Statistics released by the Catholic Church in Germany reveal that 162,093 Catholics left the Church in Germany during 2016 and 537 additional parishes were closed down.
Since 1996, the Catholic population in Germany has shrunk from 27,533,000 to 23,582,000—a decline of over 14 percent.
The number of Catholic parishes has followed a similar trend.
During the past 20 years, the Catholic Church in Germany has shut down nearly a quarter of its parishes (over 3,000), with the number declining from 13,329 to 10,280.
Sunday Mass attendance continues to drop as well, with 10.2 percent attending Mass regularly in 2016 versus 10.4 percent in 2015.
The situation is so dire that Pope Francis cited statistic after statistic before a group of German Bishops, asking why the Church in Germany is in freefall.
Francis noted there has been “a drastic drop in Sunday Mass attendance” and in the whole of Catholic sacramental life in Germany, especially in traditionally Catholic areas.
“Whereas in the 1960s wherever you went almost every Catholic participated in Sunday Mass,” he said, “nowadays it’s often less than ten percent. Fewer and fewer receive the sacraments and the Sacrament of Penance has all but disappeared.”
“Fewer and fewer Catholics receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or get married in church,” he added, “and the number of vocations to the Priesthood and consecrated life is severely diminished.”
Perhaps the fact that Catholics are forced to contribute to the Church by being charged a special church tax or “Kirchensteuer,” has contributed to these mass defections. Perhaps the German Bishops ever-increasing shift away from traditional Catholic belief and practice toward a position often associated with mainline Protestantism is to blame.
In a recent interview with the Italian newspaper Il Foglio, Cardinal Gerhard Müller—the former head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office—commented on the decline of the German Church.
Muller and his brother-Bishops seek to conveniently blame this exodus on everyone and everything but themselves.
Yet, the fact is the Bishops in Germany have become so comfortable in their compromises with the secularism so prevalent in Europe that the transmission of the legacy of Faith from the present to future generations is no longer seen by them to constitute the essential mission of the Church.
Germany itself has been in the forefront of the de-Christianization of Europe. Germany has sponsored repeated calls for a European Union devoid of its Christian heritage. Germany has welcomed the mass influx of non-Christian Islamic immigrants and refugees who are hostile to Western values and Christianity itself.
And, in almost every case, the German Bishops have been either silent or actively complicit.
Is it any wonder, then, that Catholicism and religion itself for that matter have been so de-valued in Germany and, under its influence, throughout the rest of Europe.
The Scriptures tell us quite explicitly that, as we reap, we shall sow.
The German Bishops, so intent on fostering a convenient relationship with the State for revenue and so anxious to promote progressive agendas which compromise traditional Catholic doctrine and discipline, are now confronted with fields of desolation in the ranks of the faithful.
Sadly, Germany is the harbinger of the future of the Church among the nations of the West, as the world itself continues its steady inexorable march backward from civilization to the barbarism of the past where the State dictated one’s value, where the State decided upon one’s usefulness, where the State dictated one’s right to life.
Devoid of the virtues and values of the Gospel and the nourishment of the Sacraments of the Church, Germany and the secularism it promotes for itself and Europe has embarked upon a journey toward doom and annihilation.
And the German Bishops are locked arm-in-arm, goose stepping their way to oblivion.
The rest of Europe is not far-behind. And neither is America.
What thinkest you?
Friday, August 4, 2017
Thursday, August 3, 2017
SIX FACTS THE BISHOPS NEED TO ADMIT AND ADDRESS
The Catholic Bishops of the United States need to accept reality and face the facts. The following seven are among the most important.
Fact One: the Catholic Church in the United States exercise no discernible political influence whatsoever. There is no discernible “Catholic voting bloc” to garner the attention (or fear) of politicians in establishing public policy regarding the right to life, the funding of Planned Parenthood abortion advocacy, euthanasia, same sex marriage, transgender legislation, and other perversions of the moral order.
Catholic Bishops and the Catholic faithful are powerless in effecting any meaningful legislation reflecting moral values. The Church seems to have retreated from publicly witnessing the Faith and is largely apathetic in its challenges to the contemporary amorality universally apparent in American culture and society.
When the Bishops do voice objections to proposed or actual legislation they deem to be contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and the doctrines of the Church, they are largely and rather successfully portrayed to be whining defenders of values and virtues irrelevant and meaningless to the exigencies of life in the modern world. Curiously, they don't seem to object to that characterization, but rather acquiesce to it.
Quite simply, the public square does not look to the Catholic Bishops for inspiration or leadership on matters affecting American citizens.
The Bishops need to stop pretending that their political clout is non-existent and stop diverting their attention, energy and resource to push for legislative or governmental solutions to societal problems stemming from a lack of moral discipline and acceptance of personal responsibility.
Fact Two: commitment to established institutions has all but vanished. Americans’ relationships with the Church tend to be tentative and utilitarian. Affiliations with political parties are equally so, with most people identifying themselves as “independents” rather “establishment Republicans or Democrats”.
Research shows that the number of practicing Catholics in America (and worldwide for that matters has drastically decreased). Moreover, mounting evidence suggests that people are open and willing to switch religious affiliation at least twice in their lifetimes. Some studies suggest that there is a significant number who will switch among church denominations three times or more.
The Bishops need to accept the fact that the Church no longer enjoys the “spiritual hold” it once had over its membership. Bishops can no longer depend upon their self-proclaimed authority over their flocks to keep members within the fold.
Fact Three: the ecumenical movement, inspired by the Second Vatican Council, has succeeded in eliminating old suspicions and grudges. Pope Francis especially has been keen to encourage an abandonment of negative feelings toward persons of other faiths.
As a result, there is a growing trend among Catholics to succumb to a certain “indifferentism”, that is, the belief that it does not matter what religion a person professes, he or she can be saved nonetheless (a heresy soundly condemned by the Church).
Thus, the very idea of leaving the Catholic Church and joining another Christian denomination or even adopting a non-Christian faith tradition is no longer an anethema in the opinion of most Catholics today.
Fact Four: for those most part, Catholics are fiercely loyal and supportive of their local Pastors and parishes. They are less so of the Bishop and the diocese.
In truth, the relationship of the parish to the diocese may be described very well as a form of “commonwealth” in which affiliation with and allegiance to the Bishop is admitted and accepted, so long as the Bishop treats the parish with “benign neglect”.
Bishops need to recognize and admit that their authority over parishioners within their dioceses is always attenuated by the condition that they do not interfere with or disturb the internal affairs within those parishes.
Fact Five: diocesan bureaucratic structures are needlessly strangling the vitality and financial security of parishes.
Bishops need to recognize and admit that immense diocesan bureaucracies they have created are quickly becoming the object of mission rather than the agents of mission within the local Church. Diocesan agencies are now laying claim to more and more of the limited resources of local parishes with little benefit to the either the diocese or the parishes.
More and more, Pastors and parishioners view diocesan structures and policies as invasive, restrictive and wasteful of precious parish human and financial resources.
As one Pastor put it: “The best days are those when we receive nothing in the mail from the diocese!”
Fact Six: the center of gravity of American Catholicism has shifted (with the full and enthusiastic support of the Bishops) from the so-called “first world” to the “third world” in the numbers of immigrant (legal but mostly illlegal) Latinos who have entered the country.
Bishops need to admit and understand that their unconditional support of illegal immigrants flies in the face of the Catholic faithful who expect the Church and the Bishops to be respectful and observant of the rule of law.
Bishops need to recognize that this new wave of immigrant membership provides little support and, in fact, puts greater strain upon the limited resources available to parishes. Bishops further need to understand that the vast majority of Catholics view this “cultural globalism” as a threat to the American way of life not only religiously, but in the public square and workplace.
Bishops who are unaware of these facts or unwilling to admit them risk further alienating and disenfranchising the Catholic faithful entrusted to their pastoral care and service. Theirs is and remains the daunting task of proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord in its fulness in a way that inspires confidence, trust and fidelity to the Church.
The Bishops need our constant prayers to the Holy Spirit to inspire them in the work of shepherding God’s Holy People. God help them, be with them and bless them in all their effort and sacrifice.
Fact One: the Catholic Church in the United States exercise no discernible political influence whatsoever. There is no discernible “Catholic voting bloc” to garner the attention (or fear) of politicians in establishing public policy regarding the right to life, the funding of Planned Parenthood abortion advocacy, euthanasia, same sex marriage, transgender legislation, and other perversions of the moral order.
Catholic Bishops and the Catholic faithful are powerless in effecting any meaningful legislation reflecting moral values. The Church seems to have retreated from publicly witnessing the Faith and is largely apathetic in its challenges to the contemporary amorality universally apparent in American culture and society.
When the Bishops do voice objections to proposed or actual legislation they deem to be contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and the doctrines of the Church, they are largely and rather successfully portrayed to be whining defenders of values and virtues irrelevant and meaningless to the exigencies of life in the modern world. Curiously, they don't seem to object to that characterization, but rather acquiesce to it.
Quite simply, the public square does not look to the Catholic Bishops for inspiration or leadership on matters affecting American citizens.
The Bishops need to stop pretending that their political clout is non-existent and stop diverting their attention, energy and resource to push for legislative or governmental solutions to societal problems stemming from a lack of moral discipline and acceptance of personal responsibility.
Fact Two: commitment to established institutions has all but vanished. Americans’ relationships with the Church tend to be tentative and utilitarian. Affiliations with political parties are equally so, with most people identifying themselves as “independents” rather “establishment Republicans or Democrats”.
Research shows that the number of practicing Catholics in America (and worldwide for that matters has drastically decreased). Moreover, mounting evidence suggests that people are open and willing to switch religious affiliation at least twice in their lifetimes. Some studies suggest that there is a significant number who will switch among church denominations three times or more.
The Bishops need to accept the fact that the Church no longer enjoys the “spiritual hold” it once had over its membership. Bishops can no longer depend upon their self-proclaimed authority over their flocks to keep members within the fold.
Fact Three: the ecumenical movement, inspired by the Second Vatican Council, has succeeded in eliminating old suspicions and grudges. Pope Francis especially has been keen to encourage an abandonment of negative feelings toward persons of other faiths.
As a result, there is a growing trend among Catholics to succumb to a certain “indifferentism”, that is, the belief that it does not matter what religion a person professes, he or she can be saved nonetheless (a heresy soundly condemned by the Church).
Thus, the very idea of leaving the Catholic Church and joining another Christian denomination or even adopting a non-Christian faith tradition is no longer an anethema in the opinion of most Catholics today.
Fact Four: for those most part, Catholics are fiercely loyal and supportive of their local Pastors and parishes. They are less so of the Bishop and the diocese.
In truth, the relationship of the parish to the diocese may be described very well as a form of “commonwealth” in which affiliation with and allegiance to the Bishop is admitted and accepted, so long as the Bishop treats the parish with “benign neglect”.
Bishops need to recognize and admit that their authority over parishioners within their dioceses is always attenuated by the condition that they do not interfere with or disturb the internal affairs within those parishes.
Fact Five: diocesan bureaucratic structures are needlessly strangling the vitality and financial security of parishes.
Bishops need to recognize and admit that immense diocesan bureaucracies they have created are quickly becoming the object of mission rather than the agents of mission within the local Church. Diocesan agencies are now laying claim to more and more of the limited resources of local parishes with little benefit to the either the diocese or the parishes.
More and more, Pastors and parishioners view diocesan structures and policies as invasive, restrictive and wasteful of precious parish human and financial resources.
As one Pastor put it: “The best days are those when we receive nothing in the mail from the diocese!”
Fact Six: the center of gravity of American Catholicism has shifted (with the full and enthusiastic support of the Bishops) from the so-called “first world” to the “third world” in the numbers of immigrant (legal but mostly illlegal) Latinos who have entered the country.
Bishops need to admit and understand that their unconditional support of illegal immigrants flies in the face of the Catholic faithful who expect the Church and the Bishops to be respectful and observant of the rule of law.
Bishops need to recognize that this new wave of immigrant membership provides little support and, in fact, puts greater strain upon the limited resources available to parishes. Bishops further need to understand that the vast majority of Catholics view this “cultural globalism” as a threat to the American way of life not only religiously, but in the public square and workplace.
Bishops who are unaware of these facts or unwilling to admit them risk further alienating and disenfranchising the Catholic faithful entrusted to their pastoral care and service. Theirs is and remains the daunting task of proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord in its fulness in a way that inspires confidence, trust and fidelity to the Church.
The Bishops need our constant prayers to the Holy Spirit to inspire them in the work of shepherding God’s Holy People. God help them, be with them and bless them in all their effort and sacrifice.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
ON PROPER FORM AND FOLLOW THROUGH
I have been a life-long bowler. I love the game.
I was not ever very much of an athlete, but I always qualified for the varsity bowling teams both in minor and major seminary. I confess that I spent perhaps more hours than I should have on the lanes donated to the North American College in Rome by Pope John XXIII (who never quite understood the game).
Of course, the key to bowling and many other sports is consistency. And that consistency depends exclusively on proper form and follow through!
When my bowling score suffered, it was because I wasn’t concentrating on these two fundamentals: form and follow through.
Well, though there will be those who deny the obvious: the Church is suffering right now. In numerous preceding posts, I have chronicled the surveys and reports of the decline in the number of Catholics who actively embrace and practice the Faith.
It appears that, in response to this reality, the Bishops have seen fit to abandon the proclamation of the Gospel with its focus upon the generous dispensation of God’s forgiveness and Grace and replace it with a new creed, the tenets of which proclaim that human beings, if they apply themselves to introspection and hard work, can accomplish anything, for good or ill.
According to this creed: there is no problem in a person’s life for which there is not an individual solution.
Extending the implications of this belief beyond the individual, the new creed suggests that, in terms of society in general, there is no problem for which there in not a solution, if enough personal and financial resources are brought to bear.
The Bride of Christ has been sacrificed upon the altar of self-help programs and social-engineering schemes.
Just go to the USCCB website and read the various statements and proclamations of the American Bishops. Their documents sounds eerily like the political platform of the Democratic Party: all of societies ills can be treated by government programs which are generously funded by tax revenues.
What about man’s sinful condition? What about the need for personal conversion and that very little concept articulated in Catholic circles nowadays: personal responsibility? What about the need to humble oneself before the Divine Creator and ask forgiveness? What about developing a virtuous practice of prayer, both personal and communal? What about pursuing personal sanctity based upon an ongoing study of the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church?
When Bishops speak these days, they are either apologizing (through spokespersons) for yet another scandal or offering opinions which sound more like political stump speeches than calls to Faith.
We have indeed lost a sense of the sacred in our Church. And the more we continue to advocate the gospel of social reform, the more the Church will continue to suffer losses among those once faithfully committed to the Faith.
True, there is both a vertical and horizontal dimension to living the Christian Faith. We are reminded of that vividly and often by Saint Paul who admonishes believers to not just be hearers of the Word but to give life to that Word in the care of those most in need of its message.
We cannot love God Whom we do not see, Jesus tells us, if we do not love our neighbor whom we do see.
The trouble in today’s Church is that the Bishops have somehow collectively forgotten that both dimensions are necessary in living the Christian Faith. And perhaps, the most important is the vertical dimension which inspires and sustains the horizontal.
Sadly, the Bishops stop way too short in the leadership of Christ’s faithful. They lack proper form and follow through!
In the end, the Church is suffering greatly.
I was not ever very much of an athlete, but I always qualified for the varsity bowling teams both in minor and major seminary. I confess that I spent perhaps more hours than I should have on the lanes donated to the North American College in Rome by Pope John XXIII (who never quite understood the game).
Of course, the key to bowling and many other sports is consistency. And that consistency depends exclusively on proper form and follow through!
When my bowling score suffered, it was because I wasn’t concentrating on these two fundamentals: form and follow through.
Well, though there will be those who deny the obvious: the Church is suffering right now. In numerous preceding posts, I have chronicled the surveys and reports of the decline in the number of Catholics who actively embrace and practice the Faith.
It appears that, in response to this reality, the Bishops have seen fit to abandon the proclamation of the Gospel with its focus upon the generous dispensation of God’s forgiveness and Grace and replace it with a new creed, the tenets of which proclaim that human beings, if they apply themselves to introspection and hard work, can accomplish anything, for good or ill.
According to this creed: there is no problem in a person’s life for which there is not an individual solution.
Extending the implications of this belief beyond the individual, the new creed suggests that, in terms of society in general, there is no problem for which there in not a solution, if enough personal and financial resources are brought to bear.
The Bride of Christ has been sacrificed upon the altar of self-help programs and social-engineering schemes.
Just go to the USCCB website and read the various statements and proclamations of the American Bishops. Their documents sounds eerily like the political platform of the Democratic Party: all of societies ills can be treated by government programs which are generously funded by tax revenues.
What about man’s sinful condition? What about the need for personal conversion and that very little concept articulated in Catholic circles nowadays: personal responsibility? What about the need to humble oneself before the Divine Creator and ask forgiveness? What about developing a virtuous practice of prayer, both personal and communal? What about pursuing personal sanctity based upon an ongoing study of the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church?
When Bishops speak these days, they are either apologizing (through spokespersons) for yet another scandal or offering opinions which sound more like political stump speeches than calls to Faith.
We have indeed lost a sense of the sacred in our Church. And the more we continue to advocate the gospel of social reform, the more the Church will continue to suffer losses among those once faithfully committed to the Faith.
True, there is both a vertical and horizontal dimension to living the Christian Faith. We are reminded of that vividly and often by Saint Paul who admonishes believers to not just be hearers of the Word but to give life to that Word in the care of those most in need of its message.
We cannot love God Whom we do not see, Jesus tells us, if we do not love our neighbor whom we do see.
The trouble in today’s Church is that the Bishops have somehow collectively forgotten that both dimensions are necessary in living the Christian Faith. And perhaps, the most important is the vertical dimension which inspires and sustains the horizontal.
Sadly, the Bishops stop way too short in the leadership of Christ’s faithful. They lack proper form and follow through!
In the end, the Church is suffering greatly.
Monday, July 31, 2017
YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET
The Catholic Church should end the celibacy vow, a group of senior Priests in Germany has said.
In an open letter, the group of 11 high ranking Clerics said every man should have the right to choose to take the vow or not.
The retired Clerics were ordained in Cologne in 1967, and wrote the letter as part of a review of their 50 years in the Catholic church.
“We think, every Catholic should be allowed to choose if they would rather be celibate or not, regardless of whether they want to work as Priests or not - just like in the Protestant Church or the Orthodox church, really, every church but the Catholic Church.”
The group argues that celibacy causes many modern Priests to suffer from seclusion and believe the men have little to gain from church-imposed solitude.
"What moves us is the experience of loneliness - as elderly people who are unmarried because our office required this from us, we feel it vividly on some days after 50 years on the job… We agreed to this clerical life because of our jobs, but we didn't choose it," the group wrote.
The canonical discipline, believed to have been introduced in the fourth century and codified into Church law centuries later, requires men to be unmarried in order to be ordained, and to practice sexual abstinence.
Proponents of clerical celibacy see it as “a special gift of God” where they can devote themselves to their Bishops more freely.
However, according to theologian Wunibald Müller, many Priests struggle with the vow. He says some overcompensate for their loneliness by over-eating, drinking to excess or worse. "Even if you decide to live celibate, your sexuality is still there," he said. "If someone suppresses their desires, for warmth, for intimacy, this can backfire - they are more likely to cross a line, to abuse their position of trust to get intimacy."
For his part, the Holy Father seems more and more clear in favoring the possibility of married Priests, at least under certain circumstances. One thing is for certain: he believes it is a decision the Bishops (in their local conferences) should make, not just he and his collaborators in Rome.
A key development along this path came in mid-June at the latest round of talks on Vatican reform that Francis held with his advisory Council of Cardinals (C9).
It was announced that the C9 proposed the possibility of allowing National Bishops’ Conferences the authority, now held by the Congregation for the Clergy, to decide whether or not to ordain an unmarried or widowed permanent deacon to the priesthood or to allow a widowed deacon to remarry.
The proposal may be the first step towards recognizing the discretion which Bishops of a nation or region rightfully enjoy to decide, without the need for Vatican approval, regarding the dispensation of certain current restrictions on Priestly ordination. It will take time, but it is a beginning that could lead to further development.
The principle is clearly being enunciated now and Pope Francis appears to have no fear in giving voice to such a proposal.
But the Holy Father and the Church itself need to understand that this is only the first step toward the eventual and universal acceptance of married Priests.
To think that one part of the Church will decide to revive the most ancient tradition of a married Priesthood and that other parts will be denied that same privilege is disingenuous at best.
Of course, we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of negative criticism that will accompany any serious discussion of clerical celibacy. There will be those Bishops, some in positions of influence, who will decry any reform which pertains to Clerical celibacy as the "final nail in the coffin of the Church."
These Bishops believe that they, and they alone, can best defend against the Church’s demise by holding to a strict and rigid adherence to norms and rubrics, an obsession to control and rule Christ’s faithful and decide the ordering of ecclesial life.
I have suggested before that the upcoming Synod on Youth and Vocations will be the forum in which the issue of optional celibacy with the Latin Church will be discussed and resolved.
To those who say that Amoris Laetitae created a firestorm of controversy and division within Church ranks, I say "just wait!"
As Al Jolson used to tell his audiences at the beginning of his act: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
In an open letter, the group of 11 high ranking Clerics said every man should have the right to choose to take the vow or not.
The retired Clerics were ordained in Cologne in 1967, and wrote the letter as part of a review of their 50 years in the Catholic church.
“We think, every Catholic should be allowed to choose if they would rather be celibate or not, regardless of whether they want to work as Priests or not - just like in the Protestant Church or the Orthodox church, really, every church but the Catholic Church.”
The group argues that celibacy causes many modern Priests to suffer from seclusion and believe the men have little to gain from church-imposed solitude.
"What moves us is the experience of loneliness - as elderly people who are unmarried because our office required this from us, we feel it vividly on some days after 50 years on the job… We agreed to this clerical life because of our jobs, but we didn't choose it," the group wrote.
The canonical discipline, believed to have been introduced in the fourth century and codified into Church law centuries later, requires men to be unmarried in order to be ordained, and to practice sexual abstinence.
Proponents of clerical celibacy see it as “a special gift of God” where they can devote themselves to their Bishops more freely.
However, according to theologian Wunibald Müller, many Priests struggle with the vow. He says some overcompensate for their loneliness by over-eating, drinking to excess or worse. "Even if you decide to live celibate, your sexuality is still there," he said. "If someone suppresses their desires, for warmth, for intimacy, this can backfire - they are more likely to cross a line, to abuse their position of trust to get intimacy."
For his part, the Holy Father seems more and more clear in favoring the possibility of married Priests, at least under certain circumstances. One thing is for certain: he believes it is a decision the Bishops (in their local conferences) should make, not just he and his collaborators in Rome.
A key development along this path came in mid-June at the latest round of talks on Vatican reform that Francis held with his advisory Council of Cardinals (C9).
It was announced that the C9 proposed the possibility of allowing National Bishops’ Conferences the authority, now held by the Congregation for the Clergy, to decide whether or not to ordain an unmarried or widowed permanent deacon to the priesthood or to allow a widowed deacon to remarry.
The proposal may be the first step towards recognizing the discretion which Bishops of a nation or region rightfully enjoy to decide, without the need for Vatican approval, regarding the dispensation of certain current restrictions on Priestly ordination. It will take time, but it is a beginning that could lead to further development.
The principle is clearly being enunciated now and Pope Francis appears to have no fear in giving voice to such a proposal.
But the Holy Father and the Church itself need to understand that this is only the first step toward the eventual and universal acceptance of married Priests.
To think that one part of the Church will decide to revive the most ancient tradition of a married Priesthood and that other parts will be denied that same privilege is disingenuous at best.
Of course, we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of negative criticism that will accompany any serious discussion of clerical celibacy. There will be those Bishops, some in positions of influence, who will decry any reform which pertains to Clerical celibacy as the "final nail in the coffin of the Church."
These Bishops believe that they, and they alone, can best defend against the Church’s demise by holding to a strict and rigid adherence to norms and rubrics, an obsession to control and rule Christ’s faithful and decide the ordering of ecclesial life.
I have suggested before that the upcoming Synod on Youth and Vocations will be the forum in which the issue of optional celibacy with the Latin Church will be discussed and resolved.
To those who say that Amoris Laetitae created a firestorm of controversy and division within Church ranks, I say "just wait!"
As Al Jolson used to tell his audiences at the beginning of his act: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
BAMBINO GESU HOSPITAL FUNDS EMBEZZLED IN KICKBACK SCHEME INVOLVING CARDINAL BERTONE
The Holy See has formally charged two former officers of Bambino Gesu Hospital, the Vatican’s pediatric medical center, on charges of illegally using funds to help finance the remodeling of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s apartment within Vatican City.
Giuseppe Profiti, former President of the hospital until 2015, and Massimo Spina, the former Treasurer, will be called to appear before Vatican judges beginning July 18.
Since the Holy See has no jurisdiction outside its territorial and extra-territorial properties, the indicted former officials cannot be arrested by Vatican authorities. However, if the two men do not present themselves to the court on the opening trial date, they will be charged with contempt by the Vatican court.
Profiti, 55, and Spina, 57, are charged with illicit use of funds belonging to the Bambino Gesu Foundation to pay Gianantonio Bandera, an Italian contractor, to refurbish an apartment belonging to Vatican City State and used as the residence of Cardinal Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State.
The indictment charges that Profiti and Spina “were paid” more than 420,000 Euros for “completely non-institutional ends” by using the money to refurbish Vatican property in order “to benefit Gianantonio Bandera’s company.”
It said the alleged crime committed in Vatican City State spanned from November 2013 to May 28, 2014 — the time period that the contractor’s seven invoices were dated and paid for, according to news reports.
Profiti, who had been President of the hospital since 2008, resigned in January 2015, less than a year into a renewed three-year term, amid rumors of the alleged kickback scheme. The revelations emerged after Emiliano Fittipaldi, a journalist acquitted in a Vatican trial in 2016 for publishing allegedly stolen Vatican documents, published his findings in early 2016.
According to documents published by L’Espresso magazine, Profiti wrote Cardinal Bertone in late 2013, allegedly offering to pay for the remodeling using hospital foundation money in exchange for being able to use the top floor of the Cardinal’s residence for work-related gatherings.
Profiti had been sentenced with six months’ house arrest while he was still hospital President after being found guilty in 2008 of bribes and kickbacks when assigning or promising contracts to companies bidding for providing food services to public schools and hospitals in the cities of Genoa and Savona. At least four others were found guilty in the same investigation. Amazingly, Profiti was named President of Bambino Gesu Hospital that very same year he was convicted.
For his part in this scandal, Cardinal Bertone is alleged to have accepted the Profiti’s proposal, adding that he would make sure the costs were taken care of by a “third party” so that the foundation would not have to pay.
Mariella Enoc, current hospital President, told reporters in late 2015, “Cardinal Bertone never directly received money (from the hospital’s foundation), but recognized that we suffered a loss and, therefore, assisted us with a donation of 150,000 Euros.”
Cardinal Bertone repeatedly and falsely disputed news reports about the size of the apartment and its cost. He has steadfastly insisted that he personally paid the Vatican, which owns the apartment, for the work done. Until this moment, Cardinal Berton has never made mention of a "third party" contribution to cover the cost of remodeling his apartment.
Cardinal Bertone is not under investigation.
Why not?
The fact that the Cardinal continues to reside in Vatican City in a settings that rival the monarchs of Medieval Europe and in such contrast to the humble residence of the Holy Father himself is certainly a cause of wonderment to many.
The Holy Father would be well served by inviting His Eminence to take up residence elsewhere and perhaps assist him in that change of address by adding his name to the list of those indicted in this latest Vatican scandal.
Giuseppe Profiti, former President of the hospital until 2015, and Massimo Spina, the former Treasurer, will be called to appear before Vatican judges beginning July 18.
Since the Holy See has no jurisdiction outside its territorial and extra-territorial properties, the indicted former officials cannot be arrested by Vatican authorities. However, if the two men do not present themselves to the court on the opening trial date, they will be charged with contempt by the Vatican court.
Profiti, 55, and Spina, 57, are charged with illicit use of funds belonging to the Bambino Gesu Foundation to pay Gianantonio Bandera, an Italian contractor, to refurbish an apartment belonging to Vatican City State and used as the residence of Cardinal Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State.
The indictment charges that Profiti and Spina “were paid” more than 420,000 Euros for “completely non-institutional ends” by using the money to refurbish Vatican property in order “to benefit Gianantonio Bandera’s company.”
It said the alleged crime committed in Vatican City State spanned from November 2013 to May 28, 2014 — the time period that the contractor’s seven invoices were dated and paid for, according to news reports.
Profiti, who had been President of the hospital since 2008, resigned in January 2015, less than a year into a renewed three-year term, amid rumors of the alleged kickback scheme. The revelations emerged after Emiliano Fittipaldi, a journalist acquitted in a Vatican trial in 2016 for publishing allegedly stolen Vatican documents, published his findings in early 2016.
According to documents published by L’Espresso magazine, Profiti wrote Cardinal Bertone in late 2013, allegedly offering to pay for the remodeling using hospital foundation money in exchange for being able to use the top floor of the Cardinal’s residence for work-related gatherings.
Profiti had been sentenced with six months’ house arrest while he was still hospital President after being found guilty in 2008 of bribes and kickbacks when assigning or promising contracts to companies bidding for providing food services to public schools and hospitals in the cities of Genoa and Savona. At least four others were found guilty in the same investigation. Amazingly, Profiti was named President of Bambino Gesu Hospital that very same year he was convicted.
For his part in this scandal, Cardinal Bertone is alleged to have accepted the Profiti’s proposal, adding that he would make sure the costs were taken care of by a “third party” so that the foundation would not have to pay.
Mariella Enoc, current hospital President, told reporters in late 2015, “Cardinal Bertone never directly received money (from the hospital’s foundation), but recognized that we suffered a loss and, therefore, assisted us with a donation of 150,000 Euros.”
Cardinal Bertone repeatedly and falsely disputed news reports about the size of the apartment and its cost. He has steadfastly insisted that he personally paid the Vatican, which owns the apartment, for the work done. Until this moment, Cardinal Berton has never made mention of a "third party" contribution to cover the cost of remodeling his apartment.
Cardinal Bertone is not under investigation.
Why not?
The fact that the Cardinal continues to reside in Vatican City in a settings that rival the monarchs of Medieval Europe and in such contrast to the humble residence of the Holy Father himself is certainly a cause of wonderment to many.
The Holy Father would be well served by inviting His Eminence to take up residence elsewhere and perhaps assist him in that change of address by adding his name to the list of those indicted in this latest Vatican scandal.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
CARDINAL COCCOPALMERIO: AN EXEMPLARY INCREMENTALIST
Recently, the National Catholic Register published a rather long and intriguing interview of Cardinal Coccopalmerio by Ed Pentin.
The interview forcused upon the Cardinal’s publication of a book entitled, The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
One of Pentin’s questions and the Cardinal’s responses caught my attention:
PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the Priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?
CARD. COCCOPALMERIO: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis.
I would simply ask His Eminence what need have we of hypothesizing over matters the Church definitively has resolved by way of its Magisterial authority.
The fact is (or at least used to be) that truths of the Faith revealed by Our Lord in Scripture and Tradition are not always easy to accept, especially in a world that seeks to make all truth subjective. Truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable.
And with that, we arrive at the crossroads of the dilemma facing the Church today.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio suggests that those who accept the traditional teachings of the Church believe that they can attain certainty in the uncertain world of their making.
His Eminence (and perhaps the Holy Father himself) would have us begin to think about Church teaching (and discipline) in terms of probabilities, that is, suggesting that certain teachings are true without ruling out the possibility that their opposites may also be true.
The new moral compass of the Church appears reticent about teachings which have been declared to be true “by Magisterial definition” or “by logical deduction” proceeding from either Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
The new moral compass of the Church might be summed up as follows: In the hypothetical world of logic and rational analysis, if A>B and B>C, then it is necessarily true that A>C.
But, in the real world of personal experience and the exigencies of life, such logic does not apply.
And so, every choice open to human beings rests not upon the clear judgment of truth supplied by reason and conscience, but upon the possible choices confronting an individual in the overall context of that person’s situation or circumstance.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio's call to to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood and instead to rethink the question of Priesthood not on the basis rational notions of validity or invalidity but rather on notions concerning an indefinable communion of Christian Faith is a perfect example of what can been described as “incrementalism”.
In his haste to defend Amoris Laetitia, the Cardinal (intentionally or not) introduces a wedge between moral certainty and moral opinion, seeming quite comfortable in preferring the latter over the former. Not that he denies the truth of Church teachings, but is open to the possibility that they apply only partially in most, if not all, situations.
Thus, a person can accept the Church’s opposition to abortion as an act of murder and support a ban against its legality in all cases, except those involving rape or incest.
One can accept the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony, except in those cases in which one feels that the obligations imposed by the free acceptance of the marital bond demand an heroic observation of which they are incapable.
One can define Priesthood not as a Sacrament which ontologically transforms a man in persona Christi, but rather a ministry which serves the community of Christian believer no matter the content or quality of their faith.
And so, the Deposit of Faith is destined to suffer a "death of a thousand cuts". Little by little, slowly and painfully, truth will be so undercut and muddles as to be irrelevant and ineffectual in mankind's eternal hope of salvation.
In the end, what I find most surprising these days is not the fact that there are Catholics, even in elevated positions of influence, who espouse positions such as these.
Rather, what I find most intriguing and not a little disturbing is the number of such individuals who are eager and anxious to accept their opinions.
Whether they should be envied or pitied will be the judgment of history and the Lord.
For myself, I remain most comfortable in maintaining that truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable, no matter how difficult to accept.
The interview forcused upon the Cardinal’s publication of a book entitled, The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
One of Pentin’s questions and the Cardinal’s responses caught my attention:
PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the Priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?
CARD. COCCOPALMERIO: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis.
I would simply ask His Eminence what need have we of hypothesizing over matters the Church definitively has resolved by way of its Magisterial authority.
The fact is (or at least used to be) that truths of the Faith revealed by Our Lord in Scripture and Tradition are not always easy to accept, especially in a world that seeks to make all truth subjective. Truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable.
And with that, we arrive at the crossroads of the dilemma facing the Church today.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio suggests that those who accept the traditional teachings of the Church believe that they can attain certainty in the uncertain world of their making.
His Eminence (and perhaps the Holy Father himself) would have us begin to think about Church teaching (and discipline) in terms of probabilities, that is, suggesting that certain teachings are true without ruling out the possibility that their opposites may also be true.
The new moral compass of the Church appears reticent about teachings which have been declared to be true “by Magisterial definition” or “by logical deduction” proceeding from either Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
The new moral compass of the Church might be summed up as follows: In the hypothetical world of logic and rational analysis, if A>B and B>C, then it is necessarily true that A>C.
But, in the real world of personal experience and the exigencies of life, such logic does not apply.
And so, every choice open to human beings rests not upon the clear judgment of truth supplied by reason and conscience, but upon the possible choices confronting an individual in the overall context of that person’s situation or circumstance.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio's call to to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood and instead to rethink the question of Priesthood not on the basis rational notions of validity or invalidity but rather on notions concerning an indefinable communion of Christian Faith is a perfect example of what can been described as “incrementalism”.
In his haste to defend Amoris Laetitia, the Cardinal (intentionally or not) introduces a wedge between moral certainty and moral opinion, seeming quite comfortable in preferring the latter over the former. Not that he denies the truth of Church teachings, but is open to the possibility that they apply only partially in most, if not all, situations.
Thus, a person can accept the Church’s opposition to abortion as an act of murder and support a ban against its legality in all cases, except those involving rape or incest.
One can accept the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony, except in those cases in which one feels that the obligations imposed by the free acceptance of the marital bond demand an heroic observation of which they are incapable.
One can define Priesthood not as a Sacrament which ontologically transforms a man in persona Christi, but rather a ministry which serves the community of Christian believer no matter the content or quality of their faith.
And so, the Deposit of Faith is destined to suffer a "death of a thousand cuts". Little by little, slowly and painfully, truth will be so undercut and muddles as to be irrelevant and ineffectual in mankind's eternal hope of salvation.
In the end, what I find most surprising these days is not the fact that there are Catholics, even in elevated positions of influence, who espouse positions such as these.
Rather, what I find most intriguing and not a little disturbing is the number of such individuals who are eager and anxious to accept their opinions.
Whether they should be envied or pitied will be the judgment of history and the Lord.
For myself, I remain most comfortable in maintaining that truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable, no matter how difficult to accept.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
STOPPING THE MEDIA'S SPIN REGARDING POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI LETTER READ AT CARDINAL MEISNER'S FUNERAL
Pope Benedict XVI sent a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Meisner, saying he was moved at the Cardinal's ability to "live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing."
The Church "stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the Papal household. Because of this "pressing need," Cardinal Meisner "found it difficult to leave his post,” the retired Pope stated.
The secular media was quick in interpreting the statement to be unconcealed disdain from one Pope to his successor, delivered in front of the world.
Cardinal Meisner, 83, who was one of four cardinals who had been in direct conflict with Francis over his controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), which has softened church rules on divorce and Holy Communion.
Archbishop Gänswein denounced suggestions that the retired Pontiff had intended to criticize Pope Francis with a statement issued for the death of Cardinal Meisner.
Archbishop Gänswein charged that those who gave such a dramatic interpretation of the former Pope’s words had “deliberately exploited” him. He said that Benedict “wasn’t alluding to anything specific” with his reference to a storm-tossed ship.
In fact, Benedict XVI had used similar language frequently during his own pontificate.
Archbishop Gänswein told Il Giornale that “stupid” people were “trying to use the Pope-emeritus in an anti-Francis tone.”
We regret the Archbishop's use of insults in defending the Pope Emeritus.
We are grateful to the Archbishop, however, for clearing up any confusion that may have arisen as a result of the retired Pope’s letter. The clarification needed to be made and the secular media’s spin stopped in its tracks.
Still, perhaps the Church and the Papal Office itself would be best served by the Pope Emeritus's public silence henceforth.
Certainly, any sentiments he may wish to express on any topic can be directly and discreetly communicated so that no public misinterpretation or spin is possible.
The Church "stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the Papal household. Because of this "pressing need," Cardinal Meisner "found it difficult to leave his post,” the retired Pope stated.
The secular media was quick in interpreting the statement to be unconcealed disdain from one Pope to his successor, delivered in front of the world.
Cardinal Meisner, 83, who was one of four cardinals who had been in direct conflict with Francis over his controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), which has softened church rules on divorce and Holy Communion.
Archbishop Gänswein denounced suggestions that the retired Pontiff had intended to criticize Pope Francis with a statement issued for the death of Cardinal Meisner.
Archbishop Gänswein charged that those who gave such a dramatic interpretation of the former Pope’s words had “deliberately exploited” him. He said that Benedict “wasn’t alluding to anything specific” with his reference to a storm-tossed ship.
In fact, Benedict XVI had used similar language frequently during his own pontificate.
Archbishop Gänswein told Il Giornale that “stupid” people were “trying to use the Pope-emeritus in an anti-Francis tone.”
We regret the Archbishop's use of insults in defending the Pope Emeritus.
We are grateful to the Archbishop, however, for clearing up any confusion that may have arisen as a result of the retired Pope’s letter. The clarification needed to be made and the secular media’s spin stopped in its tracks.
Still, perhaps the Church and the Papal Office itself would be best served by the Pope Emeritus's public silence henceforth.
Certainly, any sentiments he may wish to express on any topic can be directly and discreetly communicated so that no public misinterpretation or spin is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)