Totally agree, Garabandal, DeGaulle, and picadillo. I did know one man whom I think was being treated at St. Luke's in Suitland, MD. I never understood why he was so quiet and had only a few quiet conversations. He would drink coffee and look into his cup and look down. I got the impression that maybe he was a member of the clergy perhaps being treated for alcoholism. My impression of St. Luke's is pretty dim right now.
But this priest was obedient. He was told not to destroy this sacrilegious article in a public show and so he and a number of supportive parishioners did so privately. Obedience, anyway, has its strict boundaries. We are required to obey in all but sin and, I can understand why any Catholic would regard the disposal of a sacrilegious object that sought to identify Christ's passion with gross sin and had been used to hide the Crucifix should be destroyed in a formal manner to partially cleanse the parish of its appalling and sacrilegious history and any instruction to the contrary as sinful. God bless this priest and all those who will be forced to disobey in future for their own spiritual good and that of their parishioners. The USSR used to 'hospitalise' its dissidents and this was regarded as a great evil in the West (a great sin in our terms) and so this good priest prevented the commission of a serious sin by his superiors in insisting on the psychiatric 'treatment' of a clearly sane person. It is they who need treatment.
If the prelates are not obeying God's commandments, then it is they who are out of communion with the Church. Then doesn't the person assuming the office and taking the oath have a duty to ignore/ disobey what such prelates dictate, which go against Church teachings? Duties toward the Church, which should be teaching God's laws. This alone would vindicate any clergy who obey God instead of a man who is twisting God's laws and the true teachings of our faith. Again, this speaks for itself. When the Bishops are clearly going against the long held teachings of the faith, should one obey? I believe not.
Why does the priest have to go to that St. Luke's place? If the Bishop thinks he needs psychological or psychiatric assessment, why can't the priest go to an expert of his own choosing and have the diocese cover the costs? The Church often pays for treatment of abuse victims. The Church can't have some kind of rule forbidding priests to choose their own medical/psychological/psychiatric professionals because Pope Francis was treated by a Jewish psychologist. When Pope Francis was Bishop of Buenos Aires, didn't he have treatment from a practitioner of alternative medicine?
Just out of curiosity, are the two priests from Cardinal Cupich's diocese who were found in flagrante delicto in Florida exposing their sexual sins to many people on a crowded street going to be sent to St. Luke's for evaluation too? Have they been stripped of faculties?
He removed them from active ministry in the Diocese of Chicago. One of them is from Colombia and the Cardinal informed that Diocese of his decision. The other one serves on Chicago's marriage tribunal. Both priests are free to seek permission to minister in another diocese but a spokesperson for Chicago Archdiocese said that typically the other diocese would check with Chicago re their employment record. Whether their record would be a hindrance or a help elsewhere is a matter of conjecture. Would anyone be surprised to see them employed by some seminary or "Catholic" university? Why would Cardinal Cupich of all people consider them in need of psychological assessment? That would be a violation of their internal forum. In this case, accompaniment might be more his style.
Yes, the Church Militant has the following story about those priests. I hadn't read this until tonight, it is worse than I had originally heard. Chicago’s Cdl. Cupich Appointed Homosexual to Marriage Tribunal News: Commentary | https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...e-priest-deciding-annulment-cases-in-tribunal Church Militant • ChurchMilitant.com • September 5, 2018 57 Comments Arrest of Fr. Diego Berrio corroborates Viganò's claims against Cupich By Rev. Michael X., J.C.L. Two priests in active ministry of the archdiocese of Chicago were arrested on Labor Day by police as they were caught engaged in gay sex in a car parked "in full view of the public passing by" along the most popular tourist avenue in Miami Beach, Florida. One of the priests, 39-year-old Rev. Diego Berrío Barrera, S.T.L., J.C.L. was just confirmed in his office as a judge of the Metropolitan Tribunal of the archdiocese of Chicago by Cdl. Blase Cupich. Both men were charged with misdemeanor counts of lewd conduct, while Rev. Edwin Cortez, an extern priest of the diocese of Soacha in Columbia, with whom Berrío was cavorting, was also charged with one misdemeanor count of indecent exposure. Berrío held the high canonical office of judge in addition to those of pastor of the Misión San Juan Diego of Arlington Heights, Illinois, spiritual director and coordinator of the Office for Externs and International Priests ad interim for the archdiocese of Chicago. That is a total of four canonical offices, with each customarily providing a separate salary to the office holder. Hailing from Columbia, Berrío came to Chicago via the scandal-ridden Casa Jesus, shut down in 2016 over multiple incidents of homosexual misconduct, including its own longtime rector, Octavio Munoz, busted for male teen porn found on his laptop. Church Militant reported that Casa Jesus was set up in 1987 under Cdl. Joseph Bernardin with the specific aim of funneling gay seminarians from Latin America to the United States. Berrío studied philosophy at the Pontifical Bolivarian University of Medellín, obtained a Master of Divinity and a licentiate in sacramental theology and liturgy from the University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary of Chicago, followed by a licentiate in canon law from the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome. The fact that Cdl. Cupich appointed a homosexual just this past July as a judge of his Metropolitan Tribunal, not to mention appointed one as pastor of Misión San Juan Diego and spiritual director to Hispanic youth, corroborates the claims of Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò set forth in his testimony. The former Vatican ambassador to the United States asserted that Cdl. Cupich of Chicago is "blinded by his pro-gay ideology." Blinded indeed, for would Cdl. Cupich state that he knowingly had a sodomite among his priests judging marriage nullity cases? The additional circumstances, according to Miami Beach Police, of Berrío engaging in oral sex in "broad daylight" with "no tints on the window," "in full view of the public passing by on Ocean Drive and the sidewalk," with police officers having "had to tap on the window to get their attention," embarrassingly destroys Cupich's claim that "the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism." Even worse, according to Miami Beach Police, "Our trouble with this is that this is in broad daylight, for anyone to see including children." A children's playground was located at the nearest intersection of where the homosexual activity of the priests was taking place. While news of deviant clerics being apprehended in flagrante delicto is shockingly becoming more and more common, these two news items highlight, however, just how many dangerous perverts in the priesthood have been appointed by bishops to judge the most confidential and delicate of all Church matters: the marriage nullity cases of laity. Berrío's arrest is hot on the heels of news that Rev. Robert J. DeLand, J.C.L., 71, a priest of the diocese of Saginaw, Michigan, pleaded no contest to six felony counts, including criminal sexual misconduct, one day before he was set to begin trial for sexual abuse crimes involving three male teenagers. Until his arrest, DeLand was judicial vicar, or chief judge, of the diocesan tribunal of the diocese of Saginaw, principally deciding marriage nullity cases on behalf of Bp. Joseph Cistone. DeLand will be jailed for one year and will be registered as a sex offender. Canon 1421, § 3 of the Code of Canon Law states: "Judges are to be of unimpaired reputation and doctors or at least licensed in canon law." Sodomy is and always has been a canonical crime in the 2,000-year history of canon law. It has always been a disqualifying factor, not only in the selection and appointment of canonical judges, but equally to the office of pastor and any other exercise of public ministry for that matter. "Canonists have long known that American tribunals have become a 'dumping ground' for bishops to place 'problem' priests.TweetCanonists have long known that American tribunals have become a "dumping ground" for bishops to place "problem" priests whom they are obliged to care for, but cannot place elsewhere in full-time public ministry in parishes. Worse, however, is the choice of a bishop, like Cdl. Cupich of Chicago, to appoint, knowingly or even unwittingly a deviant and disordered priest to the canonical office of judge in a diocesan tribunal to decide marriage nullity cases. The time has come for America's bishops to see the writing on the wall — the clear and present threat of homosexuals among the clergy under their official responsibility — and act against it. Cardinal Cupich has spectacularly failed in protecting adult and minor faithful of his archdiocese and that of Miami from the likes of Berrío and Cortez. He owes both Abp. Viganò and the faithful of his archdiocese an apology. *** Edited to add: I like these 3 minute news segments that the CM does also. They bring you update very quickly.
No bishop, unless he possesses the necessary psychiatric training and experience, has the qualifications, in the first place, to make a diagnosis that someone is in need of psychiatric treatment. It is such misguided arrogance, combined with their loss of a sense of sin, that fuelled the whole scandal from the beginning. If, instead of appointing themselves psychiatric experts and deciding that buggers of boys were 'mentally ill' and consigning them to be 'cured', they had recognised that these fiends were wicked sinners, thrown them out of the priesthood and handed them over, in Inquisition fashion, to the secular arm, this whole business would have been sorted very quickly. Neither would the entirely uninvolved laity of the Church have been stuck for the money. As in socialism, it is very easy to spend other people's money and convince oneself of one's great virtue and generosity for doing so. I can't help wondering why all these bishops lost their sense of sin. Is it because it was their own? It is a greater temptation, except among the scrupulous, to dismiss one's own sins as being acceptable than it is to do so to those of others.
I'm getting fed up of reading all of this manure. I wish to keep on contributing my few bob to the Church, but I'm going to have to use more of that new buzz-word, discernment. I generally contribute anonymously, but I think in my next contribution that I will include a signed letter to my parish priest outlining my reservations. At this stage, it is getting like 'the invasion of the bodysnatchers', and one hardly knows what arm of the Church has not been infiltrated by the sodomites, but there must be quiet little corners which have managed to stay immune-my hunch is that it involves areas of the Church where there is very little money and where they are doing unglamourous, unfashionable and unheralded good works. Has anyone here any ideas?
You know I was wondering this myself. I think I will email this question to Michael Voris myself to see if he can find out . Great question!! I Tweeted him, though I'm not altogether sure what a Tweet is.
I am thinking along these lines myself. There is a local monastery here that I may begin to support. Very good humble and poor and a spiritual oasis. Fr Z on his blog recommends the Latin Mass Society (I think that is what they are called) the Marian’s from Stockbridge Massachusetts (Divine Mercy father’s) I’m sure there are such places in Ireland too. Like you I mean to be very careful where the money goes.
If you donate anonymously, this might not work, but I did read one suggestion: On your check, designate the money for parish utilities, or roof repair, or renovation to Hall, etc. I am considering this measure.
Don't know how it works in your diocese but as far as I know in our diocese all the first collection at Mass goes to the diocese. The priests receive a salary from that fund and it also covers costs of retired priests. The second collection when it was introduced was called the Share collection and back then they told us it was to help out poor or struggling parishes. Maybe that has changed because now we're just told that the money goes to the diocese. The cost of maintaining parish property is covered by the weekly envelope collection. In Dublin every home in the parish is given a set of envelopes for the year and volunteers call to people's homes to collect the envelopes. Some people pay monthly via the bank rather than using the envelopes. I don't see how we could in good conscience withhold money from the first collection at Mass because we are obliged to contribute to the support of our pastors. I've been thinking of giving the second collection a miss ever since I read that the diocesan marriage advisory group will be giving marriage guidance to same sex couples. I fear that the Justice and Peace area is where our parish would be most vulnerable to an infiltration by heterodoxy. If that should happen, our contribution to the upkeep of the parish will be considerably reduced. My dilemma is finding a Catholic charity I can confidently donate to regularly. What happened in Galway made me very wary about SVP. Although I know that money donated in the parish is spent in the parish I'm mindful that the SVP in France had a say in the Galway case.
How The Ancient Catholic Church Dealt With Priest Sex Offenders By Ryan Scheel July 24, 2018 https://www.ucatholic.com/blog/how-the-ancient-catholic-church-dealt-with-priest-sex-offenders/ Within the past quarter-century, sexual abuse by clergy has been a high profile scandal within the Catholic Church. Most recently, the detestable accusations against Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick have rocked the Church and re-opened the discussion on how to handle cases of clerical abuse. Cardinal McCarrick posing with one of the young men who has accused him of sexual abuse While it may be tempting to encapsulate clerical abuse as a modern phenomenon, fallen human nature and sin have existed since the Garden of Eden, along with it those who would use their position within the Church to sexually prey on victims. In our modern world, the Church has responded to the sex abuse crisis with guidelines on how to deal with those accused of transgressions. From Pope Francis’ “zero tolerance” policy to guidelines issued by the USCCB, the Church has tried (and often failed) to properly handle cases of sexual abuse within the Church. These methods often include psychological assessments, 3rd party investigations, canonical punishments, removal from public ministry, laicization, and handing over the case to secular authorities. But in the ancient Catholic Church, the punishments for clergy who sexually preyed on victims were not as relatively urbane as these modern approaches. Saint Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, writing in the 4th-century, described how the early Catholic Church dealt with those guilty of sexual abuse among the clergy. “Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing or in any shameful situation, shall be publicly flogged and shall lose his clerical tonsure. Thus shorn, he shall be disgraced by spitting in his face, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and for three days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall spend a further six months living in a small segregated courtyard in custody of a spiritual elder, kept busy with manual labor and prayer, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walk at all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men.” This harsh punishment may seem barbaric to the modern sensibility, but given the gravity of crimes of sexual nature, especially perpetrated by clergy, perhaps the time has come to listen to the wisdom of the Church Fathers and apply this type of justice. In the 11th-century, another Doctor of the Church, Saint Peter Damian, stormed against the widespread clerical sexual abuse and sexual misconduct of the time. He decried the impunity with which bishops and abbots conducted themselves, as clerics were above, and not subject to the secular authorities. In a letter to Pope Leo IX, Saint Peter Damian demanded reform, ecclesial accountability, that priests be handed over to secular authorities for punishment, and other actions to weed out the cancer of sexual abuse in the Church. Aiming directly at the hierarchy who enabled such an environment, he wrote: “Listen, you do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests. Listen, and even though you feel sure of yourselves, tremble at the thought that you are partners in the guilt of others; those, I mean, who wink at the sins of their subjects that need correction and who by ill-considered silence allow them license to sin. Listen, I say, and be shrewd enough to understand that all of you alike are deserving of death, that is, not only those who do such things, but also they who approve those who practice them.” Do you think it is time to listen to the Doctors of the Church and use harsher penalties to address sexual abuse in the clergy? Share your comments below! h/t to Father Edwin Dwyer for finding these examples from the Doctors of the Church.
We are different. We generally have one collection (unless for missions or blah blah, which we generally do not cover) and that collection is TAXED (my pastor's words) by the Archdiocese of Washington. UGH. That means maybe McCarrick and Wuerl used some of my funds. No doubt, it was also used for priests' salaries, too, as you mentioned, Dolours. We have some special collections at our parish, because we recently built a cemetery, and we are also building a new rectory because the old one is too small and decrepit. The only collections that are not taxed are the Christmas and Easter collections. Those stay within the parish. So I also have misgivings about where my charitable donations go, and am in the process of continually overhauling my decisions in that area. I appreciate that you posted a breakdown of how your area used monies from collections.
My uncle's church is in New York state and he and a bunch of other parishioners came up with an idea that they hope will spread. During the first collection that goes to support their particular church they give normally. Then when the second collection comes around for the diocese they put in an empty envelope and they write a note inside or on it saying that they will begin contributing again once the Church decides to actually allow and cooperate with an impartial investigation. Until then they will keep their donation money at home. Unfortunately the pocket book is all that some of these people understand.
