It appears Pope Francis is following Pope Paul 6 in issuing true teaching, but creating
an environment where the moral teaching is not followed. What can we do that wasn't done
in the 60's breakdown? Speak the objective truth and pray.
Email everyone in your email list to pray for the Pope to teach the truth with mercy as
Pope JP 2 did. Pray that Jesus remove all bad advisers and bring advisers like JP2 to
If you are reading this you are the one to start a prayer crusade for this Pope. Prayer for
Pope Francis to follow in the foot steps of a future doctor of the church, Pope JP2,
or at least be given the grace not to harm the Church as it was harmed by the 60's
In JMJ,Fred Martinez
The Synod by Steve Wood
October 2014, Volume 20, Number 6
Family Synod’s Lasting Harm to Catholic Men, Families, & Youth
I can’t remember where I came across this riveting Civil War question, “Why didn’t the
Civil War soldiers turn in battle when facing canons loaded with canister?” I often
wondered how men kept marching forward in the face of near-certain death by having their
flesh mercilessly shredded. Surely there was uncommon valor and bravery. Yet, was there
another dynamic moving them forward in the face of a hideous death?
Civil War soldiers marched into battle in units composed of men from their hometowns and
home states. If a man turned in battle, his cowardice meant that he couldn’t go home as
a man. His reputation was on the line. The vast majority of soldiers facing canister
preferred to lose their lives rather than lose their manhood.
Many Catholic Church leaders desperately need to learn a critical lesson from Civil War
soldiers. Men have a deep divinely-embedded instinct to preserve their masculinity and
thus are repulsed by feminized and homosexual-friendly environments.
Leon Podles in his important book, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of
“If the feminization of the Church continues, men will continue to seek their spiritual
sustenance outside the churches, in false or inadequate religions, with high damaging
consequences for the church and society.
The current attempts, within almost all Christian denominations, to normalize
homosexuality will, more than anything else, convince heterosexual men that religion had
best be kept at a great distance.
Catholic churches that cultivate a gay atmosphere (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian
Outreach, gay choirs, gay tolerance talks in schools) will keep heterosexual men away.
Fear of effeminacy is one of the strongest motivations in men who will sometimes die
rather than appear effeminate.”
Millions of Catholic wives wonder why their husbands don’t want to go to Mass with them.
Likewise, thousands of bright and beautiful young Catholic women wonder aloud, “Where
are the marriageable young Catholic men?” I’m afraid it’s goodbye to many good men
because of the effeminate atmosphere of the contemporary Catholic Church. The
contemporary homosexualized church atmosphere is the penultimate level of feminization,
and it stinks in the nostrils of normal men.
Reporting on the defective interim report of the Family Synod, the secular media was
delighted to broadcast worldwide that there is a pro-gay seismic shift in the Catholic
Church. While the final report of the Synod backtracked on the morally defective
statements on homosexuality and communion for those living in adulterous relationships,
make no mistake, the lasting worldwide damage is done. For the man on the street, the
Catholic Church is just one more institution caving in to our culture’s gay-friendly
It’s important to keep in mind that the public perception of the Catholic Church’s pro-
gay drift hasn’t just grown out of news reports from the Family Synod. A long train of
events and declarations have supported the pro-gay drift of the Catholic Church. I’ll
mention just a few of the disastrous statements and actions leading up to the Family
Synod’s interim report.
Despite the denial of a few within the Church, literally the entire world knows that the
Catholic clerical crisis was mainly a homosexual crisis. The striking failure of so many
bishops “to connect the dots” as they moved homosexual abusers from parish to parish
revealed a lot about the moral framework of many leaders.
According to the Pew Research Center, due to “the sexual abuse of children by Catholic
priests and their coverup by the Catholic Church, roughly a quarter (27%) of former
Catholics who no longer identify with a religion cited clergy sexual abuse scandals as a
reason for leaving the Church. Among former Catholics who now identify as Protestant,
21% say the sexual abuse scandals were a reason for leaving the Catholic Church.”
A Barna Catholic youth 2013 survey reported, “Among all 18-29-year-olds who have a
Catholic background, 43% say the “priest abuse scandals have made me question my faith.”
The big bombshell was the media’s out-of-context reporting of Pope Francis’ statement,
“Who am I to judge?” His question is emblazoned on the tee-shirts of homosexual
activists. While I fully realize that the context of his answer was deliberately
ignored, or misinterpreted, nevertheless, his answer convinced millions of youth and
young adults that the Catholic Church is now “ok” with sodomy.
The Catholic press may publish lengthy articles listing the seven reasons why the Pope’s
answer was taken out of context (and it was), but young people are not reading these
articles! They are just skimming the headlines and reading a few sentences on their
smartphones. At colleges and universities, both Catholic and Protestant students are
asking, “Why is Pope Francis pro-gay?”
The Church is certainly right to reach out in mercy to homosexuals, couples having
children out of wedlock, couples remarried outside the Church after divorce, and couples
fornicating. Yet, such a merciful outreach needs to be carefully balanced with truth.
Otherwise, the message that’s received is that the Catholic Church is finally ok with
the full spectrum of the sexual revolution. Such a distorted message in today’s sex-
saturated culture will catapult millions of youth and adults into the claws of the sins
of the flesh.
In case anyone in the United States had any lingering doubts about the homosexual-
friendly atmosphere in the Catholic Church, Cardinal Dolan dispelled them when he agreed
to be the Grand Marshal of the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City. In his
announcement he said that he welcomes the inclusion of a homosexual group. This is an
out-of-the-closet group of NBC’s homosexual activists marching under a homosexual banner
with the cardinal’s blessing.
Never before in the history of this annual parade, which first took place on March 17,
1762, has an in-your-face group of militant homosexuals marched carrying a homosexual
banner. Rest assured that next spring Cardinal Dolan’s being ok with the homosexual
activist participation in this parade will be broadcast coast to coast in the secular
Oh, I almost forgot Cardinal Dolan’s widely reported exclamation of “Bravo” in response
to a news story about a professional athlete who came out of the closet. Bravo? What was
he thinking? Most men seeing the homosexual NFL player kissing his little boyfriend on
ESPN were repulsed.
Then there’s the utterly strange case of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the primary
author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One would imagine that Cardinal
Schönborn of all people would be able to discern a genuine view of human sexuality from
a corrupt one.
Cardinal Schönborn complimented two practicing homosexuals in Vienna who allegedly live
in what he said is “lifelong fidelity.” The cardinal said things like: “It was
wonderful, in a human way as much as in a Christian way, how one was taking care of the
other.” He added: “Such things must be recognized.”
Questioned on the Church’s attitude to homosexuals, the cardinal said: “We should give
more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” while adding: “A stable
relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”
In April 2012, the election of a young gay man who was living in a registered same-sex
partnership to a parish council in Vienna was vetoed by the parish priest. After meeting
with the couple, Cardinal Schönborn reinstated him. He later advised in a homily that
priests must apply a pastoral approach that is "neither rigorist nor lax" in counselling
Catholics who "don't live according to [God's] master plan".
Since 2006, the cardinal has allowed active and unrepentant homosexuals to be “blessed”
in his cathedral on St. Valentine’s Day.
The Fatal-to-the-Family Vatican Synod interim report was just one link in a long chain
of indicators revealing a growing pro-gay atmosphere in the Catholic Church. While
faithful Catholics were understandably troubled by the interim report, not everyone was.
It is instructive to read the comments of retired Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson on the
Vatican Family Synod’s interim report published in The Daily Beast. Bishop Gene Robinson
earlier in life was married and had two daughters. He divorced his wife. While openly
living in a gay relationship he was consecrated as an Episcopal bishop. In 2014 Bishop
Robinson announced the end of his “marriage” to partner Mark Andrew.
Bishop Robinson, writing about the Family Synod said:
“With respect to homosexual people, there is a decidedly changed tone. No wonder gay and
lesbian people feel like it’s a new day! No mention of sin here. No reiteration of
official Catholic policy and teaching that homosexual persons are ‘intrinsically
disordered.’ And most positive of all, there is mention that our unions may (emphasis
added) contribute ‘gifts and qualities’ beneficial to the Body of Christ.”
You can be sure that the active homosexual community was joyful upon hearing the interim
summary report from the Family Synod, while many faithful bishops and laity were
Despite the Family Synod’s backtracking in the final report, we can be sure the damage
from the worldwide broadcast of the initial report will be lasting and profound. In the
popular mind, the Catholic Church finally caved to the sexual revolution. The Family
Synod has given the appearance that the last worldwide moral restraint on sexual sin has
At the fall 1980 Synod of Bishops, Pope John Paul II was asked by the Synod fathers to
prepare something to aid the family. The result was, The Role of the Christian Family in
the Modern World [Familiaris Consortio]. This document was the primary cause for my
conversion to Catholicism in 1990.
The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World is faithful to Jesus’ teaching
about marriage and divorce, timeless Catholic doctrine, and human sexuality, while being
charitable to families and marriages in all situations. If you haven’t read it, I urge
you to do so now.
After hearing John Paul II speak on the importance of the family in 1991, I launched the
Family Life Center International in 1992. For the past twenty-two years, it has been a
joy and privilege to urge families worldwide to heed his advice and counsel on marriage,
family life, and human sexuality.
Now with the moral earthquake created by the 2014 Synod of Bishops, I’m forced to warn
those same families about mixed signals, defective reports, and dangerous statements
regarding homosexuality. In an attempt to deal with the crisis of the family in the
modern world, the Cardinal Kasper coalition at the Family Synod has created one.
My heartfelt wish is for the 2014-2015 Family Synod to re-adopt Saint John Paul II’s The
Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World and formally recognize it as the finest
tool to deal with the contemporary crisis in family life. Please, no further action is
My plea to those in Catholic media is, “Please don’t put a happy face on this tragedy.”
We’ve had enough Catholic-spin on the homosexual drift within the Catholic Church. The
Church is in the midst of a full-scale crisis and the first step in healing and
defending her is an honest and forthright diagnosis. In a nutshell, the problem is the
sexual revolution and sodomy among many inside the Church.
Tragically, the Family Synod modernists have set Catholic fatherhood backwards for our
lifetime. It will be Catholic families, wives, children, and single young women who feel
the brunt of men of all ages repulsed from the Church because of the sodomite smoke
seeping from its midst.
Yours in His Majesty’s Service on the Feast of St. John Paul II,
Weigel on The Truce of 1968
in The Church
Hey, Tim Jones, here.
1968 was the year that I “got saved” in the Baptist church and was baptized. I was
seven, and at the time I’m certain that I thought everyone was a Baptist.
Even if I had been a Catholic at the time, though, I would have been too young to take
note of the portentious “Truce of 1968″. Like the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam, it
was one of those historic events of which I was blissfully unaware, but the effects of
which would resonate through the rest of my life.
In THIS ARTICLE over at Catholic Exchange, George Weigel explains The Truce;
“In 1968, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington, D.C., disciplined nineteen priests who
had publicly dissented from Pope Paul VI’s teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.
Three years later, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’
Boyle should lift canonical penalties against those priests who informed the cardinal
privately that they agreed that the Church’s teaching on “the objective evil of
contraception” was “an authentic expression of (the) magisterium.”
The Congregation explicitly avoided requiring that the priests, who had dissented
publicly, retract their dissent publicly. A new biography of O’Boyle, Steadfast in the
Faith (Catholic University of America Press), suggests that the decision not to require
a public retraction was made by Paul VI himself.”
To many who were adult Catholics at the time, the “Truce” was a watershed moment, in a
decade of watershed moments.
At the time, it was one of a number signs that the Church hierarchy lacked the will or
the courage to discipline dissident priests and bishops. It appeared to be almost
paralyzed with fear of schism.
They appeared to be intensely concerned with keeping the modernists in the Church, with
the result that we now have a Church full of modernists, each worshipping his own
The Pope is not the problem
By Phil Lawler
Thoroughly rattled by the stories that emerged from the October meeting of the Synod of
Bishops, many faithful Catholics are now worried that Pope Francis is leading the Church
in a dangerous direction—and perhaps even doing so intentionally. Their fears are
understandable, in light of some confusing messages from Rome. But like my colleague
Jeff Mirus, I am confident that those fears are misplaced.
Believe me: I understand the concerns. Regular readers will recall that while the Synod
meetings were taking place, I produced a four-part series on “What’s Wrong with this
Synod.” I voiced my own concerns about the bishops’ apparent unwillingness to address
fundamental questions about the meaning of marriage; the censorship that produced a
badly skewed public understanding of the Synod’s work; the fixation on issues of
interest to the affluent secularized nations, where faith is on the wane; and the
massive failure of marriage-preparation programs. Some commentators have sought to
reassure worried Catholics that nothing untoward happened at the Synod—that the Barque
of Peter is sailing on smooth seas, under favorable winds. I disagree. With this Synod
the Church ran into a serious squall.
The efforts to manipulate the October sessions were blatant and unrelenting. Under new
rules, adopted for this meeting (and cynically justified by the claim that they would
encourage open debate), the speeches of the Synod fathers were not made public. The
world heard only driblets of the bishops’ conversations, filtered through the Vatican
press office. A preliminary report on the discussions—which, in the opinion of many
prelates, was not an accurate summary—was released to the public without formal
approval. When the Synod fathers voted not to approve several paragraphs in a final
report, those controversial paragraphs were included anyway, with the negative vote
noted, so that they could remain under discussion.
Predictably that preliminary report, with its controversial language, has received far
more public attention than the final Synod document. It is virtually impossible to avoid
the conclusion that the Synod’s main organizers wanted this result. Consider this: the
preliminary report, the relatio post disceptationem, was released immediately in several
languages; the Synod’s final report is still not available in an official English
So naturally the secular media fastened on the relatio as the main story of the Synod,
to the exclusion of what the Synod fathers actually said. “No Consensus at Vatican as
Synod Ends,” read the New York Times headline. Of course there was plenty of consensus:
on an entire document, with most of its passages approved by lopsided majorities. But
that message—the message of the full Synod assembly, rather than a handful of
organizers—has not reached the general public.
Russell Shaw, an acute analyst of Catholic affairs, observed that the tumultuous
proceedings of the Synod could be attributed to one of two possibilities. Either the
organizers did not realize the strength of the forces they were unleashing, or they were
attempting to present the full assembly with a fait accompli. Shaw concluded: “In
charity, I favor the first explanation—culpable naïveté—but others will see it
In a strained effort to make the argument that the Synod was not manipulated, the Jesuit
columnist Father James Martin, writing in the Jesuit magazine America, said that the
assembly benefited from “a rather ‘Jesuit’ model of decision-making.” There is
considerable irony in that claim, since the most controversial passage of the relatio,
on the acceptance of homosexuals, was evidently written by Archbishop Bruno Forte with a
substantial assist from another Jesuit journalist, Father Antonio Spadaro. My friend
Robert Royal reported from the scene that Archbishop Forte and Father Spadaro exchanged
a very visible thumbs-up sign when that passage was read aloud.
Yes, there were unquestionably some serious machinations at the Synod. But then, as Jeff
Mirus has also observed, there are always machinations at any assembly in which strong-
minded people try to advance their own ideas. Far more troubling, to faithful Catholics,
is the abundant evidence that Pope Francis was a party to the manipulation.
It was the Holy Father, after all, who gave Cardinal Walter Kasper an opportunity to
present his own favorite proposal to a consistory of cardinals in February. The Pope
praised the German cardinal’s presentation, and then remained silent as Cardinal Kasper
repeatedly hinted that he was speaking for the Pontiff. The Pope appointed the committee
of prelates who drafted the relatio, and anyone familiar with the Catholic hierarchy,
looking down the list of names, could have guessed what was in store. Pope Francis
reportedly saw that final report before it was made public, and made no move—then or
later—to block its release or distance himself from it.
Any one of those papal moves—all of them, really—could be explained. But Catholics of a
conservative or traditionalist bent were not inclined to listen to explanations. They
had already seen what they interpreted as clear indications of the Pope’s own views,
ranging from his damaging “who am I to judge” comment to his shocking demotion of
Cardinal Raymond Burke. When Pope Francis told an Argentine reporter that he enjoyed
debating conservative bishops, that seemed to clinch the point. Insofar as such labels
are useful in Catholic affairs, the Pope thinks of himself as a liberal.
Fair enough. Pope Francis will often make statements—has often made statements—that
unsettle those of us who are ordinarily classified as “conservative” Catholics. He will
urge us to take a different perspective. He will criticize us for refusing to accept new
ideas. Criticism is often difficult to accept, especially for those who have been
fighting intellectual battles for decades. But if we cannot accept correction from a
pastor, we are treading down a very dangerous spiritual path.
In the past week I have been dismayed to see some “conservative” commentators write
about Pope Francis with the same sort of vitriolic disdain that Father Richard McBrien
showed for St. John Paul II in the 1980s and 1990s. If that contempt for the Vicar of
Christ was wrong then—and it was—it is wrong now.
Outside the tight circle of opinionated Catholics, and in spite of the confusion caused
by the Synod, Pope Francis retains his phenomenal popularity with the general public. It
is significant, I think, that his fiercest critics use this popularity as part of their
indictment against him. Yes, I realize that our society has trouble distinguishing good
from evil. Yes, I agree that playing to the crowd—demagoguery—is dishonorable. But
popularity in itself is not a bad thing! If he is encouraging the world to look upon the
Catholic Church with fresh and even sympathetic eyes, Pope Francis is doing an
The Synod fathers—including, I assume, those who were angry about the attempted
manipulation of the meeting—reportedly gave Pope Francis a long and loud ovation after
the address with which he closed the session. I strongly recommend a careful and
dispassionate reading of that remarkable speech. In it, the Holy Father helps us all to
understand why this Synod meeting was so contentious, and why we should not be overly
troubled by the turmoil.
In that speech Pope Francis warns against some of the temptations that afflict Catholic
prelates—and, I would add, by extension, Catholic commentators. He warns that some
Catholics concentrate on the letter of the law, to the exclusion of the spirit, while
others extol a “a deceptive mercy that binds the wounds without first curing them and
treating them;” some want to turn stones into bread, and others want to come down off
the Cross. All of these warnings echo the words of Jesus.
If there is one clear theme in the teaching of Pope Francis, it is the demand for
Catholics to go out to the “peripheries,” to draw people closer to Christ. Unfortunately
we are lazy creatures, and we give ourselves excuses for avoiding this evangelical duty.
As I read the Pope’s closing address, and especially that section on the particular
temptation that different sorts of Catholics face, I saw him attacking those excuses,
prodding us to recognize how we are failing, even sometimes when we think we are doing
Some Catholics—call them conservatives if you like—have a healthy desire to fight
against the destructive ideas that are steadily gaining ground in our society. But we
(and I put myself squarely in this group) may not take into account that when we attack
the ideas, those who hold them recoil, take a defensive posture, and draw further away
from the truth. Other Catholics-- call them liberals—profess more sympathy toward the
people who follow destructive ideas. But by failing to correct them, they allow those
poor people to continue injuring themselves.
To put it a bit differently, conservative Catholics tend to slip into the belief that we
can convert people by arguing with them, while liberals believe they can convert people
by agreeing with them. Both are wrong. To bring people into the Church we need to meet
them, befriend them, listen to them, accompany them, evangelize them. That is the
fundamental message of Pope Francis, and to drive home that message he is willing to
tolerate—perhaps even to encourage—a raucous Synod meeting.
Yes, the October session of the Synod was messy, confusing, and contentious. But lively
debates can be healthy, especially when there are real disagreements to be aired and
resolved. The history of the Church is dotted with heated disputes. Often—as with the
Council of Jerusalem, the earliest such episode—they are preludes to new bursts of
To be sure, the October session of the Synod left important arguments unresolved. During
the coming year those arguments will be hashed out, thoroughly but not always
decorously. Inevitably there will be more attempts to manipulate the media, more
inaccurate reports, more charges and countercharges. The process will be frustrating for
those who believe that the life of the Church should always be placid and quiet. But the
Church is more interested in seeking the truth and presenting it in new ways to a new
generation than in maintaining a smooth public façade.
The coming months and the continuing debate will also be frustrating for those who, like
myself, want to see every argument resolved, every intellectual enemy defeated. We may
need to remind ourselves frequently that the work of the Church is not to win arguments,
but to win souls.
Why VOTF's Solution to the Catholic Scandal is Wrong?
By Fred Martinez
The New York Times, Boston Globe as well as newspapers in Ireland and on the European
landmass have recently been promoting Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) as having a solution
to the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal.
The VOTF solution to the scandal is to democratize the “authoritarian” church and have
the bishops cede authority to lay Catholics.
For this group “democracy” appears to mean that the Bishops should cede their authority
to lay “Catholics” such as possibly pro-gay abortion advocates like Leon Panetta, Bill
Clinton's former chief of staff, or Robert Bennett who was Clinton’s hardnosed lawyer in
the Paula Jones sex scandal.
If that’s the case then VOTF is too late because the US bishops have already attempted
to cede these Clintonian “sex abuse experts” authority on their 12-member National
Review Board to deal with the sexual abuse scandals.
It’s obvious that groups such as VOTF- who are calling for “democracy” because bishops
are “tyrannical rulers”- don’t know many bishops. The reason there is a crisis is
because many bishops - far from being tyrants - cede or refuse to use their authority to
discipline liberals who are abusing their positions to morally corrupt the Catholic
The problem is that many bishops are acting like politicians.
Even Frank Bruni in the Oct 20 New York Times admitted the “American Bishops were
responding to the child sexual-abuse crisis in an almost secular, political fashion:
rewriting rules, confessing faults and acknowledging that they need outsiders [such as
Panetta and Bennett] to keep them honest.”
Bishops as Politicians
Many bishops instead of steadfastly upholding the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, act
like politicians worrying about the media and liberal diocese bureaucrats. Thus the
media and liberal bureaucrats control even many otherwise once orthodox bishops by
According to historian James Hitchcock:
“[I]n an [diocese] environment governed by ideology, this [orthodox] scenario really
cannot play itself out. Liberals are quick to notice even small ‘backward’ steps by
their bishop, and they test him by relentlessly pushing ahead with their agenda, so that
he must either confront them or surrender.“ Professor of history at St. Louis University
Hitchcock in the 1995 World Catholic Reporter said,
“Conservative secular journalists have cynically invented the ‘Strange New Respect
Award’ which the media bestow on conservative public figures willing to betray their
principles. Every bishop, whether or not he hankers after the award, knows that it
(Thus in one diocese a bishop with a national reputation for conservatism before he was
appointed now enjoys regular encomia from the local media, even as he actively
cooperates in portraying conservative Catholics as unbalanced fanatics.)”
Conservative bishops also find that the full moral teachings of the church are
undermined by their follow bishops and that they are treated as a second class citizen
for their orthodoxy. Hitchcock who is a founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars
“Despite fifteen years of episcopal appointments by John Paul II, the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops remained essentially a liberal body, in which determined
conservatives have difficulty merely staving off serious defeats, much less winning
Once again it requires a particularly resolute kind of man to accept the status of a
defined minority within a body which seems to place great importance on the spirit of
If nothing else, a new bishop is likely to discover quickly that he will be consistently
on the losing side unless he moderates his positions substantially.”
According to Hitchcock, the Vatican since after 1980 has appointed bishops who are
“personally orthodox and pious but low-keyed, cautious, and ‘non-confrontational.’"
Unfortunately, through1970s the Holy See appointed liberal bishops who were “tolerant of
dissent” as well as some that were “personally sympathetic” to dissent.
The problem is that the personally orthodox, but non-confrontational weak bishops are
profiled for failure when confronted by hardened doctrinaire liberals and in some cases
hardened doctrinaire sexual revolutionaries with agendas.
Sexual Revolutionaries in the Church
Catholic journalist Paul Likoudis in his book “Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops,
Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda” presents a case that sexual
revolutionaries although a small minority are to some extent in control of the American
Likoudis documents that since the 1950s many bishops’ offices and other top management
positions within the Church were filled by men of “perverse sexuality.“ These men
created an old boy network with those of like mind to corrupt the sexual morality of
Catholics in catechism and by sex abuse.
Fr Joseph Wilson who wrote the preface to “Amchurch Comes Out” in a nutshell explains
the bishop crisis:
“If you stop for a few moments and quietly ponder the fact that the percentage of
bishops whose names have been linked with sexual incidents is appreciably larger than
the percentage of priests, it begins to seem less mysterious that so many sexual
offenders in the priesthood were tolerated by their bishops.”
One central figure in the corruption of Catholic sexual morality was Clinton’s Cardinal-
Joseph Cardinal Berdardin. In appreciation for all he had done for the cultural elites’
sexual revolution Berdardin at his “well-publicized death-bed” was visited by Hillary
and received a letter from Bill Clinton.
The Most Influential Bishop in the History of America
Berdardin has been called “the most influential bishop in the history of America.”
Neither orthodox Catholic nor liberal “Catholic” deny that his influence. Likoudis said:
“ No one disputes his influence: as creator of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference: as a bishop-maker who...consoled and
empowered dissenters while professing his loyalty to his Roman superiors; as an
architect of proposals to deconstruct the Roman liturgy, Catholic education and the all
-important field of catechetics.”
What the liberal “Catholics“ and the media have covered up about “the most influential
bishop in the history of America” according to “Amchurch Comes Out” was that “ one after
another of Berdardin’s closest clerical friends from his native Diocese of Charleston
made the newspapers for charges of pedophilia: Fr Eugene Condon, Fr Justin Goodwin, Fr
James Robert Owen-Howard, Fr FX Seitz, in addition to continuing allegations against
[Monsignor Frederick] Hopwood...[r]eputedly, he was Berdardin’s best friend and seminary
Likoudis documents not only that Berdardin’s friends were involved in alleged sex abuse,
but that some of his closest bishop friends were responsible for pedophiles such as Fr
Kos of Dallas.
“Amchurch Comes Out” also exposes a number of other lesser know bishops and church
leaders who were Berdardin clones. The thread that ties all these church leaders
together is their pro-gay advocacy and activism “to deconstruct the Roman liturgy,
Catholic education and the all-important field of catechetics.”
The reason for this activism is summed up by Fr Wilson:
“If sexual autonomy is one’s goal, one will not want the traditional Mass as the central
symbol of the Faith, for the very form it takes will always seem a reproach... [a] nd as
for catechesis: well, why else would one promulgate religion textbooks that avoided
subjects such as commandments, precepts of the Church, original sin; why else would one
find situation ethics attractive -- unless one were anxious to usher in a new religion,
one much more amenable to one’s whims.”
Sexual Revolutionaries’ New Religion
According to Likoudis the doctrinaire liberals as well as the sexual revolutionaries in
the Church with their liturgical “reform” have caused a sixty- percent decline in Mass
The liberal’s catechetical and “tolerance” parochial school reform has lead to two-
thirds of Mass-going Catholics not being able to “identify the Catholic doctrine on the
Eucharist” and eighth graders who are “learning about anal sex and bestiality in their
Catholic school classrooms” according to Fr Wilson.
If what Likoudis and Wilson say is true then the liberals have created a religion that
is not Catholicism. The new religion appears to be pan-sexualism in which original sin
and personal sin are denied. Pan-sexualism in it’s extreme form allows all sexual acts
including homosexuality, anal sex, bestiality, sex abuse of children and minors.
Even the National Catholic Reporter on May 17 admitted the Vatican knows about pan-
sexualism. The May article said:
“The [church's highest court, the Vatican] Signatura's brief, later published in the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, stated: "St. Luke Institute [where the US bishops send sex
abuse priests], a clinic founded by a priest[Fr Michael Peterson] who is openly
homosexual and based on a mixed doctrine of Freudian pan-sexualism and behaviorism, is
surely not a suitable institution apt to judge rightly about the beliefs and the
lifestyle of a Catholic priest."
However, some liberal bishops continued to rely on Peterson for advice despite the
Vatican's warning, as shown in the liberal National Catholic Reporter's May 17 article:
"By the time of Peterson's death [of AIDS], Cardinal James Hickey of Washington had come
to rely on Peterson, along with a number of bishops, for advice in handling sex-
offending members of the clergy. During the Mass, Hickey praised Peterson's work at St.
Luke Institute, calling him a 'brilliant and hard-working priest.' "
If some liberals are doctrinaire pan-sexualist then they will pretend to promote
policies against sex abuse only as a means of public relations. However, they will with
the cover of the cultural elites’ media continue to promote and act out sexual
perversions that are in opposition to twenty centuries of Catholic moral teachings.
The only change will be that the sexual revolutionaries will have to become cleverer in
their war against Catholic morality. And as seen in the case of Bill Clinton if they
stay true to doctrinaire pan-sexualism then the media will cover up and protect them
from their sex scandals.
Orthodox Catholics Two Choices
The orthodox Catholics have only two choices if it is true such liberals and
revolutionaries are in many of the Churches top leadership positions.
They can do nothing and as a result allow the liberals as well as the revolutionaries to
continue to corrupt the young people of the Church. In such a case in a few decades not
even one-third of the Catholics in the US will know or support the most central Catholic
moral or faith teachings.
Remember liberal catechetical and parochial school “reforms” have made it possible for
two-thirds of Mass-going Catholics to not be able to “identify the Catholic doctrine on
In addition, even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that " homosexual
acts are intrinsically disordered...[and] under no circumstances can they be approved;”
these same “reforms” have made it possible, as reported in recent polls, for 80% of high
school Catholic seniors to believe (contrary to Church teaching) that homosexuals should
have the “right” to marry while around two-third of adults agreed with the Churches
position that gay marriages should not be legal according to the Sept 6 The Wanderer
If this trend continues in three decades the vast majority of these Catholic high school
seniors who are the future church and most the those “reformed” during these future
decades by “Catholic” education will cease to be Catholic.
The Catholic Church in America will increasingly cease to exist except for a few
orthodox Catholic colleges, the Catholic home schoolers and many times clandestinely
orthodox Catholic parishes.
The other choice the people of US Church have is to first pray and then do everything
under their power to influence the Vatican to start appointing a new type of bishop. One
who is not afraid to confront sexual revolutionaries in the media as well as among their
follow bishops and bureaucrats.
These strong bishops must be willing to discipline- as a good father- those who refuse
to stop corrupting the Catholic youth. They must be willing to fire bureaucrats who
refuse to abandon pan-sexualism. They must be willing to come under fire to the point of
martyrdom from the pan-sexualist media and their liberal “Catholic” allies.
If the Vatican does not start appointing this new type of strong bishop, then Catholics
in the United States must start joining orthodox Catholic parishes as well as groups
such as the Apostolate for Consecration, Legionnaires of Christ and other groups like
them, which are loyal to the Pope and the full teachings of the Church.
(The real fruit of Vatican II and John Paul II are these young spirited groups, which
will hopefully lead to the evangelization of America as the old “Catholic” liberals fail
to replace themselves because they offer the young only secularism with a Catholic
These young groups are protected by the Vatican and offer refuge as well as support to
orthodox Catholic families whose faith is often literally under siege. Such groups must
be rallied round to grow rapidly so that if the Vatican waits a few decades to reform
the bishops of America then there will still be a strong portion of Catholics to enjoy
In other words, it will be the job of these groups to evangelize the Catholics who are
being run through the liberal catechetical and “reformed” parochial school programs if
the Vatican doesn’t act.
Pope John Paul II needs Prayers
But most importantly Catholics must pray for John Paul II and his successor.
Everyone must remember that, for whatever the reason John Paul II has for not appointing
strong bishops, he as well as his office of Pope (the holder of the keys of Peter) is
hated and seen as a last stronghold against the sexual revolutionaries.
In nation after nation, at the World Summit for Children, from Beijing to Cairo, he is
one of the last worldwide bastions fighting against the cultural elite’s agenda.
Remember the timing of the media’s "breaking" story was when Pope John Paul II’s health
appeared to be deteriorating during masses. In fact the media was sending correspondents
to Rome with expectation of a papal conclave.
On June 14, Mary Jo Anderson in the WorldNetDaily reported:
“The Globe and others have known for over a decade about the growing gay sub-culture in
the Church, but the Globe and others simply winked – they are no less guilty of a cover
up than Cardinal Law. It did not seem worthy of print. Until, that is, Pope John Paul
II, the disliked "reactionary" pope faltered during Christmas masses.”
According to Anderson the goal of the timing of the scandal reporting was “to create
chaos” and to built “momentum” so that “the cardinals can be stampeded into electing an
unusual pope: a candidate approved by the New York Times and the United Nations.”
As can be seen, the Pope and the office of Peter (the Pope) needs prayers even as
Catholics pray and work towards moving the Vatican to appointing strong bishops.
Orthodox Catholics should take heart because this may be a time the Vatican might be
ready to listen to calls for strong orthodox bishops after seeing the US bishops in
The Vatican may now be aware of the American bishops confusion as to “who they are.“
This new found Roman awareness of the bishops acting the part of politicians instead of
the successors of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ was confirmed by the Oct 20 New
York Times. The article by Frank Bruni was called “Vatican Defends Authority: US
[Bishops] Sex-Abuse Policies that Cede Power to Lay People Rankle Rome.”
According to the New York Times’ report a Roman church official said: “They’re [the US
bishops] dealing with the matter as if they don’t understand who they are.”
In his just released book “The Courage to be Catholic,” George Weigel said that because
of archaic and poor information gathering methods the Pope and the Curia before the
scandal had “a generally high impression of the U. S. hierarchy.” But if the New York
Times report is correct then the crisis may have changed the Vatican’s impression.
Vatican insider Weigel in his book indicated that the Rome may be willing to listen to
loyal orthodox Catholic input on how to fix the U S hierarchy.
Orthodox Catholics must take this change in the winds to heart in order to pray as well
as do all in their power to help the Pope and Curia
George Weigel talked about it.
Courage to be Catholic pp. 67-70
"But the explosion of bureaucracy in the Church after Vatican II, and dramatic changes
in the way bishops understood their office, made it ever more difficult to maintain
doctrinal cohesion and eccliastical discipline -- problems exacerbated by what often
seemed to be uncertain papal leadership during the fifteen - year pontificate of Pope
Paul VI. And so it was that, when the sexual revolution hit the Catholic Church with the
force of a hurricane, the Church was intellectually, organizationally, and spiritually
ill-prepared for the blow".
"The results are now obvious, in the crisis of clergy sexual abuse and its magnification
by incompetent or malfeasant episcopal leadership. "The Sixties" did not "cause" the
crisis, which is primarily the Church's responsibility. In the late 1960's, however, a
culture of dissent took root in the Catholic Church in the United States, unmistakably
influenced by the spirit of the times. In that culture of dissent, "fidelity" too on a
new meaning -- or, perhaps better, "fidelity" lost its true, ecclesial meaning. At
precisely the same time, the crisis of clergy sexual abuse gathered such critical mass
that it spilled over into the next two decades. The timing was not accidental. Neither
was the relationship between clergy sexual abuse and the culture of dissent."
The "Truce of 1968"
"Public dissent from Humanae Vitae began even before the official text of the encyclical
was made available. It was led, not by dissapointed laity, but by priests, religious,
and theologians, some of them men and women of considerable influence. One focal point
of the dissent was the Archdiocese of Washington. Priests of the archdiocese joined the
public dissent against the encyclical (which was intense at the Washington-based
Catholic University of America) and, after several warnings, nineteen Washington priests
were disciplined by the local archbishop, Cardinal Patrick O' Boyle; the penalties
imposed by Cardinal O' Boyle varied from priests to priest, but included suspension from
the active ministry in several cases. The priests involved took their case to public and
appealed to the authorities in Rome."
"In April 1971, the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy issued a document on 'The
Washington Case', which drastically minimized the nature of the dissent involved and
'urgently' recommended that Cardinal O' Boyle lift the sanctions against those
Washington priests who would agree to the 'findings' of the Congregation's report. Those
findings did not include earlier the obligation to repudiate previous dissent or the
obligation to make an explicit affirmation of the moral truths taught by Humanae Vitae.
O'Boyle removed the sanctions he had imposed on those among the original nineteen who
still remained priests ( a number had abandoned their ministry in the interim three
"According to the recollections of some who were present, every one involved understood
that Pope Paul VI wanted the 'Washington Case' settled without a public retraction from
the dissidents, because the Pope feared that insisting on such retraction would lead to
schism -- a formal split in the church of Washington, and perhaps beyond. The Pope,
evidently, was willing for a time to tolerate dissent on an issue on which he made a
solemn, authoritative statement, hoping that the day would come when, in a calmer
cultural and ecclesiastical atmosphere, the truth of that teaching could be appreciated.
The mechanism agreed upon to time for that to happen was the 'Truce of 1968'".
"THEOLOGIANS, PRIESTS, AND NUNS WHO PUBLICLY DISSENTED FROM HUMANAE VITAE -- WHO SAID
THAT THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ABOUT THE MORALLY APPROPRIATE WAY TO REGULATE BIRTHS WAS
FALSE --WERE ENCOURAGED BY THE TRUCE OF 1968 TO CONTINUE, EVEN AMPLIFLY, THEIR DISSENT." understand the need to appoint new
bishops who act like the successors of the Twelve Apostles.