Is Francis 'gaslighting us' by defending the indefensible and, if so, does this tell us something about his psychological make up?
What will happen when people are not in a state of grace are massive amounts of demonic possession and oppression. People will go mad because their personal conscience said we are ok. Be prepared Thank you!!!
The Youth Synod cross (worn by PF and his bishops) is a bit of a giveaway, no? It gets sicker and sicker and sicker and ……
The Case of Theodore McCarrick A Failure of Fraternal Correction By Boniface Ramsey | October 29, 2018 | https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/case-theodore-mccarrick I taught at Immaculate Conception Seminary from the late 1980s until 1996, when Theodore McCarrick was archbishop of Newark and Immaculate Conception was his seminary. What I heard in those days about McCarrick’s misbehavior with seminarians I used to refer to, until very recently, as rumors. Now I realize that “rumors” was not the right word, because rumor suggests uncertainty. What the seminarians would talk about among themselves and with some members of the faculty were experiences that they themselves had undergone, or that they had heard others had undergone. It may have been gossip, but it was gossip about real events. Most people who have been following the case of Theodore McCarrick know by now that he had a beach house on the Jersey Shore at his disposal and that he would regularly request seminarians to visit it with him. This is how it went: he or his secretary would contact the seminary and ask for five specific seminarians, or would just contact the seminarians directly. Understandably, a request from one’s archbishop could not easily be refused. When McCarrick and the five seminarians arrived at the beach house, there were six men and only five beds. McCarrick would send four of his guests to four of the available beds and then tell the fifth seminarian that he would “bunk” with him in a separate room. When bedtime came, McCarrick stripped himself naked, almost always in front of the seminarian, before putting on some bedclothes. The expectation was that the seminarian would do the same, although some managed to avoid this by going to the bathroom or by some other ruse. Sometimes, I was told, the five seminarians raced from the car to the house to claim beds for themselves, and the slowest ended up with the archbishop. Whenever a seminarian who had slept in the same bed as McCarrick shared his experience with a faculty member, the common response was “Did he touch you?” As I search my memory for what happened thirty years ago, this may very well have been my response, too. I never heard that McCarrick touched anyone. Since there was no touching and concepts like sexual harassment and abuse of power were rather unfamiliar at the time, and since there was no precedent for how to deal with an archbishop who slept with his seminarians but didn’t touch them, there seemed nothing to do but to accept this unusual behavior. The behavior was not only unusual; it was also wrong. But why? Because it was unbecoming of an archbishop? Because some seminarians were the objects of their archbishop’s attention and others weren’t? (He liked to refer to his favorites as “nephews” and to himself as their “Uncle Ted.”) Because it was a near occasion of sin? In any event, what member of the faculty would approach the archbishop to tell him that it just wasn’t right? It must be emphasized here not only that sexual harassment and abuse of power were things people worried less about back then, but also that no one at the time knew anything of the allegations of child abuse that would be made against McCarrick and revealed by the New York Times in June of this year. There was only his unusual behavior with seminarians, which seemed to be accepted by everyone. Eventually, though, I began to have difficulty accepting it. The unusual behavior was exacerbated by the silence surrounding it; I sensed no disapproval, just a kind of resignation. I was a newcomer on the seminary scene and, at that time, a Dominican friar rather than a priest of the diocese of Newark. Perhaps I was able to view the situation with more critical distance than the other faculty members. In search of advice, I spoke with a fellow Dominican whose counsel I respected. It was obvious to him that I should bring my concerns to the rector of the seminary, which I did sometime in the late ’80s (I no longer remember exactly when). The rector knew exactly what I was talking about and promised to do what he could to stop it, after admitting that he felt strung between his loyalty to his archbishop and his realization that what the archbishop was doing wasn’t right. Whatever the rector may have done—and I believe he took some sort of action—McCarrick was unperturbed, and the visits to the beach house continued. Sometime in the early ’90s (again, I no longer remember the exact date), the voting members of the faculty had their customary meeting at the end of the academic year to discuss the seminarians and their possible promotion to the next year. One of those seminarians was a man who, for several reasons, I believed should be expelled. I raised my concerns with the other voting members; they agreed with me, and the student was expelled. When I returned to the seminary to begin the next academic year, the rector (different than the one to whom I had brought my concerns some years previously) told me that McCarrick knew that I was largely responsible for the expulsion of the seminarian in question, and that in consequence he had removed me from the voting faculty. I have come to realize, in retrospect, that McCarrick must have learned this from another member of the voting faculty who was present, and that this was a breach of confidence. Shortly after this I telephoned the archbishop of Louisville, Thomas Kelly, a friend of mine now deceased, to tell him what had happened. I recall what he said—that “we all know” that McCarrick had “picked up” someone at an airport. From what I understand, McCarrick had met a good-looking flight attendant and invited him to become a seminarian then and there. (I’ve been told this was not the only such spontaneous invitation.) Whether this person shared McCarrick’s bed at the beach house or anywhere else, I don’t know, but he was clearly significant enough in McCarrick’s eyes for McCarrick to fire me when I led the charge to have him expelled. I understood that the “we” of “we all know” meant McCarrick’s fellow bishops. This was my first inkling that knowledge of McCarrick’s behavior was not restricted to the seminary, or to the archdiocese of Newark, but was widespread among the American bishops. In late 1995 a change of assignment in the Dominican province made it impossible for me to continue teaching at Immaculate Conception, and I resigned from my professorship there in the spring of 1996. While at my new assignment I didn’t forget McCarrick and his strange behavior with seminarians, but it wasn’t something that I dwelled on—that is, not until November 2000, when the nunciature in Washington announced that McCarrick had been appointed archbishop of Washington, D.C. The idea that someone who had shared a bed with his own seminarians would now move from Newark, to the prestigious see of Washington, and inevitably become a cardinal, flabbergasted and enraged me. Didn’t people know of McCarrick’s reputation? I put my thoughts on the matter in a letter addressed to the nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, and telephoned him to tell him to expect a letter from me. I decided to mention my letter to a priest friend in Newark, who warned me not to send it. He said that it would be shown to McCarrick, who would try to hurt me in some way. Two days later I telephoned Archbishop Montalvo a second time in order to tell him that he shouldn’t expect a letter from me because I was afraid that McCarrick would see it. (So much for the courage that some people have attributed to me!) I remember Montalvo’s response clearly: “Send me the letter!” he said. “What do you think, we are fools? Send the letter!” I have never known for sure why Montalvo was so emphatic. Was it perhaps because he needed documentation to use in an argument of his own against McCarrick? I mailed the letter the same day, November 24, and never received an acknowledgement. A letter dated Oct. 11, 2006 from Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, then substitute for the Vatican Secretariat of State, to Father Boniface Ramsey (CNS photo/courtesy of Father Boniface Ramsey) A sort of acknowledgement, however, did arrive six years later in the form of a request in October 2006 from Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, a high official in the Vatican Secretariat of State. Without mentioning McCarrick’s name, Sandri asked me if I knew whether a young priest of the archdiocese of Newark who was being considered for a post in the Vatican had been implicated in the activities I had cited in my letter of November 2000 to Archbishop Montalvo. I replied that, as far as I knew, he had not been involved. Importantly, Sandri’s letter proved that the nuncio had indeed received my letter and that it had been forwarded to the Vatican, where its contents were undoubtedly known not only to Sandri but to others as well. continued...
continued from above... Meanwhile, in July 2004, in the course of a conversation with New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan, who had welcomed me into his archdiocese as a diocesan priest, I had an occasion to bring up the topic of McCarrick’s behavior. Cardinal Egan did not want to discuss this, and we went on to other topics. But it was perfectly obvious from his immediate reaction that he knew about McCarrick. During the years between 2006 and 2015 I was not involved in anything related to McCarrick. But it was not an uneventful time for those who were building a case against him. If one is to trust the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, accounts of McCarrick’s misbehavior with seminarians had by now reached the ears of Pope Benedict XVI. And all the while stories were being circulated that went far beyond anything that had occurred at the beach house on the Jersey Shore. If one were curious, one could go online, search Theodore McCarrick, and come up with material that was hardly imaginable even to those whose respect for the man was close to nil. In March 2015 I attended Cardinal Egan’s funeral in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and I noticed McCarrick among the concelebrants. I felt anger and bewilderment. What was he doing there? Didn’t everyone know about him? Hadn’t Egan himself known? The person to whom I thought I could express my concerns was Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, who headed the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. If there was anyone who might know how to deal with the sexual harassment of seminarians, surely it was he. Consequently I wrote to O’Malley in June of that year, and asked that he forward my letter to the relevant authorities if my concerns did not come under his mandate. The cardinal’s secretary replied within a few days and said that information I had brought forward did not fall under the cardinal’s jurisdiction. Not a word about forwarding my letter, which I suspected O’Malley had not read. Soon after that I asked the same friend who had advised me in the late ’80s to talk to the rector of Immaculate Conception Seminary whether or not I should continue to pursue McCarrick. He felt that I shouldn’t, and that McCarrick should be left in his old age to deal with his conscience, and with God. I decided to leave it at that. What a surprise it was for me to read in the New York Times in late June of this year that allegations of child abuse had been leveled against McCarrick. Most of us thought that he was interested only in young men, and that he might have been satisfied only with physical proximity. With the new allegations we were entering another realm entirely. This is when I contacted reporters at the Times and told them about my efforts to report McCarrick’s behavior with seminarians. Now so much that had been covered up for so many years at last came out—though quite likely not everything. And of course the revelations about McCarrick were soon followed by the report of the Pennsylvania district attorney. The second phase of the American church’s sexual-abuse crisis had begun. The anger that has arisen among Catholics in response to the cascade of information about McCarrick has been aimed at two things. First, there are the acts that McCarrick was accused of having committed. Second, there is the fact that many of McCarrick’s peers in the hierarchy seem to have been aware of at least some of those acts—specifically, those having to do with seminarians—and said nothing. McCarrick’s brazenness and lack of shame, his indifference to what others who knew of his behavior might have thought of him (and he ought to have known that they knew), are shocking enough. The fact that those who knew about at least some of his misconduct did not shun him—that he was accepted and even fêted by his peers—is every bit as shocking. There is talk now of a mechanism to address malfeasance in the hierarchy. Would I be naïve if I said that such a mechanism already exists and that its classic name is fraternal correction? There is a warrant for it in the Gospel: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault” (Matthew 18:15). At the very least, the bishops who knew about McCarrick should have asked him if what was being said about him was true. Who knows how he would have answered, but at least his brother bishops would have opened the door to fraternal correction. Of course, the worst deeds McCarrick is accused of were already behind him by the time he became a bishop, and there is no reason to suppose that other bishops knew about those. But if they had questioned him about his misconduct with seminarians, they would not have been dragged down with him when that misconduct later became public. As it is, his sins have tarnished them, and they are all too well aware of it. The case of Theodore McCarrick is, among other things, a case of the failure of fraternal correction. One way to make up for this failure would be for the ecclesiastical authorities, including Pope Francis, to act in a manner that is not only fair and swift (justice delayed is justice denied), but that also makes sense to the general public. An example of what doesn’t make sense to most people was the 2004 appointment of Cardinal Law as archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major in Rome after his missteps as archbishop of Boston brought the abuse crisis to a head in 2002. The Vatican may have viewed this as a demotion, but to the majority of the laity it seemed like a rather cushy assignment. McCarrick has recently been relegated to a religious house in Salina, Kansas, where he is to live “a life of prayer and penance,” but such a discipline may sound medieval and all too remote from the common experience of most Catholics today. If he is guilty of what he has been accused of, and if prison is not an option because of the statute of limitations, McCarrick’s public removal from the priesthood, not just the College of Cardinals, would be an appropriate and generally understandable response to his crimes and sins. The laicization of the cleric who was perhaps the most public face of the institutional church in the United States would also demonstrate that the victims of abuse, both children and adults, count for more in the church than the institution. After all, that institution exists for the sanctification of the individual members of the Body of Christ; the members do not exist for the institution. Father, then bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal: Theodore McCarrick had those titles and the corresponding responsibilities for our sake; his betrayal of them for his own purposes has made them meaningless.
Wow, another courageous soul steps forward. Will this be some of the support that Archbishop Vigano has been looking for? Maybe this will encourage others to step forward as well. Safety in numbers...
Fr. Ramsey makes no mention of Pope Francis. I guess that he doesn't know how much the hierarchy knew about his concerns.
Archbishop Vigano said that he told Pope Francis that the CDF had a file on Cardinal McCarrick. Fr. Ramsey's revelations confirm that somebody in Rome had at least one letter on file about the Cardinal and that the Vatican's Secretariat of State were aware of McCarrick's reputation.
As a Roman Catholic, we want and have been taught that the holy father is without blemish, that a cardinal is a "Prince of the church." Those days have been long gone for me. PF, he was elected albeit by a group of cardinals who have long lost their faith, ie the St Gallens group who the Blessed Mother warned us about, is the pope and perhaps the false prophet spoken about in scripture. We cling to every and any sign that he still holds to our Catholic beliefs. He is raping the faithful as he allowed Fr Grassi to rape children who were dumb and deaf. He has violated his zero tolerance policy when it has benefited him. He is THE definition of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rome has lost its faith and as this thread so appropriately states, the Vatican has fallen. God's ways are not our ways and Jesus I trust in you. Stay close to the sacraments and Our Lady and the faith of our FATHERS, not the new b.s. mercy PF and his minions are pushing. God is not mocked. It is amazing that the only Catholics PF judges are traditional ones. That tells you all you need to know.
Picadillo, can you please tell us where /when / how Our Lady warned about the St Gallen group? I had not heard that and would like to learn more about it. Thanks...
I also am curious , Paul , when and where did Our Lady warn about St Galllen's? Do you mean Fr Gobbi?
Whistleblower says bishop knew of sexual abuse allegations, but did nothing https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistl...abuse-allegations-but-did-nothing-60-minutes/ For the first time on television, the former executive assistant to Buffalo's Bishop Richard Malone explains why she decided to speak out against the bishop for not taking action against priests accused of sexual abuse 2018 Oct 28 CORRESPONDENT Bill Whitaker The Roman Catholic Church is facing its biggest crisis in the United States since the Boston sex abuse scandal 16 years ago. 13 states are now investigating whether abuse was concealed by church leaders, including bishops who head each diocese. We have learned one place under scrutiny by federal investigators is Buffalo, New York. In August, information about dozens of accused priests was leaked from the diocesan secret archive. What it revealed, infuriated many of Buffalo's 600,000 Catholics. Tonight, you will hear from a priest who will share his direct knowledge about what he has called a cover-up. But first, the anonymous whistleblower who uncovered proof that Bishop Richard Malone withheld the names of dozens of priests accused of abuse. "At the end of my life, I'm not going to answer to Bishop Malone. I'm going to answer to God." Until now, Siobhan O'Connor had carefully kept her identity secret. Siobhan O'Connor: I had to rely on God even more than I ever have before. She is the whistleblower who leaked records from the secret archive of the Diocese of Buffalo. Siobhan O'Connor worked closely with Bishop Richard Malone as his executive assistant for three years. Last week she spoke with the FBI. Correspondent Bill Whitaker with Siobhan O'Connor Bill Whitaker: Some people would say that you betrayed Bishop Malone. Siobhan O'Connor: I did betray him, and yet I can't apologize for that, because there was a greater good to consider. The hundreds of pages Siobhan O'Connor uncovered included personnel files and memos. They revealed that for years Bishop Malone allowed priests accused of sexual assault such as statutory rape and groping to stay on the job. Siobhan O'Connor: I love my church, I love our diocese, and I-- I loved him. I-- I genuinely did as my bishop and as my boss. Bill Whitaker: So why are you doing this? Siobhan O'Connor: The reality of what I saw really left me with no other option. Because at the end of my life, I'm not going to answer to Bishop Malone. I'm going to answer to God. At first, she took pictures with her phone. Then she used the copy machine at the bishop's offices. The documents provided an extraordinary window into how the diocese handled abuse. Bill Whitaker: And nobody caught on to what you were doing? Siobhan O'Connor: No, they didn't. I was always working with paper, and I was always there, so it wasn't as though I had to ask for keys or take them from someone's desk. Her decision to act was influenced by the phone calls she fielded from dozens of people who said they had been abused. O'Connor says she tried to get the bishop to be more responsive to them. He would tell her it's not her concern. She said by last summer she was, in her words, "morally allergic" to what she witnessed. Just before O'Connor quit her job in August, she anonymously leaked the church documents to a reporter at Buffalo television station WKBW. Bill Whitaker: There was no other way you saw to handle this? Siobhan O'Connor: Not with any expediency, no. I mean, I-- I did hope and pray that a grand jury would eventually be convened and that there would be hopefully an independent investigation, but I felt that there could be other victims between now and then, and I-- I couldn't have that on my conscience if there was a way to prevent that. Bishop Richard Malone Her doubts began in March. Bishop Malone had agreed to release a list of 42 priests accused of sexually abusing minors. But O'Connor knew there should be more names because she had seen the draft list that circulated between the bishop and diocesan lawyers. There was also something else, a dossier about priests she discovered in a supply closet. Siobhan O'Connor: There was one particular binder, which was of pending litigation that had been presented to Bishop Malone when he first was installed as our bishop. And this was from the lawyers. And this was a large, over 300-page binder, and I found it when I was cleaning the closet where they kept the bishop's vacuum. And I remember finding this obviously very important and sensitive information and thinking, "How did it ever end up here, first of all?" And-- and then I was shocked at the volume of it. The cases in the dossier Bishop Malone inherited when he arrived in 2012 stretched back decades. As they worked on the list, the bishop and his lawyers decided they would not reveal the names of accused priests still in ministry. Siobhan O'Connor: It was a very carefully curated list. And I-- I saw all the-- the lawyers coming in and out, and I was aware of the-- the various strategies that were in place. Bill Whitaker: What were they trying to do if not help the victims? Siobhan O'Connor: Well, to my mind the overarching attitude seemed to be to protect the church's reputation and her assets. Bill Whitaker: And the assets? Siobhan O'Connor: Uh-huh. Very much so. (video is supposed to be here, but I can't get it to embed) Siobhan O'Connor was most alarmed to see that Father Arthur Smith was missing from the list. Church records showed two young men in Buffalo had complained in 2013 that Smith had inappropriately touched them. Two years before that, Smith was sent to counseling after repeated contact with an eighth-grade boy that included unwanted attention and facebook messages. Despite what Bishop Malone knew, he endorsed Smith for a job as a cruise ship chaplain. The bishop wrote, "I am unaware of anything in his background which would render him unsuitable to work with minor children". (continues below..)
Siobhan O'Connor: Our previous bishop had removed him from ministry, so I always thought it was odd that Bishop Malone had reinstated him. When I explored his file more in-depth, that might have really been the moment when I knew that I had to do something with this information. Remember, the diocese list had 42 names. The documents O'Connor revealed put the number of Buffalo priests facing claims of all types of abuse at 118. Bill Whitaker: They had accusations against them, credible accusations. Siobhan O'Connor: Yes, that's right. Bill Whitaker: What'd you think of that? Siobhan O'Connor: I felt that instead of being transparent, we were almost being the opposite or-- or half transparent. Here are the names that we would like you to know about, but please don't ask us about the rest. One of them was Father Fabian Maryanski. His file included an accusation that during the 1980's he had sexual relations with a girl that began when she was just 15. The diocese knew about it but a note in the file argued Maryanski should be excluded from the list of problem priests. It said, "We did not remove him from ministry despite full knowledge of the case, and so including him on list might require explanation." Siobhan O'Connor: And I remember thinking, if that's their rationale for leaving a priest off, then how can I abide by this? She was not alone. Father Bob Zilliox advised the bishop on church law, including abuse cases. He told us he was disgusted by how the cases he saw were handled. Father Bob Zilliox Father Bob Zilliox: I think the hypocrisy, the lip service, you know, the, "Yes, Bob, I agree with you," and then I would walk out of an office and nothing would happen. It is exceedingly rare for a Catholic priest to risk challenging his bishop in public. Father Zilliox left his role as the bishop's counsel in May to concentrate on his parish ministry. Father Bob Zilliox: A lot of cases should have been handled differently. They were not. A lot of cases probably should have gone to Rome at the time. They did not. Bill Whitaker: How many of those priests should have been taken out of priesthood? Father Bob Zilliox: I would argue at least eight or nine. Bill Whitaker: How many of them still are in the priesthood here in Buffalo? Father Bob Zilliox: All of them. Bill Whitaker: All of them? Father Bob Zilliox: All the guys that should have been removed from the priesthood are still priests. Bill Whitaker: What do you think of that? Father Bob Zilliox: It's beyond troubling. That's not the church. The church is holy. Those are individuals in the church who are weak and who have made very bad decisions. And because of that, they need to be held accountable for what they've done. Bill Whitaker: Why is it, do you think, that the clergy fails to get this? Father Bob Zilliox: I think one of the factors that goes into decision making in terms of administration or leadership within diocese or in parishes is that there's a certain brotherhood. There's a certain mindset that we watch each other's backs. Bishop Malone has the authority to strip Father Zilliox of his duties for going public. But the priest told us he is motivated to speak out by more than the truth. He also is a victim of sexual abuse by a Buffalo priest. Father Bob Zilliox: And so all of this has been very painful for me to see how our diocese, how other dioceses have handled this. Bill Whitaker: How old were you when you were abused? Father Bob Zilliox: I was a 13-year-old boy. Bill Whitaker: By a priest? Father Bob Zilliox: By a priest. Bill Whitaker: How did that experience affect you while you were watching how Bishop Malone was handling these cases? Father Bob Zilliox: It was very difficult in a lot of different ways. There's a certain respect that is owed to a bishop. But when I saw things take place the way they did, I sort of was conflicted within. I think as a victim, I have a bias, which is maybe not a healthy thing, but objectively I can-- I have no tolerance for any abuse. "I want these cardinals and bishops to start putting their ass on the line and start protecting their people." Every bishop chooses a motto. Bishop Malone's is 'live the truth in love.' Bishop Malone declined our requests for an interview. Paul Snyder: He's behaving in a way that you would typically think that a CEO in a corporation that's being accused of corrupt practices might act, hiding behind attorneys. Paul Snyder was the first member of Buffalo's Catholic clergy to call for Malone to resign. The hotel owner is a deacon, that's an ordained member of the clergy who can be married and preside over some ceremonies. He was enraged by the information Siobhan O'Connor exposed. Paul Snyder Bill Whitaker: Bishop Malone has called this a crisis. You call it a scandal. What's the difference? Paul Snyder: A crisis is we look at our home and it's burning to the ground. A scandal is while it's burning to the ground, you know how to put the fire out, but you don't tell me. You also know how the fire was caused, but you don't tell me. So you pretend to grieve with me about the fire, but the problem is you caused it. Snyder showed us some of the 400 notes and emails he has received since calling for the bishop to resign. Paul Snyder: They want to be part of the solution but they think this bishop is preventing that from occurring. This month, Snyder sent letters and documents to prominent bishops demanding an investigation. Bill Whitaker: Why do you have faith that the bishops are going to handle this? Paul Snyder: Well, I don't have faith right now that any particular bishops have the courage to do the right thing. I mean we all praise our martyrs on Sunday and we praise and we sing, but boy, its sure as hell is hard being a saint when it's your ass on the line. And I want these cardinals and bishops to start putting their ass on the line and start protecting their people. Bishops hold supreme power in their diocese and answer only to the pope. Next month, U.S. bishops will gather to consider a proposal for a bishop code of conduct. Bishop Malone plans to be there. He's refused to resign. Bishop Malone at August Press Conference: The shepherd does not desert the flock at a difficult time. The bishop has made three public apologies and offered to sell his 11,000 square foot official residence to help compensate victims. Last week, he sent us a statement that said in part: "We continue to reach out to victims, remove clergy with substantiated allegations from ministry and cooperate with federal and state investigations." But in Bishop Malone's first six years in Buffalo just one priest was put on leave. It was only after this scandal broke in March, that he suspended 16 more for abuse. None have been kicked out of the priesthood. Bill Whitaker: He has said he is sorry. He has apologized. Father Bob Zilliox: Uh-huh. Bill Whitaker: Do you forgive him? Father Bob Zilliox: I accept it and I forgive him, but actions speak louder than words. Show us these cases are being handled properly. Show us these priests are being removed. Bill Whitaker: You would like for Bishop Malone to resign? Siobhan O'Connor: I would. I-- I believe that it would be in the best interest of the diocese, because he's had opportunities to enact real change. And he's let those opportunities come and go. Produced by Guy Campanile and Lucy Boyd. Associate producer, Dina Zingaro. © 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This from a friend living in Rome: October 23, 2018 Issue of married a Catholic priests gains traction under pope, and documentary airing Wednesday in Italy likely to add to conversation... https://apnews.com/0ddc7da42fd049cfbc323c04c64afeeb
SteveD, Thank you for posting this. I was considering posting the entire article because some here may have missed your post, I see now that Sg has done so. Thanks Sg. P4p, Yes, wow and you have raised a very good question. D., This is exactly why I posted that article. **** I am curious what Picadillo is referring to also, maybe the following from Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich who also spoke of the Church becoming more magnificent than ever before. On a previous post #7488, I wondered if this Blessed was referring to the St. Gallen's Mafia when she stated "secret sect" in the following prophecy: August to October 1820 "I see more martyrs, not now but in the future... I saw the secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church. Near them I saw a horrible beast coming up from the sea. All over the world, good and devout people, especially the clergy, were harassed, oppressed, and put into prison. I had the feeling that they would become martyrs one day. "When the Church had been for the most part destroyed (by the secret sect), and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers (of the secret sect) enter the Church with the Beast. There, they met a Woman of noble carriage who seemed to be with child because she walked slowly. At this sight, the enemies were terrorized, and the Beast could not take but another step forward. It projected its neck towards the Woman as if to devour her, but the Woman turned about and bowed down (towards the Altar), her head touching the ground. Thereupon, I saw the Beast taking to flight towards the sea again, and the enemies were fleeing in the greatest of confusion. Then, I saw in the distance great legions approaching. In the foreground I saw a man on a white horse. Prisoners were set free and joined them. All the enemies were pursued. Then, I saw that the Church was being promptly rebuilt, and she was more magnificent than ever before." Edited to add: St. Galen's mafia or the Freemasons may be the "secret sect" as many others believe. The Gall of the St. Gallen Mafia by Elizabeth Yore on July 1, 2016 https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2610-the-gall-of-the-st-gallen-mafia Here is a good reminder on the lightning strikes on St. Peter's Basilica in 2013, https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...trike-vatican-after-popes-resignation/6050437. Oh and in case some here missed the following story which Immaculata posted about on the Signs thread a few days ago #6299, I am posting it again here. It seems like a miracle to me. Jesus painting survives fire that destroyed 150-year-old church in Massachusetts [After lightning struck it]
Ok Glenn, that is indeed crystal clear ! Thank you. I was apparently in those days misinformed about the picture I received on which both of them where standing next to each other. Nowadays we have to check everything and also the comments they add to it... But... the fact that they are no friends does not mean anything. I am no friends either with Vassula but this does not mean that I do not agree with her... nore does it mean that the messages she receives do not come from God. By the way: generally visionaries do not have any contact between them because each of them has his/own unique mission and heavenly messages may not be mixed up.
1. Padraig, again you did not understand that the Pope did not say at all that adultery would be an objective ideal. In the contrary ! Read my message again please. 2. Why are you citing all those texts from the Holy Scriptures as if I did not know ? I will be the FIRST in line when it comes to defending what is said there. Good Heaven.... if you just knew.... but it does not matter. That is why those discussions are fruitless....
“The collegial spirit (of all bishops) is the soul of the collaboration between the bishops on the regional, national and international levels. Collegial action in the strict sense implies the activity of the whole college, together with its head, over the entire church.”32 “Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.”33 In light of the foregoing, should one choose to publicly condemn the works that presently bear this Magisterium’s seal – whether at the hand or mouth of a priest or a lay person – that individual’s actions would be considered by the Church nothing short of „reprehensible‟: “While the freedom remains for a member of the Church to reject a private revelation which has received official ecclesiastical approval, it would at the same time be reprehensible to speak publicly against it.”34 I here recall that in the history of the Catholic Church, there is no existing public knowledge of a case where a positive decision of Constat de Supernaturalitate (it is evident to be of supernatural origin) by the local bishop concerning a nationally or internationally known prophetic revelation was later changed to the prohibited category of Constat de non Supernaturalitate (evident to be of non-supernatural origin) by the Holy See. Admittedly, when considering the plethora of reported prophetic revelations and apparitions throughout the world, positive or negative judgments by the Holy See are rare, take much time and the Holy See is often silent on such matters. However, in order to avoid leaving the final judgment up to each individual Christian, the Church offers, as the best course of action, recourse to doctrinal safety through the conferral of the Bishop’s Imprimatur and/or Nihil Obstat, which, and as noted earlier, constitute an „approval‟ of the work so that it may be “displayed and sold in churches”35 and “a juridical and a moral guarantee for the authors, the publishers and the readers”36 that the work “contains nothing contrary to the Church’s authentic magisterium on faith or morals.”37 One is also reminded of the letters of the Bishops who conferred upon the TLIG prophetic revelations the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, which attest to their supernatural nature when affirming that they “contain the Divine Dialogue of the Holy Trinity, Our Lady and the Angels with humankind through Vassula Rydén”,38 who “is an instrument of God in our days to bring to reality God's dream, the Holy Father's dream, the Church's dream which may be the greatest event of the early years of the Third Millennium: THE UNITY OF ALL DISCIPLES OF CHRIST!”39 4) The teachings of those bishops in communion with the Pope and exercising the Magisterium40 have granted to the TLIG prophetic revelations said seals of approval (11/28/2005 Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) that remain in full force this day. Because the duty of faithfully interpreting God’s divinely revealed Word is “entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome”41 who, even when not arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a „definitive manner‟,42 nonetheless exercise the ordinary Magisterium, and the faithful are to „concur‟ with their decisions on faith and morals. Consider the following statement of the decree of Vatican II Council: “The bishops, when they are teaching in communion with the Roman pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to the divine and catholic truth; and the faithful ought to concur with their bishop's judgment concerning faith and morals which he delivers in the name of Christ, and they are to adhere to this with a religious assent of the mind.” 43 Insofar as the conferral of the magisterial seals of the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat upon the TLIG prophetic revelations and the letters of the Bishops who granted them express respectively an approval and guarantee, and a positive judgment on their supernatural nature,44 and the Christian faithful are to concur with their bishop’s judgment, the faithful may confidently approach these as an authentic revelation given by God for our times. 5) By virtue of the conferral of the Magisterium’s Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat upon the TLIG prophetic revelations, Christians are prohibited from setting themselves up as their judge and from publicly condemning them.45 On the contrary, inasmuch as all Christians are to “concur with their bishop's judgment concerning faith and morals” and “adhere to this” judgment and to the Magisterium “with a religious assent of the mind”,46 the Magisterium’s Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat upon the TLIG prophetic revelations elicit from the Christian faithful said religious assent. In his treatise on the beatification and canonization respectively of the Servants of God and Blesseds, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (later coronated Pope Benedict XIV) affirmed that while one may not choose to follow a given Church-approved prophetic revelation, as God has blessed us with several to choose from, one is absolutely prohibited from doing so without reason, without due modesty and with contempt – to publicly condemn what the Church has judged positive with her official seals of approbation is nothing short of „reprehensible‟:47 “It is possible not to give assent to such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with due modesty, not without reason, and without contempt”.48 Conclusion In these End Times when many biblical prophecies are being fulfilled, in particular, Dan. 9:27; Mt. 24:15; 2 Thes. 2:3-13; Rev. 13, more attention than ever is demanded of God’s shepherds whom he calls to tend his flock with sound teaching that not only preserves the Church’s Deposit of Faith and living Tradition, but develops it, “penetrates the meaning of the revealed Word and communicates it to others”.49 During this third millennium in which all priests are exhorted to “set out for deep waters”50 and undertake a “new evangelization”,51 the Church’s approved prophetic revelations occupy a quintessential role, as they bear a divinely urgent appeal that will impact the future of mankind and alter the lives of millions. Let us recall that when our Lady of Fatima foretold that many nations of the earth would be annihilated if mankind did not convert, she did so after she made an urgent appeal to the Church and to mankind at a pivotal time in its history. A parallel appeal to the Church and to mankind today is discovered in the ecclesiastically approved True Life in God prophetic revelations. More significantly, the consequences of this appeal, if unheeded, will be global. As a shepherd of souls, I warmly invite all Christians of good will to meditate upon the True Life in God divine revelations for their own spiritual welfare and for the betterment of mankind. Rev. J.L. Iannuzzi, Ph.B, STB, STL, STD
