Skip to comments.Diabolical Disorientation
Posted on 07/24/2012 9:08:03 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Hello everyone and welcome to The Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. Im Michael Voris coming to you from St. Peters Square at the Vatican.
Following up on our report yesterday about the influx of gay positive males into the Catholic priesthood and episcopacy over the past 50 years or so .. there is more than ample evidence that this is the case.
For example .. in 1977.. Christian Brother Gabriel Moran was speaking before the annual conference of Christian Brothers and heavily intimated in his speech that religious communities were the ideal setting for homosexual relations. Then there are the widely publicized cases of priests openly challenging Church teaching on homosexuality and receiving absolutely no reprimand or discipline whatsoever.
For example .. The Jesuit Magazine AMERICA in 1978 .. made the incorrect claim .. "the application of Scriptural texts that condemn homosexuality is dubious at best".
Uh, no they are not dubious .. but they played into a gay party line coming from pro-gay Protestant Churchmen who contested that Sodom and Gomorra were not destroyed because of homosexuality and spread the falsehood that it was because they had not been hospitable to their guests.
Not a few Catholic priests were happy to use that line and say it far and wide in CATHOLIC circles and not a few bishops let them get away with it unscathed.
Then there is Dominican Father Donald Goergen who wrote a widely-circulated, pro-homosexual book entitled The Sexual Celibate.
Far from suffering penalties from the Vatican's Congregation for Religious, Goergen was actually REWARDED and elected Provincial of the Chicago Dominican Province, after the book was published.
Some of this is documented in the now out of print book .. The Homosexual Network. It was written by Fr. Enrique Rueda in 1982 who was in shock at what he was seeing all around him in the clergy .. bishops and well as priests.
Speaking of Chicago .. perhaps no single bishop had a greater hand in advancing the homosexual sub-culture in the United States during the past 50 years than Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
Stories have circulated for years about how gay or gay friendly much of the Chicago clergy was or is .. and that Mundelein Seminary was a virtual training ground for gay clergy .. and it was not alone. One former student for the priesthood was quoted as saying it was not a seminary .. but a feminary .. enjoying a similar reputation as quite a few others .. including Romes North American College.
And with regard to Chicago .. get this. In the mid to late 80s it was becoming apparent even in Rome .. that the homosexual movement within the Catholic clergy in the United States was strong and growing stronger.
One of the centers of that rebellion was a group called Dignity .. a group of dissident Catholics who claims its sole purpose it quote .. "to unite all gay Catholics, to develop leadership, and to be an instrument through which the gay Catholics may be heard by the Church and society." Dignity clearly states that its aim to "promote the cause of the gay Community.
The Vatican eventually ordered the group out of all Catholic parishes .. something that many diocese in the US were very slow to do .. defying Rome and being disobedient.
In Chicago .. Cardinal Bernardin cleverly used an entirely different tactic. He complied with Romes orders. He refused Church recognition to Dignity. However, he created an office called AGLO (Archdiocese Gay and Lesbian Organization), practically identical to Dignity. That office is still operating today and one of its listed resources is Fr. Richard Sparks, a notorious dissenter from Church teaching.
And moreover .. several former Dignity officers ended up as members of AGLO. So what the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago .. a prince of the Church .. did .. in effect .. was ended up protecting Dignity by giving it a new and apparently "respectable" identity.
It should be noted that Bernardin requested in his will that the Chicago Gay Mens Chorus sing at his wake in Holy Name Cathedral .. which they did in fact do.
And one further note .. Bernardin exercised quite the influence in the naming of a good number of bishops in the US. Many are his protégés and were advanced for that very reason.
The list of these types of accounts could make a dozen books and hundreds of articles .. and as a matter of fact they have. There was even a website called St. Sebastians Angels which was a meeting place for dozens and dozens of homosexual clergy .. including at least one bishop. The site closed down after it was discovered and the bishop was relieved of his duties.
Its is of course horribly sad to talk about of any of this. But the larger point is this. Men like this .. who hide behind collars and under miters are responsible for the destruction of the faith of GOD knows how many people.
And its not just a question of active homosexuals in the clergy .. but those who are sympathetic to their cause because of existing friendships from days in seminary for example.
The homosexual agenda .. which is antithetical to Catholic thought and teaching has been promoted and advanced .. or at the very least .. ignored or given a wink and a nod by many many of the very people sworn and graced to protect the faith.
Is it any wonder that when it comes to clear and express preaching on Catholic sexual teaching .. so much of the clergy is simply silent. Even now .. in the face of Obamas contraception mandate .. the issue has been twisted into one of religious liberty other than what it actually is .. which is an evil and unjust law because it promotes the intrinsically evil practice of contraception.
Could it be that so much of the clergy has fallen absolutely mute on sexual teaching because so much of the clergy disagrees with it and may actually be living a life contrary to it .. including a vast array of secretive homosexuals who are protected by a network of other homosexuals or those sympathetic to them in the hierarchy?
Given how SO MUCH has gone wrong in the Church in this area of sexual morality and still continues unabatedly .. why has there not been even ONE clear definitive statement from any bishops conference clearly stating what has gone wrong and reaffirming in no uncertain terms the Churchs teaching.
It was after all .. a cleanup effort from the Vatican itself in the wake of the homosexual priests sex abuse crisis .. that hopefully began something of a reform. Why was that effort not forthcoming from the US Bishops themselves .. who clearly MUST HAVE KNOWN what was going on and cannot be unaware of the homosexual network in their own ranks and among their own clergy and religious orders.
The sex abuse crisis did not drop out of the sky. It was homosexual in nature. It was homosexual priests preying on teenage boys. It was bishops .. some of whom with questionable associations with homosexual clergy and sympathetic to them who engaged in a massive cover up.
And even today .. it is still many bishops and their staffs that allow the so-called Gay Masses to continue right in their diocese and performed by their clergy. These priests are promoted .. given positions of authority .. sometimes in high Church circles and continue to undermine Church teaching with very alarming regularity.
And they continue to go unpunished .. undisciplined and unexplained. Here in Rome .. clergy will tell you quietly and privately that even they cannot say some of this publically for fear of retribution.
But the truth of this ongoing situation must be exposed.
Good and faithful Orthodox Catholics .. laity and clergy .. cannot continue to run into this buzzsaw of twisted theology and modernist clap trap promoted by a secretive homosexual militancy every time they want to advance the truths of the faith.
The same thing has always been true in the Church .. accept the teaching or leave .. but dont work to undermine the faith for the advancement of your own diabolical and wicked ends.
Years after the miraculous vision of Our Lady at Fatima .. Sr. Lucy one of the three children who the Queen of Heaven appeared to said .. a diabolical disorientation .. her words .. would seize hold in the Church. Could this be what she was referring to?
GOD Love you,
Im Michael Voris
2 Timothy 4:3-4,
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
You know, I've thought there was a disconnect in this entire discussion with you. I was under the assumption you were a fellow Catholic, and were responding as such. However, no Catholic I know would refer to a Catholic poster with this sentence above, "your Roman doctrines." Further, no educated conservative Catholic would confuse "orthodox Catholics" and "Orthodox Christians."
Therefore, one must conclude you are either the most ignorant and poorly catechized Catholic on FreeRepublic, or you are not Catholic. (Feel free to clarify which here.)
Regardless, you are in no position to be lecturing well educated orthodox Catholics (i.e., Catholics who believe the teachings of their Church and obey the Magisterium, and are not heterodox) who have been fighting these culture wars within the Church for years or decades.
Cardinal Bernardin was installed by the Magisterium, including the Pope and was one of their leaders.
You seem to think being an installed bishop makes him both impeccable and infallible. That is not Catholic doctrine, even in the case of a Pope. Would you be scandalized to learn that throughout our history there have been evil gravely sinful bishops, archbishops, Cardinals and even Popes, yes, even Popes? Infallibility only protects a Pope from making errors in matters of Faith and Morals when speaking ex cathedra. It does not prevent him from sinning, or appointing bad bishops.
Do you have evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass
I pinged you to the thread with that evidence:
I first heard of Agnes story from a friend in 1996. This friend of mine had met Agnes a few years earlier when she came to him for advice. He never gave me her name or location but only made reference to her situation because it fit into a conversation we were having regarding the Archdiocese of Chicago. In 1998, when I first learned who Agnes was, I found that she had been on RCFs mailing list for some time. I also learned that a private investigator, as well as a lawyer from Chicago who had provided RCF with information, had met with Agnes a few years earlier in an attempt to help her find a way to bear witness to what had happened to her. This same investigator and lawyer provided RCF with information they had obtained regarding the alleged sexual activity of the priest who had abused Agnes many years earlier. That priest was the young Joseph Bernardin.
Over the past 12 years, in sworn deposition, in accounts to investigators, in affidavits submitted in support of others' cases, in direct statements to Bernardin, in phone calls and letters to Church officials, and in correspondence with Vatican officials (all of which RCF has examined), Agnes has testified to the following story:
In the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C., Fr, Joseph Bernardin raped 11-year-old Agnes as part of a Satanic ritual that involved, among others, Bishop John Russell of Charleston. Brought to the event by an abusive father, Agnes was able, at first, to resist Bishop Russell physically, out of the knowledge that God had made me good, not bad as I was being told I was (her words). As a young child, she had been victimized by a sadist cousin, and her identity was based upon resisting bad things, which included Bernardin. Bernardin then showed kindness and approval of her resistance, in order to gain her trust and get her to relax, and then he raped her. He followed the rape with a perverted use of a host, in an attempt to make Agnes swallow the guilt of the event.
In the fall of 1992, Agnes passed a polygraph examination regarding these events. She also, in early 1990, told her story to Malachi Martin, who had been recommended to her as someone who could get her information to the Vatican, which Agnes knew had sole and immediate jurisdiction over such a case. Martin wrote a novel, Windswept House, with the premise that Agnes had given him: that the Catholic hierarchy's tolerance of heresy, liturgical abuse, clerical sexual misconduct, and clerical pedophilia had one overarching explanation at root, a network of Satanists whose smoke had ascended high in the Church. Her story is greatly theatricalized in the novel, but the essential fact of ritual rape is there, as is the spiritual reality of Christ's presence in the victimized child. Thirty-four years later, Agnes went to visit Bishop Russell in a nursing home. In and out of lucidity, he agreed to testify against Bernardin if asked. He died without the opportunity to do so.
Agnes later came to know Steve Cook, and submitted an affidavit in support of his suit. Before he died, Cook told Agnes he was writing a book to tell the truth about his abuse, and he gave a different account of his lawsuit retraction than the one publicly accepted.
Someone who knew Cook earlier than Agnes is a former seminarian RCF interviewed who admitted to a four-year sexual relationship with a Catholic bishop who now heads a western diocese. This man stated that he also had forced sexual contact with Cardinal Bernardin, and that, through Bernardin, he came to know Steven Cook. This individual, interviewed in November of 1998 by RCF, claims to have received a cash settlement. RCF confirmed, through an attorney, that this seminarian did indeed receive a cash settlement.
Do you have evidence that he ... was a homo, engaged in homosexulality, promoted homosexuality
Steven Cook, the man who sued Bernardin for homosexual abuse, and a man who couldn't rub two nickles together, left a large estate estimated in the range of a cool $3 million. The out-of-court settlement was sealed, but Cook's "apology" to Cardinal Bernardin and his statement that he couldn't depend on his memories was purchased by the diocese for a seven-digit payout.
Innocent men do not make out of court settlements with their accusers, nor pay the estate of their accuser $3 million.
If that's not proof enough for you, then you're just not rational.
Given your pontifications and attacks in these threads, the fact you're obviously not even Catholic and do not understand basic Catholic principles, and that evidence that would satisfy the vast majority of objective observers does not satisfy you, indicate either you are not rational or you have an agenda.
Either way, you are not worthy of further efforts to educate and correct your misconceptions and errors, willful or otherwise.
"Rationalism, and its close cousin modernism, are considered heresies by the Church.
The "ism" doesn't apply. Logic is machine independent, so it does not matter which mind does the rational processing. The processing is either rational, or irrational according to the laws of logic.
"The Catholic believes that man has the capacity to comprehend the infallible Word of God by his reason, but his reason does not determine what he will and will not believe. Faith is an act of the will.
A Catholic may believe this, but it has no bearing on reality. A person believes what they do by virtue of rational processing in the mind. Will is a rather etherial term used for the more accurate and precise term, decision. Something is believed, because the person has made a decision to do so and that decision requires a set of reasons, or justifications for the particular decision. Faith is simply a decision to believe based on the reason of trust in the person making the claim.
"For the Catholic, faith precedes reason, for the Protestant, reason precedes faith."
Catholic is rrelevant here. Man is made in God's Image. The above applies universally to any sentient rational being. A person does not need faith in a god, or anyone else, to hold and value the primary and dependent laws respectively: "to love they neighbor, as thyself", and "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Allegations require evidence, not faith. Faith applies to the attachment of th qualification sin attached to any violation of the above laws. Do you have any evidence for the filthy allegations made against the deceased Cardninal?
If you're going to defame Mr. Abbott, the least you could do is ping him to the thread.
According to you. According to Cook, he had not the wits about him to know anything. To myself and others, it's an extortion game, delusions, act of a sociopath, or psychosis.
"no educated conservative Catholic would confuse "orthodox Catholics" and "Orthodox Christians."
The Orthodox are Catholic, regardless of your protestations.
"Regardless, you are in no position to be lecturing well educated orthodox Catholics"
The term Orthodox rightly belongs to the Orthodox Catholics that were abandoned by Rome when Rome split from the orthodox Catholics.
"You seem to think being an installed bishop makes him both impeccable and infallible."
No. It means he's a bishop in apostolic succession and is a member of the Magisterium.
Re:Do you have evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass
"I pinged you to the thread with that evidence:
Your "evidence" is bizarre hearsay that passed on with the dog that ate it.
To bad Cardinal Bernardin can't be pinged to defend himself.
An individual who testified to these events in sworn deposition, in accounts to investigators, in affidavits submitted in support of others' cases, in direct statements to Bernardin, in phone calls and letters to Church officials, and in correspondence with Vatican officials, and who passed a polygraph examination regarding these events, is in your estimation bizarre hearsay that passed on with the dog that ate it.
I've worked with victims of clerical sexual abuse, served as a victim's advocate, and I personally know several victims of clerical sexual abuse, one of whom is a close personal friend.
I know what they suffered in bringing forward their cases.
I've spoken with Stephen Brady, who interviewed the woman who testified to these events in sworn deposition, in accounts to investigators, in affidavits submitted in support of others' cases, in direct statements to Bernardin, in phone calls and letters to Church officials, and in correspondence with Vatican officials, and who passed a polygraph examination regarding these events.
Frankly, I find your characterization of her testimony to be reprehensible.
Nor any sin for that matter, right? It's all dependent on the "prior beliefs and values of the beholder", isn't it? That's the essence of moral relativism, I believe.
For lurkers, The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as:
...an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
Aquinas defined scandal in exactly the words I gave you: word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
So enjoy your self-sourced definition of scandal. The Catholic Church and Aquinas work for me.
Cardinal Bernardin was installed by the members of that organization, including the Pope. I believe he led the USCCB. That would mean he led them, not opposed them.
Uh-huh. And Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve.
I believe he was a gentle pious man that empathized with the poor and brought the beatitudes to life.
I guess one could say the same about someone like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Lots of people already do.
I think a little history lesson is in order.
Bernardin did untold damage to the Catholic cause and there is no better example than his "seamless garment" theology regarding life issues. This theological argument claimed that we needed a wide-reaching life ethic which included not only the issue of abortion but also the issues of warfare, capital punishment, healthcare, and various other things. Sounds good, doesn't it? The liberals certainly thought so and immediately fell in love with it. However, the problem was, it made abortion just one of a whole parcel of life issues and not necessarily the most important one. This is classic Bernardin; appearing to be supporting something while in fact, undermining it.
If one wishes to trace the origin of the current Catholic political malaise which leads large numbers of Catholics to support and vote for anti-life abortion promoters, Bernardin's "seamless garment" theology can be found lurking at the root of much of it. This thinking says that when weighing one's vote, one can in good conscience vote for an abortion supporter, providing he or she is "pro-life" on other so-called "life issues", such as health care, capital punishment, etc. because after all, abortion is not the only life issue.
Of course, if there is no right to life, then there is going to be no right to healthcare or anything else but that is lost on most of the sheep who dutifully vote for Obama and Pelosi et al.
Then there's Bernardin's treatment of homosexual ministry. Bernardin became archbishop of Chicago in 1982 and for 6 years he was happy to support the organization Dignity which was was given use of a parish church for its liturgies. Dignity is not an organization which promotes chastity among those afflicted with same sex-attraction disorder. On the contrary, it affirms and supports gays in their lifestyle. This was too much for Rome and it eventually demanded that something be done. Bernardin complied and in 1988 demanded that Dignity issue a statement affirming Catholic teaching on sexuality. They refused and as result, were given the boot.
Sounds good, right?
Not quite. Bernardin then set up an organization named AGLO(Archdiocese Gay and Lesbian Outreach) to replace it. Read their ambiguous mission statement. This again was classic Bernardin; appear to be supporting something while working to undermine it.
Are we making progress?
Then there's the issue of the Mundelein seminary where the archdiocese trains its priests. Michael Rose in his book Goodbye Good Men examined the issue of homosexuality in seminaries and based on interviews with former seminarians concluded that this seminary under Bernardin was one of a group of seminaries which became known as the "pink palaces"; hotbeds of homosexuality where orthodox Catholic men were made to feel unwelcome. Rose quotes a former Mundelein seminarian, Joseph Kellenyi, as saying: "The issue was never one of my suitability for ordination. Rather it was that the gay clique had been given veto power over who got ordained."
Do I need to go on?
In light of these things and many others, it's absolutely no surprise that "The Gay Men's Chorus" sang at his funeral. Why a group of openly gay men? Why not a group of school children or a group of war veterans or a group of disabled or handicapped people?
As they say on that sports program......."C'mon man!!"
The subject of this thread is the filthy defamation of the man. No evidence that he raped a young girl at a satanic mass, was a homo, engaged in homosexulality, promoted homosexuality, or became ordained to perform satanic rituals for promises of "fantastic gay sex". Do you have any such evidence?
I never made those claims. My initial intervention on this thread, to which you objected, was directed at his selection of openly gay men to sing at his funeral which was and still is a scandal.
This is all hearsay cut out of your previous posts. The contents and particulars are still bizarre hearsay and no relevant authorities found it credible.
"I've spoken with Stephen Brady, who interviewed the woman who testified...
Hearsay... Bizarre hearsay.
"Frankly, I find your characterization of her testimony to be reprehensible.
Reprehensible is relative to ones values. Accusations based on bizarre hearsay is bearing false witness against your neighbor.
I commented on rationalism which is the product of the "rational" approach to Christianity that was proffered. The product of logic is scholasticism which reached its apex in St. Thomas Aquinas. Logic as St. Thomas demonstrated, proves Catholic doctrine.
"Reason is used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, which are accepted on the authority of God, but to defend, explain, and develop the doctrines revealed." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Answer 8.
Peace be with you
"Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve. Well?
Judas was not ever chosen as respected leader of the 12.
"I never made those claims. My initial intervention on this thread, to which you objected, was directed at his selection of openly gay men to sing at his funeral which was and still is a scandal."
K. I replied, because of the characterization of his Mass for the dead as, " This was essentially a celebration of open, unrepentant homosexuality." It was not. They simply sang a song, or songs.
No. The product of logic is truth.
"Logic as St. Thomas demonstrated, proves Catholic doctrine."
No. Here's an example. Ezekiel 18 contradicts the Council of Orange's declaration of the doctrine of Original Sin. Contradictions render hypothesis false.
then you’re just not rational
I believe that is correct .. also, observationally:
detectable derangement, mean spirit, rather stunning
blockheadedness, and baseless denial and diversion.
Brick wall ..
I sense your goodness and patience are being wasted,
IMHO, dear man. Not worth getting into the gurgling
pit .. and henceforth, I won’t.
God bless you .. God bless us all.
I can't follow you. What are you attempting to demonstrate by citing the Council of Orange, which was convened nearly 800 years before the birth of St. Thomas Aquinas to prove Aquinas wrong. The Council of Orange addressed the necessity of Grace and rejected double predestination. Only a Calvinist interpretation of Ezekiel, rejected by both mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism, can come to the conclusion that the Council of Orange contradicts Ezekiel.
Peace be with you
The doctrine declares that the progeny of Adam are defective and no longer in the image of God, as punishment for the sin of Adam. Ezekiel 18 thoroughly contradicts the possibility of Augustine's claims. The Jews never believed in, or held such a concept, except as an ad hominum, as God points out in John 9.
The Jews reject the entire New Testamant, which we Christians believes is a new and everlasting covenant. You may be comfortable basing your beliefs on an incomplete reading of Ezekiel, but I am going to continue to rely on Romans 5:12-21 an 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Peace be with you
Ezekiel 18 is very simple and straightforward: "The soul who sins is the one who will die." Ezekiel 18:19,20 Yet you ask, Why does the son not share the guilt of his father? Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
There is nothing more to "read". There is no stain of sin passed down from Adam. Adam is a character in the parable of Genesis that represents every individual.
"I am going to continue to rely on Romans 5:12-21 an 1 Corinthians 15:22."