Site Updates

SITE UPDATED: 

January 17, 2003

The campaign against Robert Sungenis rolls on. One of his worst crit-
ics has a short list of web sites on his blogspot that he posted 
because several websites still link, or have recently linked, to CAI.
This so-called "conservative Catholic" is still asking people to 
contact webmasters and ask them to remove their links to CAI. It never
ceases to amaze me how vindictive some people can be. If you read this
guys blog, you will note that he seems to like the idea of Sungenis
NOT having an opportunity to defend himself. I find it weird that 
this guy, and his cronies, who very few people probably ever heard of
before, are now heard of all over the place, but very few people seem
to stand up to them. It really makes me wonder, if this is how they
treat people they claim are (or were) their friends, I wonder how they
would treat their enemies? 

January 3, 2003

I was surfing the 'Net and came across a good article dealing with
the Robert Sungenis controversy. It is worth reading:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/talmudinfo.htm

I would also like to say that this campaign by these so called
"conservative" Catholics is sickening. It makes me wonder how many
Protestants and other non-Catholics are staying away from the Catholic
Church precisely because of this kind of thing. First Gerry Matatics
gets blasted up one side and down the other because he had the balls
to use his brain, and now Robert Sungenis gets blasted because he was
willing to step out and do the same. Oh, make no mistake about it,
the whole accusation of "anti-semitism" is nothing more than a cover-
up for the real reason: Robert Sungenis had the audacity to take his
head out of the sand and see what is really going on  in the Church,
and then say something about it.
Another aspect of this whole thing that blows my mind is that these
so-called "conservatives" especially those at EWTN, wasted no time in
trying to erase any evidence of Robert Sungenis's existence. He had 
tons of excellent material on the EWTN website, his books were carried
by EWTN, and all that is gone, wiped out because some people have
taken it on themselves to decide that Sungenis is now bad, a "schism-
atic" or an "integrist". Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it. MMMmmm.....
Oh yeah, I got it. It's that horrid 'PRIVATE JUDGMENT' that these
"conservatives" hate so much, but are very quick to engage in themsel-
ves.
As I said before, I don't know if Mother Angelica is aware of all this
or not, but I think that when she recovers, she needs to clean house,
and get rid of these people who run her network, and get people who
are more interested in TRUTH and SOULS than they are in promoting 
their own aganda (which coincidentally happens to be a part of the
liberal's agenda).
 In addition, I would like to point out there is a lot of criticism
of Sungenis because he doesn't believe that the Earth revolves around
the Sun. Who cares??? It is not a matter of the Catholic Faith whether
the Earth revolves around the Sun or not. But many latch onto this to
"prove" Sungenis has "flipped". These people need to get out a lot
more, specifically to a Church or Chapel to spend more time in front
of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. If they did that, instead of wast-
ing it on blasting Sungenis, they might actually contribute to the 
solution to the "problem", rather than being part of it. 
(But of course, they wouldn't know what to do with their empty, mean-
ingless lives if they didn't have somebody to blast).

Another thing, not long before Stephen Hand mercifully closed down his
website, I noticed a link on his main page called:

Intention of Priest & Validity of Mass 
and here is the URL:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/IntentionValidityMass.html

I clicked it, and lo and behold what did i find? Here it is:

We refer those interested to Michael Davies' "The Order of 
Melchisedech" for an explanation of "defective" intention 
versus "positive contrary" intention, and to see that "Ecclesia 
sufficit" for the former. 

I found that to be VERY interesting, especially in light of the fact
that not long ago Hand put up an article detailing Michael Davies'
supposed "fall from grace" shall we say. And now, Hand is not only 
recommending one of Davies' books, but even claiming to AGREE with
him on some points.

That's what I like about "conservative" Catholics, like Hand and his
kind. They consistently show themselves to be what they really are, 
hypocrites.

December 18, 2002

It seems that Stephen Hand has finally (at least for now) decided to
throw in the towel. According to his website:

"TCRNews.com made its last daily update Dec 17, 2002 due to lack of
finances in a bad economy and lack of time while also working full 
time. Stephen Hand, former editor of TCR is a Catholic writer and 
journalist who can be contacted at PO Box 1006, Littleton, MA, USA, 
01460 . He hopes to continue writing on the subjects and themes which 
made TCR a popular website with so many, ever faithful to the Holy 
Father and the living magisterium."

It seems funny that over 2 years ago he had plenty of time to condemn
his former friends as "integrists" and cause even more division in
the Church, but now due to "lack of finances" he can't continue. Gee,
he's a "conservative" now, he's where the money is, and he can't keep
up his website, which is FREE by the way? Why doesn't he ask his good
friends Al Matt and Bishop Bruskewitz for some money? MMMmmm.........


December 13, 2002

I have added a short article in the next section below. 

November 30, 2002

I have restored 2 excellent Traditional Catholic websites (well, the
vast majority of them both anyway). They are now on my site.
WIEW FROM THE PIEW and LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI website are back 
online, thanks to their having been preserved in an internet archive.
They are now here:

salbert.tripod.com/index-tcw.htm


November 20, 2002

I have added links to DailyCatholic.com and DioceseReport.com. I know
there will be some who will freak out and declare me to be a "schis-
matic" and an "integrist" and whatever else. So be it. At least that
way, those of you out there who are more interested in the truth than
in having somebody or some people to bash will be able to tell who the
real Catholic is.

Also, I have changed the order of my links on the Catholic Links page.




October 18, 2002

Robert Sungenis has posted more info on his site dealing with one of
his attackers, and is updating one of the articles he wrote dealing
with the Jews.
EWTN has removed all material by Sungenis from their Audio Library,
just like they did with Gerry Matatics. The last few years, EWTN has,
to some extent become a "magisterium" unto itself. And I don't mean
Mother Angelica either, how do we know what she has been told about
Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner? I not-
ice that she never seems to comment on people too much, these things 
tend to be done by underlings, especially Colin Donovan. I think when
Mother Angelica fully recovers, she needs to clean house, fire some of
these people who work for her, and get some people who are more conc-
erned about TRUTH than how things look.
I think it's time the viewers of EWTN vote with their wallets, say to
those who are running it now, invite Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis,
and Fr. Gruner to Mother Angelica Live and let them have their say
publicly, or stop portraying yourselves as a Catholic network. After
all, real Catholics would be charitable, and give the benefit of the
doubt. Or are theose who actually run EWTN afraid that Catholics will
find out that some of the people that are daily trumpeted as "loyal
Catholics" are in fact not Catholic at all? MMMmmm..................

September 25, 2002

I have been following the debate of late, or should I say attack, on
Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International. According to
his accusers, he is an "anti-semite" because he published things 
from the Talmud which prove that the Jews (and in this context I mean
the leaders of the religion, not the ordinary man or woman who happens
to follow the religion), would rather people not know about. 
 In typical fashion, anyone who says anything negative about the Jews,
in any context whatsoever, is accused of being an "anti-semite".
Never mind the fact that none of Sungenis's accusers, to my know-
ledge, have actually obtained a copy of the Talmud and read it for 
themselves. No, of course not. They might be disappointed to find out
that Sungenis is right. I think it's long past time these so-called
conservatives got a real life and spent more time in prayer and in
evangelizing the Jews and Protestants they supposedly love so much,
and leaving people who are just trying to tell the truth alone. But
that isn't in the nature of the so-called "Catholic conservative"
obviously, (at least those who spend their time blasting everybody in
sight). It's the usual routine, "You don't think like I do, so you're
a schismatic, integrist," or whatever. 
 If you are a supporter of Robert Sungenis, and in general REAL
Catholics, go to Sungenis's website, and read about this. Then contact
the same people these conservatives are calling to be contacted, and 
tell them you support Sungenis. Also contact his attackers and ask
them if they ever actually read a copy of the Talmud, not from the
internet, but an actual print copy. If they say no, then ask them 
where they get off blasting Sungenis without even actually knowing
what they are talking about.

The people these conservatives are calling for people to contact are 
listed on this page:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/second_defense.html

I also recommend that you do what these people are trying to do to
Sungenis, stop donating to them and get your friends to do the same.
Let these so-called "conservatives" know that you are not impressed
with their sleazoid attempts to trash Sungenis, or anyone else.
Let's face it, the real problem is that Sungenis is no longer one
who blindly follows everything that comes from the Vatican as though
it were the Gospel. That's the real reason these "conservatives" are
ticked off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2002

Today I placed the text of a pamphlet on kneeling on this page, it is
still on the page I originally had it on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 4, 2002

Below is the complete text from the July Newsletter of the US Bishops
Committee on the Liturgy concerning the posture for receiving Holy
Communion. I will comment afterwards:

 Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Recep-
                     tion of Holy Communion

 In recent weeks, the Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several
inquiries concerning both the prpoper posture for and the form of ven-
eration to be made prior to receiving Holy Communion. This issue is
directly addressed by the adaptation of number 160 of the General 
Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved by the USCCB and con-
firmed by the Holy See. That adaptation reads as follows:

  The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the
  United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy
  Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be add-
  ressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with the proper catech-
  esis on the reasons for this norm.

  When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or 
  her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives
  the body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be
  received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of
  each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds,
  the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious 
  Blood.

Posture

It should be noted that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the 
faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Comm-
union. (no. 432) The bishops of the United States have decided that
the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be stand-
ing. Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in
the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular dioc-
ese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary
cicumstance. 

The provision which follows this section is provided for these extra-
ordinary circumstances when a communiccant acts in contradiction to
the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be
denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to
receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obli-
ged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might 
better understand the reason for the Bishop's decision to choose stan-
ding as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the 
dioceses of the United States of America.

Sign of Veneration

In a similar way, the General Instruction no. 1602) assigns to Con-
ferences of Bishops the responsibility to determine "an appropriate
gesture of reverence" to be made before receiving the Blessed Sacra-
ment. Thus, in the dioceses of the United States of America, the comm-
unicant is directed by this particular law to "bow his or her head
before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receive the Body of
the Lord from the minister."

Uniformity in Posture

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal emphasizes that in matters
of gesture and posture "greater attention needs to be paid to what is
laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Ro-
man Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of
God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice" (GIRM
no. 42). Throughout their consideration of GIRM numbers 43 and 160,
the Bishops repeatedly recalled the need for uniformity in all pres-
cribed postures and gestures.

Such uniformity serves as a "sign of the unity of the members of the 
Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy" and it "both ex-
presses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting" (GIRM
no. 42). Likewise, a lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disun-
ity or even a sense of individualism. A particular example of this 
disunity has been cited by many of the Bishops in regard to a divers-
ity of postures during the Eucharistic Prayer, "the center and summit
of the entire celebration" (GIRM, no. 78). Thus, the variation from
kneeling as the uniform posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is per-
mitted only "on occasion" and when the circumstances found by GIRM 
(no. 43) are clearly present.

In describing the indispensable role of the gathered faithful at Mass,
the General Instruction of the Roman Missal presents them as "a holy
people, a chosen people, a royal priesthood" who "give thanks to God
and offer the Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also
together with him and learn to offer themselves" (GIRM, no. 95). Two
responsibilities grow from this noble identity: "fostering of a deep
sense of reverence for God as well as developing charity towards their
brothers and sisters who share with them in the celebration" (GIRM, 
no. 95). Such a sense of reverence for God and charity for the other
members of the liturgical assembly is concretely manifested by a unity
in word, song, posture and gesture. Thus, this section concludes that
the faithful are to shun any appearance of individualism or division,
keeping before theireyes that they have the one Father in heaven and
therefore are all brothers and sisters to each other" (GIRM, no. 95).

My comments:

 First, I find it interesting that there have supposedly been several 
inquiries to the Secretariat of the Liturgy for clarification of the
posture for receiving Holy Communion. Why them? ROME has said that
kneeling is the proper posture. Anyone who is a real Catholic and 
knows the Faith, knows that kneeling is the way to receive Holy Comm-
union.
 Second, where is the official document from the Holy See which
supposedly grants this approval?
 Third, the claim is that the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bish-
ops to decide whether kneeling or standing, I seem to recall that
Cardinal Ratzinger stated a while back that the Conferences of Bish-
ops in fact have no power to decide anything, and it is a fact that
individual bishops can, shall we say, deviate from what the Conference
decides, as is admitted in this newsletter.
 Fourth, what exactly is this "catechesis" that the priests are supp-
osed to provide for those who choose to kneel rather than stand?
 Fifth, the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bishops the "responsi-
bility to determine" the sign of veneration when receiving Holy Comm-
union. Granted that there were norms issued from the Vatican permitt-
ing the bow and all that, but what is the point of that? 
 Sixth, this "clarification" bring up the point of "unity", and in
characteristic fashion, derides those who kneel by talking about
"individualism". The easy way to solve that problem is to restore the
altar rails and have every one kneel like before.
 The bottom line is the the U.S. bishops, the vast majority of which
have been harboring homosexual priests and allowing them to perpetrate
their crimes for years, even decades, are now telling us we should
stand to receive Holy Communion. Well, that makes sense when you con-
sider that 70% or so of 'Catholics' don't even believe in the Real
Presence in the first place! For those of us who do, kneeling is the 
only way to go, excepting old age or disability.
 As far as I am concerned, any bishop who follows this garbage is an
apostate, plain and simple. 
 When I receive Holy Communion, I kneel because I am very aware of 
Who I am receiving. If Jesus Christ deigned to appear to a sinner like
me, I guarantee I would not be standing around rapping with Him. I
would be on my knees, most likely in a state of total shock.
 I don't kneel because it makes me look good or holy or whatever, I 
kneel because it is the way to receive Jesus, my Creator and Redeemer.
I am not worthy even to receive him, let alone to be standing in His
Presence.
 The ultimate question is: Are you so utterly holy that you can stand
before Him? If you are, then you have no need of Holy Communion. 
 The greatest of the saints would never have followed this, even the
devil himself wouldn't have the pride to stand in the presence of God.
 So why would you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 2002

Warning: If you are easily offended, do not read this:

 I have noticed of late that Rod Dreher's article in WSJ has drawn a
lot of fire. Naturally, he has the balls to stand up and tell the 
truth. I think it is time for the "Catholic conservatives" to get 
their heads out of the sand, and start joining Mr. Dreher in his call
for the Pope to do something. The tired excuses, "He's too old" and
all this sort of excuse-making garbage is nothing more than BS. Was 
he too old in 1978 when he was elected? Word is that these cover-ups
have been going on since the early years of Pope Paul VI's reign.
So why wasn't something done then? Pope John Paul II had over 20 
years to do what he should have done. Now, unless he acts soon, he 
will have to answer before God for his lack of action. 
 You "conservatives". Your hero worship will gain nothing for him
before the judgment seat of God. All you are doing is making it harder
for these problems to be cleared up.
 I wonder what would have happened if the teenage boys who were raped
by this minority of priests would have been the children of these
"conservatives"? I guarantee we would have seen a march on Rome that
would have made the barbarians of old seem like a minor detail.
 But since it was just children of "nobodies", who cares?
 If you "conservatives" really care about anyone but yourselves, then
it's time to show it. Get out there and join the call for the Pope to
do something, otherwise go back to your limp-wristed ball-less lives,
and leave those of us who are willing to do more than talk and fawn
over the "Great Pope John Paul II" alone. With enemies like you, who
needs friends?


5-31-02  Added a new article today. It is in the next section below.

4-30-02  I fixed the links to two articles that had temporarily dis-
         appeared off the 'Net due to the death of the site's owner,
         but now the site has been archived by someone else, so I was
         able to get them. They are in the Catholic Articles section
         of my Catholic Links Page, with the  ******Links fixed next
         to them. 

3-8-02   Added a page showing some statistics concerning numbers of
         priests, brothers, sisters, and seminarians. Link is at the
         bottom of this page.

2-5-01   Added a link to "Lessons for the Soul" which is chapters
         from "Hell plus How to Avoid Hell" published by Tan Books.
         Link is the last in the Reference section on my links page.

12-29-01 I have put the info referred to in the update for yesterday
         on "The Controversy about Father Nicholas Gruner, The Consec-
         ration of Russia, the Third Secret, etc." page. At the bottom
         of this page.

12-28-01 Added a short section on the Consecration of Russia to my
         site. I have quoted the POPE's OWN WORDS, no one else's.
         Link is at the bottom of the page. Also modified the section
         above this one, adding another magazine recommendation.

12-24-01 I have added a new link to an article called "A Brief Defense
         of Traditionalism" and a link to the website that it comes 
         from, on my links page.

12-7-01  I have added a link to the excellent Tan Books booklet
         "Which Bible should you Read?" on my links page. It's the
         last link in the Reference section.

11-10-01 I added something new in the 3rd section of this page. Read,
         and meditate on it.

11-3-01  I have changed my e-mail address again. With any luck this 
         will be the last time.

10-27-01 I have a page The Controversy about Father Nicholas Gruner on
         my site. The link is below in the links section. 

10-20-01 I have updated the 1st and 2nd sections of my Catholic Links
         Page. 


 PetersNet/Trinity Communications
          I don't recommend this site any longer. It posted another 
          review of the Una Voce website (www.unavoce.org) and gave
          it a 'C' rating for fidelity. Interesting in light of the
          fact that a website carrying the writings of Hans Urs von
          Balthasar, who PetersNet admits there is some controversy
          about whether he believed in hell or not, was given an 'A'
          rating for fidelity. If a person does not clearly state that
          he believes in hell, then he does not. Balthasar was a
          modernist, a proponent of what is known as the "New
          Theology". He was a modernist who taught things that were
          condemned by the Papal Encyclical 'Humani Generis' (Pope
          Pius XII, 1950). In addition, PetersNet, posted a reply from
          the EWTN forums that gives the same old tired attacks on
          Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate. PetersNet
          seems to be a "magisterium" unto itself. It decides what
          websites are faithful to the Church or not, but on whose
          authority does it do so? I don't recall hearing about or
          seeing a Papal proclamation of any kind saying that it has
          been commissioned to do website reviews. Any website that 
          doesn't gush total praise for the Novus Ordo and Vatican II
          cannot get a 'A' rating, but a website carrying the writings
          of a modernist heretic can. Beware of PetersNet, while it
          does have some good information, it is busy perpetuating
          the idea that if it comes from Rome, it must be infallible,
          even if it does not fit the definition.

Current Articles & Other Writings






December 13, 2002

It seems that Cardinal Law has decided to do what he should have done 
months ago, resigning from his archdiocese. IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
I noticed Stephen Hand has an article on his website saying how good
it is that it took so long for the Vatican to do something because
of course we don't want anybody's rights to be violated (in essence,
though not the exact words). 
 It makes me wonder though if Hand had had a teenage boy who had been 
raped by Shanley or Geoghan, for instance, if he'd be so calm and
collected about this whole thing. I doubt it. Given his penchant for
condemning people wholesale with no hard evidence, he would have been
one the first up there screaming for Law to resign. 
 I agree that the Vatican has to move fairly slowly in order to best
figure out how to handle a situation, especially a volatile one like
this scandal, but if these people had been on their toes in the 1st
place, chances are this scandal would not have happened. And even if
it did, it would have been far less than it has become. But as Mr.
Hand has been teaching us this last year or so, the Pope is absolutely
infallible in everything he says or does, so what have we to worry
about? 
 Nothing, except in the real world where the rest of us live, we have 
to deal with the fact that millions are living in confusion, not know-
ing which way to turn, and the best that Hand can do is condemn former
friends, accuse them of engaging in "private judgment", and of not
following the "living Magisterium", when he himself does nothing but
spout his own "private judgment" all day long. He condemns people as
"integrists", whatever that is, while citing no infallible statements
or even any kind of Papal teaching that these "integrists" are supp-
osed to have "violated."
 It's about time Law resigned, and now it's time for the Pope, who is
so "infallible in everything he says or does" to finish the job.
EXCOMMUNICATE THE REST OF THESE BISHOPS WHO WERE COMPLICIT IN COVER-
ING UP THESE CRIMES, AND CLEAN HOUSE!!!


May 31, 2002

The recent attack by The Wanderer on The Latin Mass magazine

 I have noticed of late that the Wanderer is living up to it's name
more and more these days. It's scary when a newspaper which used to be
a major flagship of Catholic journalism has descended into what is
more accurately called "The Catholic National Enquirer".
 Over the years, it was a leader in bringing news to the faithful
which was important, and which Catholics needed to know. Now it is 
little more than a scandal rag, which, when it can't blast bishops for
their screw-ups goes out in search of someone else to blast.
 It all started in 2000 when several prominent "Traditionalist"
Catholics, including Walter Matt of The Remnant, penned a 'statement
of resistance' called "We Resist You to the Face". Shortly after that,
totally out the blue, Stephen Hand, who used to write for The
Remnant all of a sudden woke up one day, and started screaming about
something called "integrism". I still am not sure what that is exactly
but it sure sounds like an ominous thing, at least until you realize
that the term is used more in Europe than in the U.S., and when you do
a little research and find that there are are absolutely no documents
from the Vatican (magisterial or otherwise) that condemn it. Why, you
ask? Because the proper word is integralism, which Hand likes to use,
more to make it appear that the term 'integrism' has some real relev-
ance than anything else. But Hand, in his obsession to condemn his 
former friends of being "integrists', took to whipping out articles
from the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly the one on "Tradition and
Living Magisterium". He also made various assertions which boil down
to "The Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, and anything
that comes out of the Vatican is also infallible, because obviously it
MUST have been approved by the Pope." Of course Hand would never say 
it that way, but that's what he means. I always found it interesting
that he never linked to the article entitled, "Pope, The", which lists
the powers of the Pope, as well as the LIMITATIONS of Papal power. As
well as the fact that he still had problem swith the New Mass, even
though he had converted to "Catholic Conservatism."
 Anyway, the Wanderer snapped up Hand and published his book, the 
title of which I don't recall, and sent that out as the ultimate 
explanation of the problems with "Traditionalist" Catholics, and how
the writers of "We Resist You to the Face" had fallen into the omin-
ous sounding "integrism."
 I did a critique of some of Hand's writing, still available on my
site at: salbert.tripod.com/H-Art.htm
 I still have yet to see a Papal document condemning "integrism", and
Hand, in his obseession with condemning his former friends has never
cited a document condemning "integralism" either. In fact, I bet he 
doesn't even know if there is one ot not. In fact, there is a Papal
Encyclical that discusses "integralism". But I'll leave that for Hand
to find, although the title of the encyclical can be found on my site.
 The Wanderer never allowed The Remnant to respond to it's attacks in
it's newspaper, so much for journalistic integrity. So now, the Wand-
erer, apparently getting bored, decided to trash The Latin Mass maga-
zine and it's editior Fr. James McLucas, who had ten times the know-
ledge (and sense) that a dozen A.J. Matt's could ever have, over an
article carried in the Winter 2002 issue of Latin Mass Magazine on
Humanae Vitae. The article is available at: www.latinmassmagazine.com
 In reading the Wanderer's attack on it from the Wanderer's website,
I spotted the usual tactic used by them, and by Stephen Hand in his
attack on "We Resist You to the Face", that of not publishing ALL the
text of the article, and trashing it's writer based on only part of 
it while not decaring so. 
 I think it's pretty sad when someboday like A.J. Matt, who has done
so much good for the Church over the years, has to stoop the level of
dissenters like McBrien and Kissling and their ilk, and trash a good
priest, and the magazine he edits because of an article which was the
OPINION of the author alone, and not necessarily endorsed by Fr.
McLucas.
 I have never met A. J. Matt, but I have met Fr. McLucas; he is an
excellent priest, an excellent confessor (if I do say so myself), and
one of the more level-headed Catholics out there, and he does not
need to be blasted by The Wanderer and it's kind, or anyone else.
 The Wanderer is a has been. It's heyday is over. There are plenty of
other truly good Catholic magazines and newspapers out there that are
deserving of support more than The Wanderer.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My Statement on the Current Crisis of so-called "Pedophile Priests"


May 9, 2002

 The crisis in the Church has certainly come to a head of late, what
with all the accusations of "pedophilia" and all that. I have a few
things to say about this situation. 

 1. This crisis is not about "pedophile" priests, even though the 
secular press wants people to believe it, and even though some in the
Catholic Press, inadvertantly in most cases, promote the same idea.
Most in the Catholic press have correctly identified the problem as
being one of homosexuality, not pedophilia.

 2. The facts are clear that several of the bishops in this country
have been covering up the abuse by this small minoirity of priests
for years, by paying off victims to keep silent, and trying to bind
them legally from ever revealing the details. And these bishops simply
transferred the offending priests to other parishes, KNOWING that they
perpetrated these crimes, and instead of removing them, and giving
due punishment for these offenses, they simply allowed it to continue
unchecked.

 3. I have noticed, at least in my diocese where there were 2 priests
who were accused in the early 90's of such conduct, who were removed
for a few years, and then given parish ministry again, that some 
people have come down on the victims of abuse, asking why they didn't
say no, and try to stop these priests in the first place because 
after all these young men were old enough to do that. I found that 
interesting. I wonder what the reaction of these people would be if
it was their son, or daughter, who was abused? While I admit it seems
strange that some didn't refuse and do what they could to avoid the
priest, I wonder why these priests were even doing this sort of sick
crap in the first place? Granted, priests are tempted more than lay 
people, and are subject to much stronger temptations, but neverthe-
less, they are also better equipped to handle them, because they get
more graces, and have greater access to spiritual help. And in any 
case, once the abuse is revealed and proven, it is the bishop's
responsibility to punish the offender, and to do what he can to help
the victim.

 4. It is abundantly clear that these bishops are guilty of covering
up these crimes, and it is clear that no matter how many apologies 
they issue, they are not in the least bit sorry for what they have 
done, with the possible exception of one, who had the balls to resign.

 5. It is also abundantly clear that the Pope is doing little to 
nothing about these bishops and this crisis. In the middle of the
worst scandal in the history of the Church, we get a document on the
Sacrament of Penance, that condemns General Absolution, an abuse that
has been going on since before this Pope was elected. NOW, we finally
get a condemnation of general absolution, at a time when people are
leaving the Church, when people are losing their faith, and when we
need real leadership?

 6. The facts are clear, the Pope is going to do practically nothing
as usual. What we need is a LOT LESS TALK, and A LOT MORE ACTION.

May 14, 2002

 7. It is also getting out more that many of these bishops are using,
and have used, hardcore tactics against alleged victims, like hiring
private investigators, and filing counter-lawsuits. While I agree 
that there will be some people who will claim abuse when there was 
none only to "cash in" on the current situation, I think that these
bishops have done enough damage for several lifetimes. If they had
done their duty in the the first place, this crisis would not have 
happened, or at the very least, it would not have been as bad.

 8. In my diocese, the bishop has been out making his annual appeal
for money for the many Catholic activities in the diocese. He even
went so far as to issue a couple apologies to victims and give the 
usual standard offer of paying for counseling for anyone who comes
forward. Oh, and of course, there is a little legal caveat, that the
money collected for the annual appeal will only go to support the 
various Catholic programs in the diocese. And the really screwy thing 
is people actually buy that! In fact, as of this past weekend, the
Catholics of Maine have contibuted around $27,000 or so to this. The
goal is to get $65,000. Granted there are some good programs that
need the money, but this is also a diocese who's paper carries the 
weekly column of 'Father' Richard McBrien. Yes, the arch-heretic from
Notre Dame, and other things which are not in accord with the Church.

 9. This crisis makes the Arian heresy look like a minor detail, but
what is being done about it? The bishops who presided over this fiasco
are the ones who are being left in place to "correct" it, and the Pope
is doing practically nothing about correcting this. And if that isn't
bad enough, the liberals and all their kind are of course using this
as a way to promote their own agenda. In addition, the Wanderer is
up to the same old tired attacks on Traditional Catholics by using 
the fact that the Society of St. John, which was supposed to be a 
Traditional order has had their own problems with homosexual priests.
As usual, the Wanderer would rather attack good Catholics, rather than
demanding the excommunication of these bishops and priests involved in
this sick travesty. Better to leave people who are destroying the 
Faith in position to do so, than to be seen as "unfaithful to the 
Pope." 

 10. I would also like to address the problem of people who are leav-
ing the Church over this situation. Let's face it, it is totally 
understandable that many people are very angry and feel betrayed by 
the Church, these bishops, and these priests. But leaving the Church
is not the answer. Do you really think these bishops care if you leave
the Church? No, they don't. All you are doing is playing into their 
hands. None of these bishops and priests is worth throwing your chance
of eternal salvation away. And by leaving the Church, that is all you
are doing, nothing less. If you have a problem with this situation,
then do something about it. Pray more, stop putting money in the 
collection basket, and start sending your money to Catholic Apostol-
ates that will put your money to better use. And encourage others to
do the same, but don't leave the Church, that won't solve the problem,
it will only deprive YOU of what YOU need. There have always been bad
priests and bishops, and even some Popes, but the Church is still here
and will always be here. Remember, Judas betrayed Christ, and the even
Peter denied Christ, and the other Apostle's even left Him, but they
came back to Him, and went on to preach the Gospel, and die for Christ
and they are remembered for the good they did. Throughout history,
their have been those who have betrayed Christ, and the Church, and
the Church is still here. Admit it yourself, you are not leaving the
Church because of the scandal, you are leaving because you just don't
believe in the Catholic Faith, or just don't understand it. Leaving is
not going to help. What will help is seeking to know what the Church
teaches and has always taught, and following the Faith. That'll help,
not leaving. If you don't believe in the Catholic Faith, then at least
be honest enough to say you're leaving because you just don't believe.
Remember, the key is prayer AND action. Pray more, and cut off the 
money to these bishops, let them know that you will not tolerate their
crimes, and that despite their betrayal, you will go on continuing to
fight. Remember also, in the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold was a
traitor to his country, but did that stop the Colonist's from fighting
against England? NO. They kept on fighting. If they had given up due
to that, where would we be today?

 The bottom line is that the Church will survive this crisis, and come
out stronger. WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THESE BISHOPS ARE REMOVED AND
REPLACED BY REALLY HOLY BISHOPS, AND WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THE 
POPE, though probably not this one, WILL DO HIS DUTY AND EXCOMMUNICATE
THESE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS, AND THESE HERETICS THAT HAVE BEEN RUNNING
AROUND UNCHECKED FOR DECADES, WILL RECEIVE THEIR JUST DESERTS. THE 
ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN???
______________________________________________________________________





Website Updates

SITE UPDATES:

3-8-02   Addes a page showing some statistics concerning numbers of
         priests, brothers, sisters, and seminarians. Link is at the
         bottom of this page.

2-5-01   Added a link to "Lessons for the Soul" which is chapters
         from "Hell plus How to Avoid Hell" published by Tan Books.
         Link is the last in the Reference section on my links page.

12-29-01 I have put the info referred to in the update for yesterday
         on "The Controversy about Father Nicholas Gruner, The Consec-
         ration of Russia, the Third Secret, etc." page. At the bottom
         of this page.

12-28-01 Added a short section on the Consecration of Russia to my
         site. I have quoted the POPE's OWN WORDS, no one else's.
         Link is at the bottom of the page. Also modified the section
         above this one, adding another magazine recommendation.

12-24-01 I have added a new link to an article called "A Brief Defense
         of Traditionalism" and a link to the website that it comes 
         from, on my links page.

12-7-01  I have added a link to the excellent Tan Books booklet
         "Which Bible should you Read?" on my links page. It's the
         last link in the Reference section.

11-10-01 I added something new in the 3rd section of this page. Read,
         and meditate on it.

11-3-01  I have changed my e-mail address again. With any luck this 
         will be the last time.

10-27-01 I have a page The Controversy about Father Nicholas Gruner on
         my site. The link is below in the links section. 

10-20-01 I have updated the 1st and 2nd sections of my Catholic Links
         Page. 
 
 PetersNet/Trinity Communications
          I don't recommend this site any longer. It posted another 
          review of the Una Voce website (www.unavoce.org) and gave
          it a 'C' rating for fidelity. Interesting in light of the
          fact that a website carrying the writings of Hans Urs von
          Balthasar, who PetersNet admits there is some controversy
          about whether he believed in hell or not, was given an 'A'
          rating for fidelity. If a person does not clearly state that
          he believes in hell, then he does not. Balthasar was a
          modernist, a proponent of what is known as the "New
          Theology". He was a modernist who taught things that were
          condemned by the Papal Encyclical 'Humani Generis' (Pope
          Pius XII, 1950). In addition, PetersNet, posted a reply from
          the EWTN forums that gives the same old tired attacks on
          Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate. PetersNet
          seems to be a "magisterium" unto itself. It decides what
          websites are faithful to the Church or not, but on whose
          authority does it do so? I don't recall hearing about or
          seeing a Papal proclamation of any kind saying that it has
          been commissioned to do website reviews. Any website that 
          doesn't gush total praise for the Novus Ordo and Vatican II
          cannot get a 'A' rating, but a website carrying the writings
          of a modernist heretic can. Beware of PetersNet, while it
          does have some good information, it is busy perpetuating
          the idea that if it comes from Rome, it must be infallible,
          even if it does not fit the definition.