Posted on 07/11/2002 8:05:19 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
Having spent some time in Dallas during the bishops' semi-annual meeting [June 12-15], I was able to confirm what many of us had already known: The same U.S. hierarchy that has ignored-----and even persecuted-----faithful Catholics has now made it clear that they have completely embraced the homosexual agenda. The majority of U.S. bishops are arguably anti-Catholic and may for the most part be homosexual themselves. This fact became crystal clear with the bishops' refusal to even suggest homosexuality played any part in the sexual abuse scandal within the Church.
The bishops, apparently not having the benefit of common sense, had to vote on whether or not to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy for priests who rape children. Some bishops suggest that raping one child in the past should not keep the rapist from wearing a Roman Collar. What an insult to the holy priests! Regardless of what agreement is finally sent to Rome for approval, the bishops are free to do as they please within their own diocese.
Who will enforce the policy? Anyone of us could name countless abuses that have been perpetrated upon the faithful by bishops and priests without so much as an admonition from Rome. Where is the barque of Peter?
Speaking of Peter, on the evening of Friday, June 14, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz spoke to a group of Catholic laymen; According to a news report, Bishop Bruskewitz referred to the bishops' meeting in Dallas by stating: "this hapless bunch of bishops" had failed to address the roots of the crisis, and now courage and fighting tenacity from the laity was required. [He] cited the 14th Century St. Catherine of Siena, "an illiterate nun who is now a doctor of the Church," as a model. "She was brave enough to tell the Pope off when he needed telling off," said Bruskewitz. "She did her duty. We must too."
Then Bishop Bruskewitz cited a letter that the medieval St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to a Pope of his day, warning the pontiff that if he [the Pope] was going to be sent to Hell, it would be because he failed to get rid of bad bishops:
"I did pass that letter on to [the current Pope]," Bruskewitz said, with a mischievous smile. [1]
The Pope is the only person with the authority to appoint or remove a bishop. His negligence cannot be denied, and Bishop Bruskewitz has said as much.
While the homosexual death-grip on the Church is only a symptom of a much bigger problem, just as it brought about the destruction of Sodom it now threatens to consume the Church by infecting Her priesthood.
As president of RCF since 1996, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness first-hand some of the horrific consequences of this vile vice that some of our bishops and priests now refer to as a "gift" from God. In order to fight this monster that preys upon our children and compromises our bishops, we must be willing to confront it head-on. To do this, we must identify and expose the perpetrators and those who enable them to inflict their damage. While in Dallas, RCF held a press conference to expose some of these offenders. We named two priests from the Dallas Diocese who had been part of St. Sebastian's Angels, a network of homosexual priests who were operating on the internet. [We had 3 priests in the Maine diocese, all of whom are back in parish ministry, one of whom is publicly not repentant. At least one of them was back after a mere 3 weeks of whatever it was he was away for. The whole thing was a sham, a little PR cover until the media got onto other topics and took the heat off. Either our Bishop is of the persuasion himself or is being blackmailed. Nothing else could possibly explain such dereliction of duty. Because the web site involved other priests and not underage boys and there was no lawsuit involved, no action except some PR work was required, apparently. -----CT Web Master]
The front page of the June 13 Washington Times contained an article that highlighted the two Dallas priests, Fr. Cliff Garner and Fr. Art Mallinson, along with a South African Bishop, Reginald Cawcutt, and noted descriptions of their sexual appetites and their hatred for the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger. "I did share a room with one of our youth ministers here in Dallas-----and is he cute! He's no Ricky Martin-----but he is Hispanic and we got along-----wonderfully! It was almost like we were meant to be together. I do have a very special place in my heart for those Latin blooded ones!" said Fr. Garner. Dallas Bishop Joseph A. Galante stated, "Cliff Garner is undergoing counseling. As long as his behavior is appropriate he will be all right." [2]
In January of this year, The Boston Globe forced this issue out into the open by exposing Bernard Cardinal Law. The Boston prelate showed a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of children by allowing two homosexual priests who had sexually abused children to continue to function as men of God, thereby enabling them to abuse others. The U.S. bishops, who ignored the cries of their own flock while priests preyed upon their children, now want the faithful to believe they have suddenly been edified by publicity, to believe that, one must believe that the Globe inspired the bishops in a way the Holy Ghost never could. The bishops now want us to trust them to fix the mess they created. These leaders are more concerned with offending man than God-----they are more concerned with looking holy than acting holy.
On the opening day of the bishops' meeting, the Dallas Morning News published a story presenting facts that suggested at least two thirds of the American hierarchy had protected sexually abusive clergy. Since January, two American Bishops, Anthony O'Connell of West Palm Beach, FL, and Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY, have resigned after they were accused of the sexual abuse of teenage boys. A third bishop, auxiliary James F. McCarthy of New York, resigned after admitting to having had affairs with women. A former boyfriend of Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee recently went public with the fact that he was paid $450,000 to keep quiet about his relationship with the Archbishop. Even though the diocese of Jefferson City, MO, paid a cash settlement to one of Bishop O'Connell's victims in 1996. O'Connell was appointed Bishop of West Palm Beach, FL, by Pope John Paul II. Until bishops are held accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Three years ago, Bishop J. Keith Symons, also of West Palm Beach, resigned after he admitted abusing five boys when he was a priest. A year later, RCF found him leading retreats in the Lansing Diocese, still carrying the title "Most Reverend". When RCF published that fact, retired Bishop Povish of the Lansing Diocese referred to RCF as a "self-appointed vigilante group from Springfield" and affectionately referred to Symons as a "Wounded Healer". Bishop Daniel Ryan of Springfield, IL, who resigned in 1999, after being named in a lawsuit as a homosexual who engaged in sex with male prostitutes and priests, served as co-consecrator at an episcopal ordination in Joliet on March 19 of this year. Francis Cardinal George of Chicago has publicly defended Bishop Ryan. The list goes on.
The bishops are the problem and proof of their anti-Catholic attitudes is readily available.
A June 3, 2002 New York Times article stated "Pope John Paul II's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. 'People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.' Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. 'That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality,' added Dr. Navarro-Valls, a Spanish layman who is a psychiatrist by training. 'But you cannot be in this field.' " [3]
Dr. Navarro-Valls based his statement on a 1961 Vatican document titled, "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" that was promulgated by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. The paragraph regarding homosexuals and the priesthood states: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers." (emphasis added) The document, which can be found on RCF's web site at [www.rcf.org] was signed by Pope John XXIII, the very Pope praised by the liberals for calling the Second Vatican Council.
Had this document been followed by the hierarchy, the likes of Bishops Symons, Ryan, Weakland, and O'Connell may have never been ordained, and hundreds of children abused by homosexual clergy may have been spared. Who failed to enforce the guidelines contained within the document? On Tuesday evening, June 12, Archbishop Flynn of St. Paul, MN appeared on Nightline, a late-night news program. Flynn suggested that the Pope's spokesman, Dr. Navarro-Valls was "out of line" when he suggested homosexuals should not be ordained. Archbishop Flynn was the one who was contradicting Church teaching, yet no one in authority challenged him. Why haven't they? How many bishops have their own "dirty little secrets"? How many have paid out hush money from the diocesan coffers?
Apparently, the bishops have more concern for the homosexual priest who abuses children and presents false teaching than for the faithful whom they have sworn to serve. While the rights of the homosexual priest are protected, the rights of the faithful priests and laity are trampled underfoot.
As horrendous as the sexual abuse of children may be, and regardless of the number of homosexuals who have made their homes in parishes and chanceries, this scandal is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem. The scandalous sex education that destroys the innocence of children, pro-abortion Catholic politicians who go unchallenged by our bishops, heretical teachings, and liturgical abuse all point to a loss of faith on the part of our bishops. It seems the only zero tolerance policy our bishops are willing to enforce is a zero tolerance for orthodoxy and the traditional Mass.
Footnotes: 1. Rod Dreher, "Done in Dallas," National Review Online, June 17, 2002. 2. George Archibald, "Bishops' spokesman shielded Gay Priests," The Washington Times, June 13, 2002. 3. Melinda Henneberger, "Vatican Weighs Reaction to Accusations of Molesting by Clergy," New York Times, June 3, 2002.
I write but always a little circuitously.The bravest I ever got was when I,with several others wrote,and said we felt,after a careful look at the priests in our diocese,that we were going to be subject to some devastating lawsuits of the same nature as the Rudy Kos case in Dallas if he didn't do something.
We got a quick response,telling us that we were wrong and furthermore,he was the bishop and we owed him obedience.This was actually very good for us,we wrote right back and said that we understood obedience to legitimate authority and we would be as obedient to him as he was to the Pope.It was very freeing since he never listened to the Pope.
That is,except when the Pope said we could have altar girls,which he then commanded be in all parish churches by three months from that date.Another time the Pope,in a letter to his priests,said they needed rest and relaxation too. Well,we heard that pronto.And then when the Pope said that capital punishment was almost never accepable in the West,we heard that immediately. Other than that the Pope may as well be Aggie Murphy.
I just hope that Catholics and nonCatholics write letters like crazy to the bishops in their diocese making it clear that they have a duty to speak out on the devastating consequences of homosexuality to society and that their failure to speak out and act on it is not holy,not honest,not loving and not right. It may not do any good but then again it might.But for sure it is right and loving and honest for us to let them know that we know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.