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. 43§2) 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. 160§2) 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.
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??? ______________________________________________________________________
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.