Friday, March 29, 2013

Yahoo! reports on the Sour Grapes of Pseudo-Traditionalists concerning Antipope Francis' Liturgical Abuse

Pseudo-Traditionalists spew sour grapes concerning Francis I's Modernist revival through Liturgical Abuse, which is of course Child Abuse (See Bergoglio Washes Ratzinger's Novus Ordo Reform of the Reform towards greater Modernism). 

Disclaimer: The AP thinks Jorge Bergoglio is a valid Pope, but true Traditionalists of the Catholic Religion reject him as an Antipope.


Pope's foot-wash a final straw for traditionalists
By NICOLE WINFIELD | Associated Press


Associated Press/Gregorio Borgia - Pope Francis, right, looks up to the Crucifix during the Passion of Christ Mass inside St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Friday, March 29, 2013. Pope Francis began the …more




VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world's poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.

Francis' decision to disregard church law and wash the feet of two girls — a Serbian Muslim and an Italian Catholic — during a Holy Thursday ritual has become something of the final straw, evidence that Francis has little or no interest in one of the key priorities of Benedict's papacy: reviving the pre-Vatican II traditions of the Catholic Church.

One of the most-read traditionalist blogs, "Rorate Caeli," reacted to the foot-washing ceremony by declaring the death of Benedict's eight-year project to correct what he considered the botched interpretations of the Second Vatican Council's modernizing reforms.

"The official end of the reform of the reform — by example," ''Rorate Caeli" lamented in its report on Francis' Holy Thursday ritual.

A like-minded commentator in Francis' native Argentina, Marcelo Gonzalez at International Catholic Panorama, reacted to Francis' election with this phrase: "The Horror." Gonzalez's beef? While serving as the archbishop of Buenos Aires, the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's efforts to revive the old Latin Mass so dear to Benedict and traditionalists were "non-existent."

Virtually everything he has done since being elected pope, every gesture, every decision, has rankled traditionalists in one way or another.

The night he was chosen pope, March 13, Francis emerged from the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica without the ermine-rimmed red velvet cape, or mozzetta, used by popes past for official duties, wearing instead the simple white cassock of the papacy. The cape has since come to symbolize his rejection of the trappings of the papacy and to some degree the pontificate of Benedict XVI, since the German pontiff relished in resurrecting many of the liturgical vestments of his predecessors.

Francis also received the cardinals' pledges of obedience after his election not from a chair on a pedestal as popes normally do but rather standing, on their same level. For traditionalists who fondly recall the days when popes were carried on a sedan chair, that may have stung. In the days since, he has called for "intensified" dialogue with Islam — a gesture that rubs traditionalists the wrong way because they view such a heavy focus on interfaith dialogue as a sign of religious relativism.

Francis may have rubbed salt into the wounds with his comments at the Good Friday procession at Rome's Colosseum, which re-enacts Jesus Christ's crucifixion, praising "the friendship of our Muslim brothers and sisters" during a prayer ceremony that recalled the suffering of Christians in the Middle East.

Francis also raised traditional eyebrows when he refused the golden pectoral cross offered to him right after his election by Monsignor Guido Marini, the Vatican's liturgy guru who under Benedict became the symbol of Benedict's effort to restore the Gregorian chant and heavy silk brocaded vestments of the pre-Vatican II liturgy to papal Masses.

Marini has gamely stayed by Francis' side as the new pope puts his own stamp on Vatican Masses with no-nonsense vestments and easy off-the-cuff homilies. But there is widespread expectation that Francis will soon name a new master of liturgical ceremonies more in line with his priorities of bringing the church and its message of love and service to ordinary people without the "high church" trappings of his predecessor.

There were certainly none of those trappings on display Thursday at the Casal del Marmo juvenile detention facility in Rome, where the 76-year-old Francis got down on his knees to wash and kiss the feet of 12 inmates, two of them women. The rite re-enacts Jesus' washing of the feet of his 12 apostles during the Last Supper before his crucifixion, a sign of his love and service to them.

The church's liturgical law holds that only men can participate in the rite, given that Jesus' apostles were all male. Priests and bishops have routinely petitioned for exemptions to include women, but the law is clear.

Francis, however, is the church's chief lawmaker, so in theory he can do whatever he wants.

"The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him," noted conservative columnist Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register. But Akin echoed concerns raised by canon lawyer Edward Peters, an adviser to the Vatican's high court, that Francis was setting a "questionable example" by simply ignoring the church's own rules.

"People naturally imitate their leader. That's the whole point behind Jesus washing the disciples' feet. He was explicitly and intentionally setting an example for them," he said. "Pope Francis knows that he is setting an example."

The inclusion of women in the rite is problematic for some because it could be seen as an opening of sorts to women's ordination. The Catholic Church restricts the priesthood to men, arguing that Jesus and his 12 apostles were male.

Francis is clearly opposed to women's ordination. But by washing the feet of women, he jolted traditionalists who for years have been unbending in insisting that the ritual is for men only and proudly holding up as evidence documentation from the Vatican's liturgy office saying so.

"If someone is washing the feet of any females ... he is in violation of the Holy Thursday rubrics," Peters wrote in a 2006 article that he reposted earlier this month on his blog.

In the face of the pope doing that very thing, Peters and many conservative and traditionalist commentators have found themselves trying to put the best face on a situation they clearly don't like yet can't do much about lest they be openly voicing dissent with the pope.

By Thursday evening, Peters was saying that Francis had merely "disregarded" the law — not violated it.

The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned, had to measure his comments when the purported abuser was the pope himself.

"Before liberals and traditionalists both have a spittle-flecked nutty, each for their own reasons, try to figure out what he is trying to do," Zuhlsdorf wrote in a conciliatory piece.

But, in characteristic form, he added: "What liberals forget in their present crowing is that even as Francis makes himself — and the church — more popular by projecting (a) compassionate image, he will simultaneously make it harder for them to criticize him when he reaffirms the doctrinal points they want him to overturn."

One of the key barometers of how traditionalists view Francis concerns his take on the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. The Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, allowed the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular rather than Latin. In the decades that followed, the so-called Tridentine Rite fell out of use almost entirely.

Traditionalist Catholics who were attached to the old rite blame many of the ills afflicting the Catholic Church today — a drop in priestly vocations, empty pews in Europe and beyond — on the liturgical abuses that they say have proliferated with the celebration of the new form of Mass.

In a bid to reach out to them, Benedict in 2007 relaxed restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass. The move was aimed also at reconciling with a group of schismatic traditionalists, the Society of St. Pius X, who split from Rome precisely over the Vatican II reforms, in particular its call for Mass in the vernacular and outreach to other religions, especially Judaism and Islam.

Benedict took extraordinary measures to bring the society back under Rome's wing during his pontificate, but negotiations stalled.

The society has understandably reacted coolly to Francis' election, reminding the pope that his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, was told by Christ to go and "rebuild my church." For the society, that means rebuilding it in its own, pre-Vatican II vision.

The head of the society for South America, the Rev. Christian Bouchacourt, was less than generous in his assessment of Francis.

"He cultivates a militant humility, but can prove humiliating for the church," Bouchacourt said in a recent article, criticizing the "dilapidated" state of the clergy in Buenos Aires and the "disaster" of its seminary. "With him, we risk to see once again the Masses of Paul VI's pontificate, a far cry from Benedict XVI's efforts to restore to their honor the worthy liturgical ceremonies."

http://news.yahoo.com/popes-foot-wash-final-straw-traditionalists-004235548.html


Bergoglio Washes Ratzinger's Novus Ordo Reform of the Reform towards greater Modernism


During the evening on Holy Thursday 2013, at a Novus Ordo Bugnini Meal Antipope Francis washed the feet of 12 young people of different nationalities and sects, including at least two Muslims and two women, who are housed at the juvenile detention facility.

The Secular Media has immediately picked up on Antipope Francis' break with Catholic Tradition for Maundy Thursday Liturgy and the implications of this heretical act towards creating a Novus Ordo female priesthood (maybe these witches will claim to be even greater than their warlock presbyters--i.e. presiders). It was written:

Chris Gillibrand, a British commentator, wrote on his blog, CathCon: "We will see whether it is a particular case, as Lombardi suggests, or the beginning of a journey. Given his active support for the charismatic movement in his diocese, one can only be concerned that he could be prepared to ordain womenHow can the pope [sic] maintain discipline in the church if he himself does not conform himself to prevailing ecclesiastical legislation?"

Of course LAICA Network knows the Catholic Tradition has always excluded women during the Mandatum washing, it was reserved only for Catholic men, and the bishop would preferably wash the feet of his own priests in imitation of Christ at the Last Supper washing his Apostles' feet who he ordained to the priesthood. To follow the Lord's pattern is true humility, but to break away from that perfect pattern in order to pretend to oneself that his way is greater than the Lord's way, then that's really the sin of pride. Bergoglio's pride causes him to blind himself and his follower through a cloak of pseudo-humility in order to attempt to sugar coat his crimes before the world, that is the seduction within his delicta graviora that uniquely marks his guilt. He promotes openly the heresies, schisms, and apostasies of Modernism, Witchcraft, and Feminism but through the cloak of false-humility, which any orthodox Catholic will see is really the sin of pride that will only damn him and his abettors.

Cowards like Raymond Arroyo, George Weigel, "Fr."(?) Z, "Fr."(?) Fessio, Shawn Tribe, and other weak Novus Ordo personalities have failed to loudly anathematize and damn Jorge Bergoglio as a heretical Antipope along with all his followers on account of this act of sacrilege during the very day commemorating the Institution of the Holy Eucharist and Sacred Orders--which through Minor and Major Ranks is reserved by Divine Law for men alone! 

This Liturgical Abuse is Child Abuse! How can a archliturgical-abuser claim to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ? And how can anyone but a fool claim that man is true Pope of Rome?

Oddly, the Novus Ordo Sect under Joseph Ratzinger and CDF officialdom even considered the washing of females as tantamount to confirming the claim for woman priests. Here's a summary of Novus Ordo warning made back in 2006 re-iterating Ratzinger's Letter Paschales Solemnitatis of 1988:

Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday

3/29/2006 - 5:45 AM PST

And More on Days of Abstinence
ROME, MARCH 29, 2006 (Zenit) - Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. 

Q: I understand that it is in fact liturgically incorrect to have the main celebrant at the Holy Thursday Mass wash the feet of women. Correct? -- J.C., Ballina, Ireland. During the Holy Thursday liturgy at our parish, there are a number of foot-washing stations set up around the Church, and the people in the pews get up and bring someone else to one of the stations and wash their feet. Most of the people in Church take part in this, washing feet and in turn having their feet washed. It takes quite a while. Is this liturgically correct? Are there any norms for foot-washing during the Holy Thursday Mass? -- B.S., Naperville, Illinois. On Holy Thursday, at the washing of feet, the people, mostly youth, after having their foot washed, preceded to wash the next person's foot. Then they placed four bowls of water and four places before the altar, and the congregation was told to come forward and have their hands washed by the same people who just had their foot washed. We didn't. Everything felt out of order. -- E.K., Freehold, New Jersey 

There has been no change in the universal norm which reserves this rite to men as stated in the circular letter "Paschales Solemnitatis" (Jan. 16, 1988) and the rubrics of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal. 

No. 51 of the circular letter states: "The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came 'not to be served, but to serve.' This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained." 
About a year ago, however, the Holy See, while affirming that the men-only rule remains the norm, did permit a U.S. bishop to also wash women's feet if he considered it pastorally necessary in specific cases. This permission was for a particular case and from a strictly legal point of view has no value outside the diocese in question. 

I believe that the best option, as "Paschales Solemnitatis" states, is to maintain the tradition and explain its proper significance. 

This means preparing the rite following liturgical law to the letter, explain its meaning as an evocation of Christ's gesture of service and charity to his apostles, and avoid getting embroiled in controversies that try to attribute to the rite meanings it was never meant to have. 

Regarding the place and number of those whose feet are to be washed, the rubric, which has remained unvaried in the new missal, describes the rite as follows: 

"Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet may follow the homily. 

"The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them." 

The number of men selected for the rite is not fixed. Twelve is the most common option but they may be fewer in order to adjust to the available space. 

Likewise the place chosen is usually within or near the presbytery so that the rite is clearly visible to the assembly. 

Thus, the logical sense of the rubric requires the priest, representing Christ, washing feet of a group of men taken from the assembly, symbolizing the apostles, in a clearly visible area. 

The variations described above -- of washing the feet of the entire congregation, of people washing each other's feet (or hands), or doing so in situations that are not visible to all -- tend to undermine the sense of this rite within the concrete context of the Mass of the Lord's Supper. 

Such practices, by greatly extending the time required, tend to convert a meaningful, but optional, rite into the focal point of the celebration. And that detracts attention from the commemoration of the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, the principal motive of the celebration. 

In other circumstances, such as retreats or so called para-liturgical services, it can be perfectly legitimate to perform foot-washing rites inspired by Christ's example and by the liturgy. In such cases none of the limitations imposed by the concrete liturgical context of the Holy Thursday Mass need apply. 

* * * 
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3155



Here's the traditional Catholic Mandatum ceremony out of the Missale Romanum as decred by Council of Trent and executed into publication by Pope St. Pius V:






Only a fool wouldn't think the man who said "Ecclesia semper reformanda" couldn't be a Modernist prepared to accept any novelties evolved out of the living germ of Modernism, that is through the development of doctrine. Antipope Benedict XVI realized it was time for #Change, hence the next step of Modernism and its development of heresy manifestly is taking effect. That was always the plan for the Novus Ordo's Reform of the Reform, meaning perpetual Modernism, keeping the Novus Ordo always "New" always changing to so-called social progress and evening mixing it up with some elements of the old Liturgy in order to try to pervert things together even at the seemingly minimal degree of contamination. So Bergoglio has simply "washed" Ratzinger's Novus Ordo Reform of the Reform towards greater crimes of Modernism even if its contaminated with dirty water there will be Motu-Modernists who'll drink from that "kool-aid" bowl.

Of course the sacrileges of Modernism is nothing new to Antipope Bergoglio's careerism of heresy, to know this, you only have to ask Argentina why she cries so much?


 Jorge Bergoglio giving Novus Ordo Communion to the crowds in Buenos Aires. The pseudo-cardinal is handing out hosts on August 7, 2004, at the Novus Ordo Mess on the feast day of St. Cajetan at the Sanctuary of St. Cajetan in the neighborhood of Liniers.


Sources (Caveat: We do not endorse these web pages):






Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Antipope Francis I continues the Liturgical Abuse of Modernism



Antipope Francis I, following Antipope Benedict XVI's sacrilegious abuse, did nothing to prevent the schismatical sacrilege of a female pretending to have the dignity and office of Lector--a Minor Order of the Priesthood.

In fact the Novus Ordo station EWTN also promoted this witchcraft of Feminism. So let's ask the question: WDTPRS, oh "Fr"(?) Z ? Does the All Holy Truth really promote this? Nope!


We pray for St. Paul's intercession in order that this schismatical delict cease and that ecclesiastical penalties be pronounced by a true Roman Catholic prelate for Liturgical Abuse Is Child Abuse!




Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Will the Novus Ordo Sect pick a Modernist Iconoclast-Simonist Antipope to demolish churches in Rome?

The media is pushing the name of Sean O'Malley to be selected as the Novus Ordo Antipope despite his track record of abuse exposed by LAICA. 

If it wasn't bad enough that this wolf in sheep's clothing has fooled many people from Boston through the suppression of a record number of churches (see below for the facts), how about if O'Malley would attempt to do the same in Catholic Rome and Italy but on a larger scale of destruction? O'Malley, like Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIIIth, and Josef Stalin, has attempted to close and destroy many churches belonging to the Catholic Church, and in the context of a the Carbonari-Masonic desire to force closure of churches in Italy by billions of Euros in taxation to be applied in clear violation of the Lateran Pacts, there may be a Modernist call for a neo-Nero to force his way into the Vatican in order to suppress Rome's churches in the Eternal City and throughout Lazio. The evil effect of this would mean less public divine worship according to the Traditional Catholic Rites--something that happened in Catholic Mexico under Freemason Plutarco Elías Calles. May God and Ss. Peter & Paul -- forbid it! However, in case you didn't know already, Sean O'Malley is notorious for his heresy of Simonism which would disqualify him from the papacy, according to Pope Julius II at the Fifth Lateran Council (Session 5, 16 February 1513): 

"With the advice and unanimous consent of our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, by means of this our constitution which will have permanent validity, we establish, ordain, decree and define, by apostolic authority and the fulness of our power, that if it happens (which may God avert in his mercy and goodness towards all), after God has released us or our successors from the government of the universal church, that by the efforts of the enemy of the human race and following the urge of ambition or greed, the election of the Roman pontiff is made or effected by the person who is elected, or by one or several members of the college of cardinals, giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony being committed -- by the gift, promise or receipt of money, goods of any sort, castles, offices, benefices, promises or obligations -- by the person elected or by one or several other persons, in any manner or form whatsoever, even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff."

Similarly, Pope Paul IV declared a heretical person like O'Malley cannot be considered a valid Roman Pontiff according to his Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559).

Here is a record of O'Malley's attempt to commit the delicta graviora of heretical sacrilege of Iconoclasm and Simonism by means of church suppression, sale, and destruction--which he has no right to do. 



Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:09:15 PM by Pyro7480
Boston Archdiocese Closing 65 Parishes
By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - The Boston Archdiocese will lose 65 of its 357 parishes, a massive restructuring brought on partly by the clergy sex abuse scandal that aggravated already shrinking Mass attendance and weekly collections.
Archbishop Sean O'Malley announced the parish closings Tuesday, completing a process that began in December when he said the Roman Catholic archdiocese would be forced to undergo a major downsizing.

He said the reduction was needed because of declining Mass attendance, a shortage of priests and the inability of the archdiocese to support struggling parishes in the midst of a financial crisis caused in part by the abuse crisis.

The announcement was dreaded by parishioners and pastors, who received word about the fate of their churches in letters from O'Malley delivered Tuesday morning, just hours before he released the complete list of closings during a news conference.

The parishes will not close immediately but will gradually shutter through the end of the year.

Seventy parishes in all will be affected by the downsizing, but five new parishes are being created through mergers. Another five churches will remain open as worship sites, though they'll be maintained by neighboring parishes and their membership will be merged with those existing congregations, O'Malley said.

The announcement was dreaded by parishioners and pastors, who received word about the fate of their churches in overnight letters from O'Malley delivered Tuesday morning, just hours before he released the complete list of closings during a news conference.

The parishes will not close immediately but will gradually shutter through the end of the year.

At St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, some parishioners gasped and others cried while the pastor, the Rev. Stephen Josoma, announced that the church would close.

"I feel like we've been betrayed," said Bob Frasca, 74, a retiree who has attended the church since it opened 42 years ago. "I will not give another dime to the archdiocese."

Josoma immediately told the group of about 80 parishioners who gathered in the parish hall that he would appeal the decision to close the church, which has about 800 member families.

After a lengthy review process, the names of 143 churches were submitted to O'Malley for possible closure. The archbishop made the final decision on which parishes to close after consulting with a panel of priests and bishops.

The Rev. Christopher Coyne, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said O'Malley tried to give parishioners as much input as possible into the decisions by asking leaders within geographic clusters throughout the archdiocese to hold meetings and submit recommendations on one or two churches to close within their cluster.

Parishes on the list to be closed may appeal to O'Malley. If they fail to change his mind, they can then appeal to the Vatican (news - web sites), but only on procedural grounds, not simply on their belief that their church should remain open, Coyne said.


List of affected churches
By Associated Press
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
There are presently 357 churches in the Archdiocese of Boston in 144 surrounding cities and towns. The reconfiguration actions announced today will bring that number to 292 churches. Today's changes will result in 60 actual church closings. Specific changes are detailed below, including churches that will remain open for worship space.

Boston

Blessed Sacrament Parish, Jamaica Plain
Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish, East Boston
Our Lady of the Presentation Parish, Brighton
Holy Trinity Parish, Boston (closure delayed one year)
Sacred Heart Parish, North End (church remains open)
Saint Adalbert Parish, Hyde Park (closure delayed)
Saint Ann Parish, Fenway
Saint Augustine Parish, South Boston
Saint Catherine of Siena Parish, Charlestown
Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Philip Parish, Roxbury (both suppressed; new parish established)
Saint John-Saint Hugh, Roxbury
Saint Joseph Parish, Hyde Park and St. Margaret Parish, Dorchester (both suppressed; new parish established)
Saint William Parish, Dorchester
St. Mary of the Angels, Roxbury
Saint Mary Star of the Sea, East Boston
Saint Peter, South Boston

Text of Archbishop O'Malley's remarks on church closings
Today is not an easy day for the people of the Archdiocese of Boston. This morning all of our pastors and parishes were notified of the results of the reconfiguration process. Many parishes received the news that they would be remaining open and welcoming people from other parishes in the months ahead. As a result of this process there will be 65 less parishes, but this translates into the closing of 60 churches since five of the former parish churches will continue as worship sites. Although this reconfig-uration responds to the very special needs of the present, a radical reconfiguration of the archdiocese has been discussed for many years. Changes in population, the movement of people from the cities to the suburbs, the decrease in the number of active Catholics have all contributed to the present predicament. At this time, over one third of our parishes are operating in the red, the deterioration of our parish buildings and churches (that in the city of Boston alone would cost over 100 million dollars to repair), and the aging clergy (130 pastors are over 70 years of age) have forced us to make the hard decisions that we have announced today.
The alternative to going through this exercise would be that we would experience a continual decline in some areas of our archdiocese, closing parish after parish, school after school, out-reach program after out-reach program, all because the archdiocese would be unable to subsidize these entities. Furthermore, the archdiocese would be faced with the serious reality of not being able to meet its pension and medical fund obligations for its employees.
This we cannot allow to happen.
In addition, I want to assure the people of the archdiocese that the decision to close parishes is in no way connected with the need to finance the legal settlement with the victims of clergy sexual abuse. The sale of the Brighton property of the former archbishop's residences and surrounding land has raised the $90 million dollars needed to do so. No money from the future sale of parish assets will be used to pay for the settlement. What these funds will do is allow us to financially support as needed the parishes and schools that do remain in the archdiocese as well as to recapitalize our pension and medical funds. This process of reconfiguration is directed not towards the past, but towards the future mission of the Church.
Concerning this, last December I met with all of the priests of the archdiocese in order to explain both the reasons and the process for reconfiguration. The first step took place in February when staff and laity from each parish met in their various local clusters. Over the course of the cluster meetings, thousands of lay men and women, religious, deacons, and priests came together to consult, listen, and dialogue about the future of the parishes in their local area. The recommendations of the various clusters were then sent to the local vicar, a priest who coordinates a grouping of 12-13 local parishes, who then made his own recommendations to the regional bishop. The regional bishops then considered the cluster's ideas and then added his own. All of this was presented to a reconfiguration central committee of 24 people, most of whom were lay men and women. This committee gathered together for over 43 hours of meetings, pouring over all of the various recommendations that had been made over the course of each stage of the process. Their report was then presented to me for my consideration.
As required by church law, my initial determinations were presented to the presbyteral or priests council of the archdiocese so that I could hear their counsel, which I did in three days of meetings. From all of this, it is quite apparent that extensive consultation, work and effort was involved in this reconfiguration process. This consultation and input from so many people was extremely important in helping me make the difficult decisions I have made today. At every step of the process we took great care not to place the burden of reconfiguration on the backs of the poor. We have tried to distribute closings across all regions of the Archdiocese so that we shall be able to ensure the Church's presence in all areas of the Archdiocese in the future, especially in the inner city and in rural areas.
I am profoundly aware of the emotion the announcement of the closing of a parish evokes. It means the loss of a spiritual home, the place where so much time and resources have been invested, the house where so many important moments in people's lives, from birth to death, have taken place. I wish there was some way that all of these wonderful houses of life and prayer could remain open and alive and full. But there is not. Yet, I know from my own experience of being uprooted many times in life that the Church's faith can be as alive in one place as it is in another. As one church is closed, another church is waiting to welcome its people to a place which can become more alive, more spirit-filled, and more able to proclaim the good news of our faith because of the talents, treasure, and time its new members will bring. Doors may be closing and lights may be extinguished in one church, but other doors are open and arms are extended in welcome in another church in which the light of faith will burn all the brighter in renewal. Closing a parish does not mean an end to the book, just a chapter in the story of life and faith that is being written every day of our life as a Church.
This process will challenge all of us to move beyond a parochial mindset and realize that we are Catholic, which means universal. We may think of ourselves as liberal Catholics, as Latin Mass Catholics, Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Lithuanian Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, French Catholics, Vietnamese Catholics, Haitian Catholics, Cape Verdean Catholics, the Voice of the Faithful or the Silent Majority. We need to put the accent on Catholic and come together as one people ready to make sacrifices for our Church. We are part of something bigger than ourselves. This is not a matter of winners and losers. If we all see ourselves as part of the Catholic family, we will realize that the entire Church is the winner if everybody is willing to work together for the common good and to promote the Church's mission as we move forward.
Before I turn the podium over to Bishop Lennon, I wish to thank the people of the Archdiocese of Boston for their strength and fidelity over the past few years. Many of the wounds of the abuse crisis are still there and the healing we need as an archdiocese has only just begun. I am fully aware that all that has happened has shaken the trust that many had in the archdiocese as an institution. Trust cannot be regained in a moment but over time by doing the right things for the right reasons, one challenge or opportunity at a time. Know that what we are doing today as an archdiocese is for the right end and for the right reasons. It is clear that our recent journey as an archdiocese has been along a difficult path. My hope is that the major step we are taking together today will set us on firm ground so that we can focus our attention once more on our primary mission to preach the truth of our Catholic faith in both word and in deed.
I need also offer sincere thanks to Bishop Richard Lennon for his extraordinary efforts in directing this reconfiguration process. He has put in untold hours over the past few months to make this reconfiguration possible. That the reconfiguration process worked so well is largely due to him and we are all very grateful. To the thousands of priests, deacons, and lay men and women who gathered on the cluster levels, to the vicars, the regional bishops, the lay men and women and clergy on the central committee, to the members of the presbyteral council, I say thank you as well. This process has clearly shown that consultation among all the peoples of our archdiocese, laity and clergy, is something we all value and something that can obviously produce good results. The thoughtful advice and pastoral sensitivity that characterized the discussions in the central committee and the priest's council were truly edifying. In twenty years as a bishop I never felt more connected with my priests' council than I did as we agonized together over parish closings.
Please do not interpret reconfiguration as a defeat. It is rather a necessary reorganization for us to be positioned for the challenges of the future, so that the Church can be present in every area of the Archdiocese with the human and material resources we need to carry on the mission that Christ has entrusted to us.
I appeal to every Catholic in the Archdiocese to accept these changes in the spirit of faith. I am calling on everyone to make the sacrifices necessary for the good of our Church. A crisis tends to bring out the best and worst in people. I hope that this time of crisis will help us to focus on what is essential, our fidelity to Christ and our connectedness to each other in His Church.
The Church of Boston has a great history forged in persecution and sacrifice. We will have a great future if we do not flee from the cross. Reach out to one another in prayerful support. Let our love for our faith help us overcome our pain and help us focus on our mission.
As bishop in the West Indies, our islands were devastated by Hurricane Hugo. We were six months without electricity and phones. I gathered with our priests and people amid ruble and said"our buildings are strewn on the ground but we are on our feet." We looked around us and saw a barren landscape, not a leaf or a bush left on the island. It looked as if there had been a forest fire, but the rains came and sun appeared in the sky and lush tropical foliage returned more stunning than ever. We should never underestimate God..s power to make all things new.
I am asking the Catholics of the Archdiocese to lay aside their anger and disappointment, to cast off their sadness and join hands with brothers and sisters across the Archdiocese. We need to be united, we need to help and support one another. It is not a time to foment divisions but a time to strengthen relationships and build a strong Church. The Lord is counting on us. We cannot let Him down. We are His people.




Links of Sources:















Jesus Christ once appeared to St. Francis of Assisi and said "Francis, rebuild my church, which, as you see, is falling down." Oddly, Sean O'Malley wears the cloak of St. Francis claiming to be a Capuchin, which makes one wonder to ask: Sean, tell me, how many churches did St. Francis close? 


Frankly the answer is NONE! St. Francis did not destroy churches as Sean has tried to do on a titanic scale, but rather the Saint reconstructed and cleaned churches in need of repair and aid throughout Italy. Does Rome and Italy desire the many churches, chapels, and monasteries to be suppressed and secularized in violation of the Sacred Canons? Sean O'Malley's blog displays that act as his paradigm, see the case of St. Aidan's Church of Brookline, Massachusetts.

So how must Catholics regard a manifest Modernist Wolf who is trying to destroy the Catholic Church by means of Iconoclasm and Simonism?

"Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr's holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people...If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema." (Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, 787 A.D.)

Positively, we must consider the mystery of faith within the Sistine Chapel with hope towards the election of a true Roman Pontiff and  Vicar of Christ to be Bishop of Rome, for Zechariah did say: 

Ecce vir, Oriens nomen ejus, et subter eum orietur, et ædificabit templum Domino.


 Here is one takes his name from the Dayspring [Orient /Branch]; where his feet have trodden, spring there shall be. He it is shall rebuild the Lord’s temple.


Zechariah 6:12.






Remember the Modernist Iconoclast-Simonist closing and destruction of churches is illicit and sacrilegious, thereby it's Liturgical Abuse--which is--Child Abuse! 

Romans speak! Let the world hear your voice! Viva Cristo Rey!



Friday, September 9, 2011

"The Failed Church" of Sean O'Malley

Modernism, Indifferentism, Pseudoecumenism, Liberalism, Feminism, Witchcraft, Rainbow Ministry, Liturgical Abuse--i.e. Child Abuse, etc. these are all aspects of the "The Failed Church" of Pseudbishop Sean O'Malley, from his own words:


Cardinal’s Decision Regarding the Archdiocese of Boston’s Publication With Respect To Its Clergy Accused of Sexual Abuse of a Child
August 25, 2011


My Dear Friends in Christ,

The Archdiocese of Boston’s commitment and responsibility is to protect children and to ensure that the tragedy of sexual abuse is never repeated in the Church. Since the crisis erupted in 2002, we have endeavored to regain trust by addressing the needs of survivors and those who have suffered as a result of clergy sexual abuse, investigating and responding to all allegations of misconduct involving minors, removing abusive priests from active ministry consistent with our zero tolerance policy, and creating and maintaining safe environments for children in our churches and schools. Much has been accomplished in Boston since 2002, but our work in this area is continuing, and we will remain ever vigilant.

The Archdiocese is continually evaluating its policies and practices to ensure that our child protection and abuse prevention efforts are further strengthened. Consistent with that effort, I have studied suggestions that we enhance the present Archdiocesan policy with respect to sharing information about clergy accused of sexually abusing minors. This is a complex issue involving several competing considerations. On the one hand, there is the critically important need to assure the protection of children and also important considerations related to transparency and healing; on the other, there are interests related to the due process rights and reputations of those accused clergy whose cases have not been fully adjudicated, including deceased priests who were not alive to respond to the allegations. After a careful study of our present policy in light of these considerations, as well as after a chance to consult with my advisors and advisory bodies, including the Presbyteral Council and Archdiocesan Pastoral Council, I am announcing today revisions to the policy of the Boston Archdiocese with respect to disclosing names of clergy accused of sexually abusing minors.

This revision comes after serious and thoughtful consideration and prayer by myself and many others. I am acutely aware of the harm that the abuse of children by clergy has caused in the lives of so many. And while I know there will be some who believe our policy changes should go further, after careful consultation and consideration of views expressed by many people and groups, I believe that the changes we are making are appropriate and I would like to share my rationale for arriving at this decision.

Since 2002, the Archdiocese has had in place a vigorous policy with respect to disclosing information about clergy accused of abusing minors. First and foremost, it is the policy of the Archdiocese to immediately report to law enforcement all allegations of clergy sexual abuse of children. These notifications are made to local District Attorneys’ offices, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and, when appropriate, federal law enforcement. These notifications are made whether or not the person reporting the abuse is still a minor, whether or not the accused cleric is still alive, and whether or not the allegations have been evaluated to have even the semblance of truth. Second, the Archdiocese publicly discloses when a member of its clergy is removed from active ministry pending an investigation into an allegation of child abuse. Finally, the Archdiocese publicly discloses when a member of its clergy is convicted of sexual abuse of a child as a result of a criminal process or when, after a canonical process, a member of the clergy is removed from the clerical state.

In addition to these disclosures in individual cases, the Archdiocese has released extensive information about the abuse cases in Boston. The Archdiocese published, in February 2004, a comprehensive report on the number of accused priests in the Boston Archdiocese, as well as the number of victims of those priests, in the period 1950-2003.1 This report compiled various key statistics regarding the allegations of abuse made against clergy in the Boston Archdiocese, as well as information on settlements that had been reached historically by the Boston Archdiocese. In addition to this report, the Archdiocese has published annual financial reports starting in 2006, including, among other financial information, information about the abuse settlements reached each year, the financial sources for those payments, and the related costs for Archdiocesan pastoral and child protection efforts.2 Additionally, the Archdiocese has produced extensive documentation with respect to past allegations of clergy sexual abuse both in response to requests from law enforcement and in civil litigation. Information from those files has been summarized in a report published in 2003 by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.3

The policy which I am announcing today will retain our present practices and also supplement them in key respects. First, the Archdiocese has created for its website (www.bostoncatholic.org) a compiled list of names of accused clergy in the following categories:
The names of all Boston Archdiocese clergy who have been found guilty of sexually abusing a child, either by the Church (canon law), the State (criminal law), or both. In the case of criminal convictions, the cleric either has been convicted after a criminal trial or has pled guilty to a crime involving the sexual abuse of a child. In the case of canonical processes, the clerics whose names are included either have been dismissed from the clerical state at the end of the canonical process, or have been assigned to a life of prayer and penance, with no ministry possible.
The names of all Boston Archdiocese clergy who have been laicized after having been accused of sexually abusing a minor. Laicization under Church law is a process whereby the priest voluntarily requests that he be separated from the clerical state.
The names of all clergy of the Archdiocese who have been publicly accused of sexually abusing a child where canonical proceedings remain to be completed. In each case, the cleric involved has been removed from public ministry and remains on administrative leave.
The names of Boston Archdiocese clergy who have been publicly accused of sexually abusing a child, but who had already been laicized and therefore were no longer in active ministry by the time the accusations were received.
The names of those deceased clergy of the Archdiocese who have been publicly accused of sexually abusing a child, but where criminal or canonical proceedings were not completed. In most of these cases, the accused priest had died before the allegations were received.

This represents the first time that names of accused clerics have been compiled by the Archdiocese in a central location and a readily accessible format.

Second, as to each member of the clergy whose name is listed in these categories, the Archdiocese has included in this website the following pertinent information: the cleric’s year of birth and year of ordination; whether the cleric is alive or deceased, and if deceased, the year of death; for members of the clergy who are alive, their status as well as the date of any laicization, dismissal, or conviction of the accused cleric; and a link to the cleric’s assignment history. This list, which is searchable, will be regularly updated as additional announcements are made in the future.

Third, I have decided to publish a separate listing of the names of those clergy who have been publicly accused of sexually abusing a child where the allegations have been found unsubstantiated by the Review Board after a preliminary investigation or where the priest has been acquitted after a canonical process. In a number of cases, these priests have been returned to active ministry.

The revised policy being announced today attempts to balance appropriately several considerations which bear on this matter:
The Church needs to be open about clergy accused of crimes against children in order to help foster the process of healing and restoration of trust.
Accused priests or deacons who have been laicized or dismissed are no longer in the clerical state and consequently no longer under the authority of the Archdiocese; to the extent they pose any ongoing risk to children, a comprehensive disclosure of their names may assist in addressing that risk.
Not only must the Archdiocese honor its commitment to protect children, it must also be mindful of the due process concerns of those whose guilt has not been established. In the present environment, a priest who is accused of sexually abusing a minor may never be able to fully restore his reputation, even if cleared after civil or canonical proceedings. Reputational concerns also become acute in cases concerning deceased priests, who are often accused years after their death with no opportunity to address the accusations against them.

In arriving at our revised policy in this area, I have carefully weighed these considerations. I also have considered what a number of other dioceses have done.

I believe that, to the extent possible, our revised policy addresses the concerns and views that have been expressed, is consistent with if not more expansive than civil law, and best balances the considerations mentioned above. In arriving at this revised policy, there were a few issues that were particularly difficult and I would like to comment briefly on them.

The first issue has to do with the listing of the names of deceased priests who have been accused of abusing a child. More concern was expressed as to this category than any other. As to deceased priests, there is, by definition, no consideration relating to child protection, and the countervailing considerations related to due process and protecting reputations become more substantial. In the vast majority of these cases, the priest was accused after he had already passed away and accordingly had no chance to address the allegations being brought against him. In a very large percentage of these particular cases, there has been a single allegation of abuse; that is not said by way of minimizing the allegations of misconduct, but rather to point out that there is little evidence on which to base a decision of guilt or innocence. It is extremely difficult to determine the credibility of these accusations, given that they involve matters that typically occurred decades ago.

After consideration of all perspectives, I have decided to include in our compiled list the names of deceased priests if the criminal or canonical proceedings against that priest were completed before his death or if the priest has already been accused publicly. I emphasize that our decision not to list the names of deceased priests who have not been publicly accused and as to whom there were no canonical proceedings conducted or completed (most were accused well after their death) does not in any way mean that the Archdiocese did not find that the claims of particular survivors who accused those deceased priests to be credible or compelling. Indeed, in many of those cases, the Archdiocese already has proceeded to compensate the survivor and provides counseling and pastoral care to those individuals.

Another issue which drew substantial commentary was whether a standard of “credibility” should be used to determine the listing of an accused priest. After consideration, I have decided not to rely on that term in making decisions about those accused clergy that should be listed on our website. The term “credibility” can have a variety of meanings, and, in this context, can mean anything from “plausible” but not proven, to “more likely than not” (the standard used in civil cases), to the high standard used for convictions in criminal and canonical cases (“beyond a reasonable doubt”/subject to “moral certitude”). I have decided instead to proceed by listing the names of clergy in the categories described above.

Another issue to which I have given substantial consideration has to do with listing names of accused priests who are not priests of the Boston Archdiocese, but are religious order priests or priests from other dioceses. After careful consideration, I have decided to limit the names that are being published on our website to clergy of the Boston Archdiocese. I have decided not to include names of religious order priests or priests from other dioceses on our list because the Boston Archdiocese does not determine the outcome in such cases; that is the responsibility of the priest’s order or diocese. I recognize that, over the years, many religious order priests and priests of other dioceses have served within the territory of the Boston Archdiocese, including in assignments at our parishes.

In its 2004 report, the Archdiocese published information with respect to the number of religious order priests and priests from other dioceses who had been accused of abusing minors while serving within the Archdiocese. Archdiocesan policy is that, as soon as an accusation of misconduct is received against a religious order priest or a priest from a different diocese, we immediately notify law enforcement, as well as the superior of that order or the bishop of that diocese, and revoke the accused priest’s faculties to minister within our Archdiocese. Under canon law, it falls to the superior or to the bishop to investigate and evaluate the accusation, taking appropriate canonical action. I urge the religious orders and other dioceses to consider their own policies with regard to publishing the names of accused clergy. I hope that other dioceses and religious orders will review our new policy and consider making similar information available to the public to the extent they have not already done so.

Lastly, I have considered what should be done with the names of priests as to whom allegations were found unsubstantiated. I have decided to include in a separate list the names of accused clergy where the accusations have been found not substantiated after an investigation by civil authorities or by the Church if the names of those priests are already in the public domain. The Archdiocese already makes an announcement when a priest who previously has been publicly removed from ministry is allowed to return to active ministry following an investigation. However, I have decided not to include the names of accused clergy against whom allegations have been found unsubstantiated where their names have not been previously publicized. I believe it would be unfair to these clerics to release their previously unpublicized names on a list of accused priests after civil or Church processes have already found the allegations against them to be unsubstantiated.

In total, 159 names of accused clerics of the Boston Archdiocese are included on the lists being published today. Of these, 22 represent cases that are still in process canonically, with the priest on administrative leave and having no public ministry. It is my wish and goal that these remaining cases be processed as expeditiously as possible. At the conclusion of those cases, additional announcements and amendments to the list will be made accordingly.

To put this information in context, there have been to date a total of 250 clerics of the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually abusing a minor. There are 91 names that are not being included on the lists published today, which can be summarized as follows: 62 names of deceased clergy as to whom canonical proceedings were never conducted or completed and who have not been publicly accused; 22 priests of the Boston Archdiocese as to whom the accusations of misconduct with a minor could not be substantiated;4 4 priests or former priests of the Archdiocese who are not in active ministry and are the subject of a preliminary investigation; and 3 priests who were already laicized or dismissed by the time they were accused, and who have not been publicly accused.

It is important to note that the allegations of sexual abuse by Archdiocesan priests generally do not involve claims about current misconduct, but rather involve abuse occurring decades ago and before the Church adopted its current child protection policies. As described in detail in the report published by the Archdiocese in February 2004, the vast majority of the complaints received by the Archdiocese before 2004 involved incidents alleged to have occurred from 1965 to 1982, with a substantial decline in the number of incidents thereafter. More recent data, collected through 2010, confirm that same historical pattern. Only 4% of the 198 allegations received by the Archdiocese in the past six years involve child abuse alleged to have occurred more recently than 1990; over 90% of the incidents are alleged to have occurred before 1985. I do not say this in any way to minimize the abuse of minors by Boston priests, which is heinous, or the serious mistakes made by the Church hierarchy in responding to it. Nor do I seek to ignore the harm caused to survivors by these historical incidents, harm which is both current and the subject of our ongoing pastoral response. Rather I simply seek to place the problem in context and to give the faithful some confidence that the policies adopted by the Church to protect its children starting in the early 1990s have been effective.

These policies include equipping children to report abuse; training our clergy, volunteers, and staff to identify and report suspected abuse; conducting annual background checks for all clergy, volunteers, and staff; and upholding the norm of zero tolerance by ensuring that no priest who has sexually abused a child will be permitted to exercise any ministry. Since 2003, approximately 300,000 children have received safe environment training through their parish schools or religious education programs. Approximately 175,000 adults – including diocesan and religious order priests, deacons, candidates for ordination at Archdiocesan seminaries and in diaconate formation, educators, employees, parents, and volunteers – have been trained to recognize and report suspected abuse. More than 300,000 CORI checks have been conducted for Archdiocesan and religious priests, deacons, educators, volunteers, and other personnel working with children. Almost 400 reports of child abuse or neglect (51A reports) have been filed with the Department of Children and Families (formerly the Department of Social Services) by our parishes and schools since these safety programs began. The majority of reports were made as a result of a child self-disclosing abuse to someone in the parish. In almost all cases, the abuse involved someone in the child’s family, a neighbor, other children, or an adult known to the child.

The Archdiocese will supplement the lists being published today on its website on a regular basis and will continue to make announcements at key stages of individual cases, consistent with prior policy. In addition, nothing that is being announced today undercuts the continued willingness of the Archdiocese to discuss with individual survivors of abuse information with respect to the accused priest.

Despite our every effort to provide accurate and current information, in this first effort to provide a listing there will be errors and omissions. I would ask that anyone with additional information or corrections to the lists being published to contact our Delegate for Investigations at (617) 746-5639.

It is my belief that in amending our policy and organizing this information on our website so that it is readily accessible, we take one more step forward in our efforts to assume responsibility for our past failures and reaffirm our commitment to assure that our present day standards protect the children of our community. We recognize that this announcement may serve as a painful reminder of the wounds many survivors carry and we invite any individual who has been harmed by clergy sexual abuse to contact our Office of Pastoral Support and Outreach at (781) 794-2581 or (866) 244-9603. Having met with hundreds of survivors, I know firsthand the scars you carry. And I carry with me every day the pain of the Church’s failures. I express once again my sorrow for your pain and my apology for any way the Church and its clergy have failed you.

My deepest hope and prayer is that the efforts I am announcing today will provide some additional comfort and healing for those who have suffered from sexual abuse by clergy and will continue to strengthen our efforts to protect God’s children.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,




Archbishop of Boston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Statement of Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley Regarding Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston from 1950-2003, available at http://www.bostoncatholic.org/uploadedFiles/News_releases_2004_statement040226.pdf.
2 Available at http://www.bostoncatholic.org/annualreport.aspx?pid=508.
3 Available at http://www.bostoncatholic.org/PSO.aspx

4 Of these 22 priests, 4 are deceased, 8 are retired or on health leave, 1 has been restricted by the Archdiocese from engaging in active ministry for other reasons, and 9 are in active ministry without restriction.


http://www.bostoncatholic.org/publication.aspx