that have done so much to assist but have been overwhelmed in the process does little for the migrant and undermines the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy itself.
The Holy Father has repeatedly referred to his four criteria for welcoming migrants: "to welcome, accompany, accommodate, integrate".
Recently, during his return from Geneva, the Pope engaged in his now-customary in-flight question and answer sessions with journalists and added a novel but sensible word of caution.
"Every country has to do this with the government virtue of prudence, because a country has to host as many refugees as it can, that it can integrate and educate," the Pope said.
While the sentiments of the Holy Father are sincere and heartfelt, to be sure, his advocacy for migrants is, like so many who have made pleas for open borders and unlimited mass immigration, misguided and misdirected.
Why does Pope Francis put the burden of the suffering of migrants on the shoulders of the countries he admonishes to be welcoming while almost always saying nothing critical or condemnatory of the government policies and corruption which force so many to leave their native lands?
Why criticize populist movements which seek to protect sovereign national borders, while never calling migrants’ native leaders to accountability for the misery and poverty they create and perpetuate?
I have repeated ad nauseam the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of a state to protect and preserve the integrity of its borders, while at the same time coming to the aid of neighboring states in times of emergency or crisis.
I can only conclude that Pope Francis’ intimate awareness of poverty, the kind he personally witnessed in Argentina and the neighboring nations of South and Latin America, has clouded his judgment to the point that he is incapable of distinguishing between the right of sovereignty versus the moral imperative to assist the suffering in other nations to the extent that a country is able to do so without imperiling the safety and security of its own citizens.
Certainly, I insist upon and defend the infallibility of the Pope regarding matters of Faith and Morals. In this regard, the Pope has no equal.
But, as regards matters of international law and politics, his opinions are just that: opinions.
And Catholics (including Priests) may, in good faith and conscience, disagree with the Holy Father’s political or legal opinions.
I have gone on record that I disagree with the Pope’s demands that nations open themselves to the unfettered welcoming of migrants.
I have further suggested, and do so again, that Holy Father might do better for the migrants he wishes to serve to engage the leaders of their native lands and call them to judgment and the accountability of world opinion.
Consistently criticizing and “biting the hand” of nations that have done so much to assist but have been overwhelmed in the process does little for the migrant and undermines the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy itself.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
READING MORE CHAPTERS OF POPE FRANCIS "BOOK"
On May 24 last, I made mention an oft-repeated anecdote about General George Patton who is quoted as having attributed his defeat over Nazi General Romel in North Africa because, as Patton stated, “Romel, you (ephithet deleted), I read your book!”
In that same article, I stated that while I have not exactly read Pope Franics’ “book”, I believe that I at least had read the "first chapter".
Well, curiously enough, on a return flight to Rome following a day-long pilgrimage to Geneva, Pope Francis once again held an impromptu in-flight press conference.
Only this time, the Holy Father’s comments left little question as to what the remaining chapters of his “book” might contain.
Let me cite just a few of the more remarkable revelations the Pope made.
First, it appears that the Holy Father did not personally draft a response to the German Bishops regarding their proposal to establish Conference-wide policies for intercommunion with Protestants.
Rather, the Pope said he supported the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal-elect Luis Ladaria, in whose opinion the draft-propsal was “not sufficiently mature to be published” and needed to be rethought in such a manner that the entire Conference could be unanimous in accepting the proposed policy.
Pope Francis said that Cardinal Ladaria did not act unilaterally, but with the his permission.
The question is whether that permission came before the Cardinal’s response or afterward. In other words, did the Pope direct the Cardinal to issue a response or did the Cardinal on his own initiative issue a response which he subsequently received permission to publish.
The question is of particular interest to me since I have begun wondering if many of the Pope’s mis-steps in recent months weren’t really attributable to decisions that high-level Vatican diplomats made without seeking Papal approbation or approval.
For the Pope’s comments regarding Cardinal Lardaria acting with permission notwithstanding, it is curious indeed that the Francis’ last word on the issue is that, under the Code of Cannon Law, it is up to the local Bishop to decide under what conditions communion can be administered to non-Catholics, not local Bishops’ Conferences.
Thus, any mention of unanimity or maturity of policy becomes mute as the Bishop of the local Church is, in the words of the Holy Father, “responsible for this… it’s in his hands.”
Yet, even more telling was the Pope’s comments to reporters in effect praising the German Bishops, saying their document was “well thought out with a Christian spirit.”
In the end, Pope Francis contradicts Cardinal Lardaria in saying that, “Whatever the German conference may come up with in the end likely will be an orientational document so that every one of the diocesan bishops can determine by himself what the Code of Canon Law already permits.”
What do I glean from this?
It seems to be a repeat of what I mentioned in the earlier article, the Pope is very comfortable using his subordinates to test the waters of reaction to Vatican statements or judgments. It allows him the wriggle room he feels he needs to refine his position in direct response to how those judgments are received.
I am so convinced that this is the Pope's modus operandi that, should the Amazonian Synod take place in 2019 and should any question about the Ordination of married men of proven virtue be raised, the Pope's answer will eventually be that it is up to the individual Bishop in his local Church.
That won't sit well with the neo-reactionary conservatives, but it will be this Pope's response nonetheless.
Second, the Pope clearly has a blind spot when it comes to immigration both on the Continent and in America.
In response to the recent US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) denunciation of President Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, the Holy Father did not mince words in throwing his support behind the U.S. bishops.
"I am proud of what the Bishops of that country said,” Pope Francis added.
More broadly, Francis said that “every country should [welcome new arrivals] with the virtue of government, which is that of prudence, because they should welcome as many refugees as they can, educate, integrate, relieve hunger, and help them find work. I would say this is the tranquil, serene plan for refugees,” the Pope said. “Here we’re living a wave of refugees fleeing war and hunger.”
Surely, if the Pope does not see the crippling effect unrestrained immigration has had upon Europe and the rising populist movements throughout the Continent seeking to protect and preserve European culture, then he is beyond any hope of being realistic or helpful in finding a solution to the crisis.
Third, Pope Francis is a dreamer.
That’s okay, all prophets are dreamers of one sort or another offering visions of hope or doom.
The Pope appears to be a hopeful dreamer, insisting that most global challenges can be resolved.
“The problem of war, of persecution of Christians in the Middle East and also in Nigeria, the problem of hunger can be resolved,” he said. “Many countries are thinking about how to invest in those countries, invest intelligently…to give work and education.”
And, finally and very revealing, Pope Francis recognized Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, who has served as his sostituto, or “substitute,” in effect a sort of chief of staff. Next week, Francis will name Becciu, along with 13 other individuals to the College of Cardinals.
The fact that Cardinal-elect Becciu, a lifetime diplomat, was assigned as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been very puzzling to me and others who doubt that His Eminence-to-be even knows where the office of the Congregation is located, let alone how it operates.
It remains my contention that the Cardinal-elect was only assigned there to be placed in a kind of holding pattern until such a time that Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia on charges of sexual abuse of minors results in a verdict. In the meantime, Becciu will continue to act as the Pope's chief of staff.
In any case, the Pope’s recent in-flight presser added a number of chapters to the Pope’s “book” for those willing and interested enough to read it.
In that same article, I stated that while I have not exactly read Pope Franics’ “book”, I believe that I at least had read the "first chapter".
Well, curiously enough, on a return flight to Rome following a day-long pilgrimage to Geneva, Pope Francis once again held an impromptu in-flight press conference.
Only this time, the Holy Father’s comments left little question as to what the remaining chapters of his “book” might contain.
Let me cite just a few of the more remarkable revelations the Pope made.
First, it appears that the Holy Father did not personally draft a response to the German Bishops regarding their proposal to establish Conference-wide policies for intercommunion with Protestants.
Rather, the Pope said he supported the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal-elect Luis Ladaria, in whose opinion the draft-propsal was “not sufficiently mature to be published” and needed to be rethought in such a manner that the entire Conference could be unanimous in accepting the proposed policy.
Pope Francis said that Cardinal Ladaria did not act unilaterally, but with the his permission.
The question is whether that permission came before the Cardinal’s response or afterward. In other words, did the Pope direct the Cardinal to issue a response or did the Cardinal on his own initiative issue a response which he subsequently received permission to publish.
The question is of particular interest to me since I have begun wondering if many of the Pope’s mis-steps in recent months weren’t really attributable to decisions that high-level Vatican diplomats made without seeking Papal approbation or approval.
For the Pope’s comments regarding Cardinal Lardaria acting with permission notwithstanding, it is curious indeed that the Francis’ last word on the issue is that, under the Code of Cannon Law, it is up to the local Bishop to decide under what conditions communion can be administered to non-Catholics, not local Bishops’ Conferences.
Thus, any mention of unanimity or maturity of policy becomes mute as the Bishop of the local Church is, in the words of the Holy Father, “responsible for this… it’s in his hands.”
Yet, even more telling was the Pope’s comments to reporters in effect praising the German Bishops, saying their document was “well thought out with a Christian spirit.”
In the end, Pope Francis contradicts Cardinal Lardaria in saying that, “Whatever the German conference may come up with in the end likely will be an orientational document so that every one of the diocesan bishops can determine by himself what the Code of Canon Law already permits.”
What do I glean from this?
It seems to be a repeat of what I mentioned in the earlier article, the Pope is very comfortable using his subordinates to test the waters of reaction to Vatican statements or judgments. It allows him the wriggle room he feels he needs to refine his position in direct response to how those judgments are received.
I am so convinced that this is the Pope's modus operandi that, should the Amazonian Synod take place in 2019 and should any question about the Ordination of married men of proven virtue be raised, the Pope's answer will eventually be that it is up to the individual Bishop in his local Church.
That won't sit well with the neo-reactionary conservatives, but it will be this Pope's response nonetheless.
Second, the Pope clearly has a blind spot when it comes to immigration both on the Continent and in America.
In response to the recent US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) denunciation of President Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, the Holy Father did not mince words in throwing his support behind the U.S. bishops.
"I am proud of what the Bishops of that country said,” Pope Francis added.
More broadly, Francis said that “every country should [welcome new arrivals] with the virtue of government, which is that of prudence, because they should welcome as many refugees as they can, educate, integrate, relieve hunger, and help them find work. I would say this is the tranquil, serene plan for refugees,” the Pope said. “Here we’re living a wave of refugees fleeing war and hunger.”
Surely, if the Pope does not see the crippling effect unrestrained immigration has had upon Europe and the rising populist movements throughout the Continent seeking to protect and preserve European culture, then he is beyond any hope of being realistic or helpful in finding a solution to the crisis.
Third, Pope Francis is a dreamer.
That’s okay, all prophets are dreamers of one sort or another offering visions of hope or doom.
The Pope appears to be a hopeful dreamer, insisting that most global challenges can be resolved.
“The problem of war, of persecution of Christians in the Middle East and also in Nigeria, the problem of hunger can be resolved,” he said. “Many countries are thinking about how to invest in those countries, invest intelligently…to give work and education.”
And, finally and very revealing, Pope Francis recognized Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu, who has served as his sostituto, or “substitute,” in effect a sort of chief of staff. Next week, Francis will name Becciu, along with 13 other individuals to the College of Cardinals.
The fact that Cardinal-elect Becciu, a lifetime diplomat, was assigned as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been very puzzling to me and others who doubt that His Eminence-to-be even knows where the office of the Congregation is located, let alone how it operates.
It remains my contention that the Cardinal-elect was only assigned there to be placed in a kind of holding pattern until such a time that Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia on charges of sexual abuse of minors results in a verdict. In the meantime, Becciu will continue to act as the Pope's chief of staff.
In any case, the Pope’s recent in-flight presser added a number of chapters to the Pope’s “book” for those willing and interested enough to read it.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
THE BATTLE OVER THE BODY OF VENERABLE ARCHBISHOP SHEEN: A GROTESQUE AND GRUESOME DISPLAY
The Archdiocese of New York announced on Friday that the Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral are appealing a court decision that would allow Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s body to be moved to Peoria, Illinois, as his cause for beatification proceeds.
The Trustees, who oversee archdiocesan seminaries, “believe that the recent court case concerning the earthly remains of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was again incorrectly decided, and will seek an appeal of that decision along with a stay on moving the remains while the appellate court considers the case,” said a June 15 statement.
“At issue in the case, as the appellate court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s original decision, is what were Archbishop’s Sheen’s personal wishes concerning his final resting place,” the statement said.
“As Trustees, it is our responsibility to respect those wishes, and we believe that this most recent decision once again fails to consider those wishes and instead relies on the speculation and conjecture of others.”
Last week, the Superior Court of New York ruled in favor of Joan Sheen Cunningham, who had petitioned to move the body of her uncle, Fulton Sheen, to the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria. The body of the late archbishop is currently in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Judge Arlene Bluth, ruled that “the location of Archbishop Sheen’s final resting place would not have been his primary concern” and that “it makes no sense, given his lifelong devotion to the Catholic Church, that he would choose a location over the chance to become a saint.”
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s canonization in 2002 after the Archdiocese of New York said it would not explore the case. In 2012, Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the archbishop.
However, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
This grotesque and gruesome display brings nothing but disdain upon the Church.
Quietly at work behind the claims of “personal wishes” and “causes for sainthood” is the callous desire to locate the late Archbishop’s body in a place which, should he indeed be declared a Saint, might become a mecca for pilgrimages and certain for donations to the coffers of the diocese in which he is finally interred.
The whole matter is unseemly and every party to it should be rightfully ashamed of themselves.
But situations of this nature are not unknown elsewhere.
In the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, it was almost universally accepted that Joseph Cardinal Ritter had expressed a desire to be buried in the Priests’ Lot at Calvary Cemetery.
His predecessor, John Cardinal Glennon, had been enormously popular and was buried in the upper of a two tomb crypt in the unfinished basement of the Cathedral Basilica. Cardinal Ritter is rumored to have stated, “I lived under the shadow of Cardinal Glennon. I shall not rest under that shadow in death.”
Nevertheless, when the basement of the Cathedral Basilica was finally made suitable for public use, a crypt was built around the tomb of Cardinal Glennon with spaces for the earthly remains of future Archbishops. Cardinal Ritter’s desires notwithstanding, his body was removed from Calvary Cemetery and placed in the new crypt of the Cathedral Basilica wherein now along side him lay the bodies of John Cardinal Carberry and Archbishop John Lawrence May.
We Catholics offer a prayer which pleads, “May they rest in peace.”
It seems as though even that simple and dignified plea is no longer respected by the likes of the New York, Peoria and elsewhere.
The Trustees, who oversee archdiocesan seminaries, “believe that the recent court case concerning the earthly remains of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was again incorrectly decided, and will seek an appeal of that decision along with a stay on moving the remains while the appellate court considers the case,” said a June 15 statement.
“At issue in the case, as the appellate court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s original decision, is what were Archbishop’s Sheen’s personal wishes concerning his final resting place,” the statement said.
“As Trustees, it is our responsibility to respect those wishes, and we believe that this most recent decision once again fails to consider those wishes and instead relies on the speculation and conjecture of others.”
Last week, the Superior Court of New York ruled in favor of Joan Sheen Cunningham, who had petitioned to move the body of her uncle, Fulton Sheen, to the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria. The body of the late archbishop is currently in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Judge Arlene Bluth, ruled that “the location of Archbishop Sheen’s final resting place would not have been his primary concern” and that “it makes no sense, given his lifelong devotion to the Catholic Church, that he would choose a location over the chance to become a saint.”
The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s canonization in 2002 after the Archdiocese of New York said it would not explore the case. In 2012, Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the archbishop.
However, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.
The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.
This grotesque and gruesome display brings nothing but disdain upon the Church.
Quietly at work behind the claims of “personal wishes” and “causes for sainthood” is the callous desire to locate the late Archbishop’s body in a place which, should he indeed be declared a Saint, might become a mecca for pilgrimages and certain for donations to the coffers of the diocese in which he is finally interred.
The whole matter is unseemly and every party to it should be rightfully ashamed of themselves.
But situations of this nature are not unknown elsewhere.
In the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, it was almost universally accepted that Joseph Cardinal Ritter had expressed a desire to be buried in the Priests’ Lot at Calvary Cemetery.
His predecessor, John Cardinal Glennon, had been enormously popular and was buried in the upper of a two tomb crypt in the unfinished basement of the Cathedral Basilica. Cardinal Ritter is rumored to have stated, “I lived under the shadow of Cardinal Glennon. I shall not rest under that shadow in death.”
Nevertheless, when the basement of the Cathedral Basilica was finally made suitable for public use, a crypt was built around the tomb of Cardinal Glennon with spaces for the earthly remains of future Archbishops. Cardinal Ritter’s desires notwithstanding, his body was removed from Calvary Cemetery and placed in the new crypt of the Cathedral Basilica wherein now along side him lay the bodies of John Cardinal Carberry and Archbishop John Lawrence May.
We Catholics offer a prayer which pleads, “May they rest in peace.”
It seems as though even that simple and dignified plea is no longer respected by the likes of the New York, Peoria and elsewhere.
ACCUSATION AGAINST CARDINAL MCCARRICK DEEMED CREDIBLE AND SUBSTANTIATED
Following an investigation by the Archdiocese of New York, allegations of sexual abuse against retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. have been deemed “credible and substantiated.”
The alleged abuse took place nearly 45 years ago against a teenager while McCarrick was still a priest in New York and before later being named a Bishop and Cardinal.
On Wednesday, both the Archdiocese of New York and the Archdiocese of Washington, released statements stating that the Holy See has been informed and involved in the investigation process and that the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin “at the direction of Pope Francis,” has instructed McCarrick to cease to continue public exercise of his office.
Cardinal McCarrick has issued a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board.
“While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process,” he said.
He went on to add that he had “no recollection” of the abuse, while stating “I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people.”
News of the allegations against McCarrick comes as Church continues to suffer from the fallout of clerical sexual abuse.
One reader commented, “Everywhere you go nowadays, the Church is different. Different languages, different teachings, different practices. The only thing universal about the Universal Church is that almost every diocese is being sued because a Priest or Priests sexually abused a child. How creepy is that!”
How creepy indeed!
Dear God, when will these horror stories end and when will those who knew and continued to allow this violation of everything noble and decent be removed from office and any influence or authority?
Come, Holy Spirit, a purify a Church corrupted by these horrific sins against the innocent!
The alleged abuse took place nearly 45 years ago against a teenager while McCarrick was still a priest in New York and before later being named a Bishop and Cardinal.
On Wednesday, both the Archdiocese of New York and the Archdiocese of Washington, released statements stating that the Holy See has been informed and involved in the investigation process and that the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin “at the direction of Pope Francis,” has instructed McCarrick to cease to continue public exercise of his office.
Cardinal McCarrick has issued a statement in which he maintains his innocence, but accepts the conclusions of the review board.
“While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process,” he said.
He went on to add that he had “no recollection” of the abuse, while stating “I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people.”
News of the allegations against McCarrick comes as Church continues to suffer from the fallout of clerical sexual abuse.
One reader commented, “Everywhere you go nowadays, the Church is different. Different languages, different teachings, different practices. The only thing universal about the Universal Church is that almost every diocese is being sued because a Priest or Priests sexually abused a child. How creepy is that!”
How creepy indeed!
Dear God, when will these horror stories end and when will those who knew and continued to allow this violation of everything noble and decent be removed from office and any influence or authority?
Come, Holy Spirit, a purify a Church corrupted by these horrific sins against the innocent!
THE WOUND UPON THE BODY OF CHRIST CAUSED BY CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS CONTINUES TO FESTER
A Catholic Priest, who at one time served as a Vatican diplomat in Washington, has been indicted by the Holy See on accusations of possessing and sharing "a large quantity" of child abuse imagery.
In an article posted by Reuters, the Vatican said Monsignor Carlo Capella would face a trial starting on June 22. He is presently being held in a cell in the Vatican's police barracks.
Authorities in the United States and Canada had been investigating Capella for nearly two years.
Canadian police charged that the Priest allegedly uploaded material featuring sexual abuse of children from a social networking site over the 2016 Christmas holiday.
In August, the US State Department notified the Vatican of a "possible violation of laws related to child pornography images," by one of its diplomats. Soon after, the Vatican recalled Capella, who as a diplomat was one of four staff members who had immunity from prosecution in the United States.
The Vatican has denied that there have been efforts to have Monsignorn Cappella prosecuted in an American court.
Monsignor Cappella The 50-year-old has had a wide-ranging career that brought him to the United States only this past year. Born in the town of Carpi in Northern Italy, he was ordained as a Priest in 1993, pursued a degree in Canon Law and then entered the Vatican's corps of diplomats in 2004. In that role, he was posted in India and then Hong Kong before another stint at the Vatican.
In 2008, according to a document from the Archdiocese of Milan, Pope Benedict XVI conferred the rank of "Chaplain of His Holiness" upon him - a recognition of service to the Church that bestowed on him the title of Monsignor.
He could face consequences in two disciplinary systems: Under Church law, he could be laicized and under civil law in the Holy See, which is also an independent nation, he could face criminal penalties.
The City-state's criminal law says people convicted of possessing material showing child sex abuse face up to two years in prison and $12,000 in fines, and those convicted of producing or distributing the images face steeper penalties.
The arrest is another blow for the church, which has faced abuse scandals threatening to undermine the faithful’s confidence in the Clergy.
In an unprecedented decision, Pope Francis recently announced his acceptance of the resignation of three Bishops in Chile who were accused of concealing their knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors within the boundaries of their pastoral competence and authority.
The deep wound to the Body of Christ caused by these scandals continues to fester.
May the Holy Spirit guide the Church in bringing the perpetrators of these grave crimes against minors to justice and may the same Spirit give assurance and comfort to those harmed and to the countless numbers of Catholic faithful who have been scandalized by these reports.
In an article posted by Reuters, the Vatican said Monsignor Carlo Capella would face a trial starting on June 22. He is presently being held in a cell in the Vatican's police barracks.
Authorities in the United States and Canada had been investigating Capella for nearly two years.
Canadian police charged that the Priest allegedly uploaded material featuring sexual abuse of children from a social networking site over the 2016 Christmas holiday.
In August, the US State Department notified the Vatican of a "possible violation of laws related to child pornography images," by one of its diplomats. Soon after, the Vatican recalled Capella, who as a diplomat was one of four staff members who had immunity from prosecution in the United States.
The Vatican has denied that there have been efforts to have Monsignorn Cappella prosecuted in an American court.
Monsignor Cappella The 50-year-old has had a wide-ranging career that brought him to the United States only this past year. Born in the town of Carpi in Northern Italy, he was ordained as a Priest in 1993, pursued a degree in Canon Law and then entered the Vatican's corps of diplomats in 2004. In that role, he was posted in India and then Hong Kong before another stint at the Vatican.
In 2008, according to a document from the Archdiocese of Milan, Pope Benedict XVI conferred the rank of "Chaplain of His Holiness" upon him - a recognition of service to the Church that bestowed on him the title of Monsignor.
He could face consequences in two disciplinary systems: Under Church law, he could be laicized and under civil law in the Holy See, which is also an independent nation, he could face criminal penalties.
The City-state's criminal law says people convicted of possessing material showing child sex abuse face up to two years in prison and $12,000 in fines, and those convicted of producing or distributing the images face steeper penalties.
The arrest is another blow for the church, which has faced abuse scandals threatening to undermine the faithful’s confidence in the Clergy.
In an unprecedented decision, Pope Francis recently announced his acceptance of the resignation of three Bishops in Chile who were accused of concealing their knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors within the boundaries of their pastoral competence and authority.
The deep wound to the Body of Christ caused by these scandals continues to fester.
May the Holy Spirit guide the Church in bringing the perpetrators of these grave crimes against minors to justice and may the same Spirit give assurance and comfort to those harmed and to the countless numbers of Catholic faithful who have been scandalized by these reports.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
US SUPREME COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIAN BAKER AGAINST PRESSURES OF HOMOSEXUAL ADVOCATES
Here’s a story I missed while I was in San Diego visiting with friends.
The United States Supreme Court has sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said in a 7-2 decision June 4, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, leftist idealogues that they are, dissented as one would expect.
Justice Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the issue "must await further elaboration". Across the country, appeals in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding.
The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker's action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal and self-contradictory courts in the country. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn't take the case, letting the ruling stand. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.
The ruling's opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and religious neutrality, saying the baker's refusal was based on "sincere religious beliefs and convictions" and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, the court said: "It did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."
The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in this case, saying: "Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
But delving further, the court curiously deemed the specific cake in question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. The ruling says: "If a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter," noting that the state would have a strong case that this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a baker.
Here, the court said the issue was the baker's argument that he "had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation".
That specious reasoning aside, the court opinion went on to say that as Phillips' contention "has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.
In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the Court's opinion, stating that it was based on "concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people."
Of course, we haven’t heard the end of cases such as this as the homosexual community continues to seek advancement of their cause through courts, knowing they cannot achieve their agenda by legislative initiatives.
For the time being, then, this decision appears to confirm that, according to the Constitution, people of faith have rights that should be respected by government bureaucrats.
Whether this principle of law will endure future assaults by the homosexual community remains to be seen.
The United States Supreme Court has sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said in a 7-2 decision June 4, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, leftist idealogues that they are, dissented as one would expect.
Justice Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the issue "must await further elaboration". Across the country, appeals in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding.
The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker's action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal and self-contradictory courts in the country. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn't take the case, letting the ruling stand. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.
The ruling's opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and religious neutrality, saying the baker's refusal was based on "sincere religious beliefs and convictions" and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, the court said: "It did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."
The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in this case, saying: "Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
But delving further, the court curiously deemed the specific cake in question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. The ruling says: "If a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter," noting that the state would have a strong case that this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a baker.
Here, the court said the issue was the baker's argument that he "had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation".
That specious reasoning aside, the court opinion went on to say that as Phillips' contention "has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.
In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the Court's opinion, stating that it was based on "concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people."
Of course, we haven’t heard the end of cases such as this as the homosexual community continues to seek advancement of their cause through courts, knowing they cannot achieve their agenda by legislative initiatives.
For the time being, then, this decision appears to confirm that, according to the Constitution, people of faith have rights that should be respected by government bureaucrats.
Whether this principle of law will endure future assaults by the homosexual community remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)