"Peter, this is the Lord himself! Abandon the position!" When a Future Pope Pretended to be God to Get a Current Pope to Resign

Tweet

Benedict attending the remains of Pope Celestine V

Before Benedict XVI, in the almost 2,000 year history of the papacy, as many as ten popes may have abdicated or resigned. I say "may have" because most of the "resignations" are historically uncertain. What is known is that, assuming the truth of each resignation account, all but one occurred due to circumstances of violence or political necessity or pressure.

The only "peaceful" resignation was that which has the least attestation - John XVIII (1004-1009), who according to one (and only one) source voluntarily chose to end his life as a monk.

Pontian (230-235) and Marcellinus (296-304) were arrested, tortured and executed by Roman authorities, possibly abdicating before the end. If Liberius (352-355 or 352-366) resigned (which the Church itself and most historians now dispute) it was due to being exiled by the Arian emperor Constantius II. The unfortunate Benedict V (964, 1 month) was deposed by Emperor Otto. Sylvester III (1045, 1 month), Gregory VI (1045-1046) and Benedict IX (three non-consecutive reigns from 1032-1048 involving at least two abdications) all resigned due to the complex and violent political and family rivalries of the time. Gregory XII (1406-1415) resigned to end the Western Schism.

Arrest, torture, banishment, Italians fighting, schism.

Benedict XVI claimed that he resigned partly because he didn't feel up to attending World Youth Day. This is one reason why some people are a bit put off by the whole thing.

But I digress.

Perhaps the most interesting confirmed papal resignation story is that of Celestine V (1294, 161 days), the reluctant hermit pope.

"Peter of Murrone" was a celebrated monk who had founded a new Benedictine order that would later take his papal name.

In 1294 he was 79 years old and living in a hut on top of a mountain in Abruzzo.

In the meantime, the cardinals in Rome had been deadlocked for two years on electing a new pope after the death of Nicholas IV in 1292. It is recorded that Peter himself had warned them that Christ would take vengeance if they didn't quickly come to a decision.

This may have been a mistake.

The cardinals chose Peter.

In one of his popular histories of the Church, Malachi Martin colorfully describes the cardinals and others scrambling up to reach Peter and inform him of their decision. May I be forgiven for observing that it reads like something out of Monty Python:

One fine day in the year 1294, Peter had some visitors. Climbing laboriously up his mountain came three bishops, a Roman senator, a cardinal with his retinue, a group of noblemen and knights, and several thousand people. They suddenly invaded the mountainside clamoring for his approval, begging him in the name of Jesus to utter the magic words: "I accept the grade of Pope."

...A young monk rushed in whispering that the "Saracens were invading the monastery." Up the mountainside outside Peter's tiny hut about 7,000 people were led by mounted knights, the three bishops, and the cardinal, all at the end of their tether, each one intent on being the first to reach the pope-elect. Peter's hut was obvious to them. The oldest of the bishops advanced, peered in through the little opening and found himself looking at the haggard face and timid gaze of a very old man. "Peter, our beloved brother, it has seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit to choose your Excellency as successor of Peter the Apostle, Rector of the Universal Church, and Father of all mankind. Do you accept?" A shout went up from the 7,000: "Long live Pope Peter, our Father. Long live the Bishop of Rome! Long live Peter!"

It took Peter only a few minutes. His monks, now free of their initial fright, ran from their hiding places, shouting: "The Call! The Call! The Prophetic Kingdom is here! The Call! The Call!"

The waiting cardinal and bishops saw Peter's eyes gazing meditatively on the crowds, then up over their heads to the surrounding mountains and the skies. Certainly there was peace in his hermitage, the face of the sweet-smelling earth and shining skies, the nights alone with the stars and the whispering winds, his colloquies with streams and flowers. Could it be that the Lord wanted him to leave? The cardinal and bishops who were nearly beside themselves with worry that he would not talk, much less leave his hut, finally heard the long-desired words: "I accept the grade of Pope."

...The monks all ran about in a veritable ecstasy, chanting: "Paradiso! Paradiso! Come all ye Turks and Jews! Believe in Jesus Christ. Rise, Christian soldiers! Kill all infidels!"

The crowds knelt down, extending their hands and shouting: "Blessing! Blessing! Holy Father! Blessing!"

At length, Peter appeared around the corner of his hut. He raised his hand and blessed them in an immense silence.

Then they placed him on a donkey and the procession set out.

Peter was duly crowned. It soon became clear however that while he was a good and holy man (he would later be proclaimed a saint), Celestine, as he had named himself, was completely unprepared to be a pope, unable to deal with the worldly machinations of his court, to say nothing of actually reforming (as he had originally very much desired) the papal bureaucracy.

King Charles of Naples installed him in his own castle and, there, built him a special hermit's cell. Charles attempted to control him but also had a favorite, Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, waiting in the wings to replace him. Here is Martin again:

But there was no peace for Peter. They extracted him from his cell periodically, set him on a throne, surrounded him with clerics, quick witted, wily, smiling, obsequious, whispering, always whispering. The people who came to see him never got to him. The clerics were always talking monies or politics or plots. Between him and the people there was woven a labyrinthine web—a wall—of intrigue, of lies, of servitude, of deceit. And always Gaetani in the background. Gaetani whispering, eyeing him sideways, never smiling, bowing his head at everything Peter said.

Perhaps he should resign? Martin narrates another Monty Pythonesque scene:

He now saw himself trapped. All he could achieve would be silent heroism of a particular kind: to be plotted against, to be laughed at, to be held a fool, to be deceived, to be treated like an idiot by the great and the mighty. Even to be done to death. Could that be what Jesus wanted?

Late one night in that November of 1294 when he was still pope, Peter was wakened by a sepulchral voice talking in the darkness of his papal hermit's cell. "Peter! Peter! My servant! Peter!"

Automatically, Peter said: "Yes, my Lord." Then he began to realize the pit of insane foolishness into which they intended to shove him. "Peter!" the voice went on, "this is the Lord himself!"

The undertones of that voice began to strike an eerie note of familiarity in Peter's consciousness. "Arise, Peter! Abandon this position! Retire to Murrone! Pray! Peter! Pray! Pray! Pray!"

There was much more of the same. Peter could not mistake those accents after a few moments. Gaetani had never been able to pronounce the "t;" it always came out sounding like a "d." He even called himself "Gaedani."

Peter was not fooled, but Gaetani's trick worked to the extent that by the following morning, Peter had made up his mind. He would abdicate.

Did this actually happen?

Malachi Martin, a learned but colorful figure himself, presumably sourced this from John Gower's Confessio Amantis, though as far as I know Gower, a friend of Chaucer, did not allege that it was Gaetani himself who pretended to be God but rather that it was a confederate.

Regardless, the record is clear that Celestine did resign. And Gaetani succeeded him, becoming Pope Boniface VIII. Ex-pope Celestine would soon be captured and imprisoned by Boniface and would die in custody. Some say he was smothered with a pillow on the pope's orders, though this is disputed.

The papacy enjoys supernatural protection. Or so Catholics believe. But the actual history is, shall we say, rough. To say nothing of the men who occupied the throne.

What will future historians say of our own period?

Will it be banal:

The annoyances of World Youth Day in Rio, to be replaced by writing, prayer and the occasional tall beer.

Or is there something more going on?

Who is the Bishop in white?

Twitter Poll Result: Majority of Traditionalist Catholics Not Certain Francis is Pope

Tweet

Okay, the post title sounds a bit like it's from the Onion.

I suppose I could have titled it "Twitter Poll result: Water is Wet."

But still.

The majority of traditionalist Catholics either do not believe Francis is the pope, are uncertain if he is, or are unwilling to commit to saying so.

Or so say two silly Twitter polls I just did.

Yes, they're silly Twitter polls and only silly Twitter polls. They feature, respectively, 597 and 732 "votes" from my followers and those who received retweets from my followers, etc.

But I have no good reason reason to believe they inaccurately track the views of traditionalist Catholics as a whole.

What is a "traditionalist Catholic"? I suppose we might define it as the label for those who take seriously the traditional teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic religion is based on tradition - beginning with the "tradition" of the Old and New Testaments - one might be forgiven for saying it denotes those who take their Catholicism seriously.

I don't find the poll results shocking or surprising. I'm sure you don't either. Among other things it fits with the anecdotal evidence I've gathered from speaking with Catholic acquaintances, friends and fellow parishioners, both in person and online, over the past many months.

But looked at another way, the general fact is indeed a shock. Who would have predicted it, say, six years ago? While Vatican II and the pontificate of Paul VI did cause many thousands of Catholics to become (and remain) sedevacantists, sedevacantism has always been a decidedly "fringe" movement that, as far as I can tell, has essentially been frozen in numbers for many years.

That most serious Catholics have at the least doubts about the actual identity of the current pope, with a quarter to perhaps almost a half believing that the current apparent occupant of the chair is, to put it unsubtly, an imposter or anti-pope is of course unprecedented in modern times.

Some words about the voting sample: 

I assume most of my Twitter followers, or receivers of the retweets of my followers, fall into the "traditionalist" or "serious" categories. To the extent that some may not, it would only increase the "doubts about Francis" numbers among those who do - as one wouldn't expect many lukewarm or non-Catholics to vote "Benedict" or have doubts about the identity of the current pope, etc.

Do my Twitter followers (or those who receive the retweets of my Twitter followers, etc.) make up a diverse and relatively representative sample of traditionalist Catholics? Actually, I think they do. If you think it's all people who agree with me about everything, you haven't been reading my feed recently. 

But enough of the preliminaries. Here are the two poll questions and results:

December 24-25 (not the most optimum time for a Twitter poll, I admit, but still):

Who is currently the pope? (597 votes, total) 

Francis, 52%, 310 votes a. 

Benedict, 27%, 161 votes a. 

Someone else, 1%, 6 votes a. 

No one, 20%, 120 votes a.

This seemed to show a slight majority for Francis over the sum of the other alternatives, or a two-thirds majority if the "No one" category is removed.

As many pointed out, that poll did not include an option for, among other things, those who were unsure. Another twitter friend pointed out that the wording might have biased things a bit towards Francis in that before "pope" it did not include "true" or "actual", etc.

So I decided to do another poll, which only ended a few minutes ago:

December 26-27:

Who do you think is currently the true pope? (732 votes, total) 

Francis, 38%, 278 votes a. 

Benedict, 24%, 176 votes a. 

Not sure/not my call, 19%, 139 votes a. 

Other/the seat is vacant, 19%, 139 votes a.

I interpret the 14% fall off in Francis votes (and the only 3% fall off in Benedict votes) to indicate that a quarter or more of the original Francis total was "soft". Some voted "Francis" in the first poll because the options told them they had to commit to someone, but many were in fact unsure.

What would the poll results look like if we liberally (and almost certainly falsely) assume that all of the "no" and "other" votes were from classical sedevacantists - people who would have voted "the seat is vacant" in all polls for the last sixty years worth of popes? I ask this not to disenfranchise sedevacantists but to attempt to isolate the "Benedict/Francis" effect. The results would change somewhat. Francis gets a clear majority if one has to commit (Poll 1), but still fails to achieve one if one doesn't (Poll 2).

Poll 1:

Who is currently the pope? (471 votes, total) 

Francis, 66%, 310 votes a. 

Benedict, 34%, 161 votes a.

Poll 2:

Who do you think is currently the true pope? (593 votes, total) 

Francis, 47%, 278 votes a. 

Benedict, 30%, 176 votes a. 

Not sure/not my call, 23%, 139 votes a.

One could, if one wanted, make other methodological assumptions to whittle away the remaining slight "doubts about Francis" majority in the second poll. But what would be the point? It's clear that the Francis reign coupled with the bizarre circumstances of Benedict's exit and pope emeritus behavior - living within the Vatican, the white cassock and all the rest - have led to unprecedented doubts and uncertainty about the actual identity of the pope among serious Catholics, and it's reasonable to assume that such doubts and uncertainties will only grow.

Some have argued that the best attitude is to essentially punt on the question. It doesn't matter who is pope. We can't know. It's not up to us to say. And so on.

That, in and of itself, is of course damning. And who would have predicted it six years ago?

We don't merely have a bad pope. Not even merely a really bad pope. Something else is going on.

Or so most traditionalist Catholics now believe. At least according to our Twitter feed.

New Viganò Letter: "This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality...it has become a plague on the clergy."

Tweet

Archbishop Carlos Maria Viganò and Pope Francis

From his current place in hiding, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has just released a third letter for today's Feast of the North American Martyrs. The letter was written partly in response to a recent open letter from Cardinal Marc Ouelett, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, highly critical of Viganò and his claims in two earlier letters.

In today's letter, Viganò writes:

Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.

That Ouellet explicitly or implicitly confirmed many of Viganò's original assertions was indeed noted by many at the time, but Viganò includes a useful summary.

Read the full text at LifeSite News here.

Viganò concludes the letter by strongly addressing the crisis of homosexuality in the current Church, which he believes to be the cause of the sex-abuse crisis as well as associated corruption. I'm not sure I have ever seen the subject presented with so much effectiveness or clarity, let alone one written by a leading prelate. And I wouldn't be surprised if this excerpt makes it into the works of future Catholic historians, just as we now read denunciations of the Borgia popes by contemporaries.

Ironically, Viganò's strong words also include some understatement, as when he writes: "Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church."

Fr. Paul Kalchik, who dared to act against the gay gestapo in the Chicago archdiocese, was exiled from his parish under threat of commitment to a psychiatric institution. He is also now in hiding. 

And just yesterday, LifeSite News was temporarily banned from Twitter for a link it put up four years ago where it simply presented facts about the prevalence of STDs among homosexuals. Homosexual lobbyist and Francis supporter Fr. James S. Martin may have been responsible for this, as on Twitter a few days ago he had directed a veiled threat against two news sites supporting Catholic orthodoxy - LifeSite News and Church Militant.

Multiply by 10,000 the number of those who were not met with congratulation.

The current homosexual agenda, at least in this context, is not about doing what you want to do in your own bedroom or wedding chapel. It's about suppressing dissenting opinions and those who utter them by any means necessary.

It's also about using the Catholic Church as a brothel to diddle fellow prelates and rape boys.

From Viganò's letter, On the Feast of the North American Martyrs: 

In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation. 

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it. 

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming. 

It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive. 

Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis -- more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32). 

In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on. 

On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice-- on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge -- you will not regret having made.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana, Nunzio Apostolico 

19 Ottobre 2018, Feast of the North American Martyrs

BREAKING: Sexual Abuse Survivors File Lawsuit Against Every Diocese in Illinois, Ask Judge to Release All Records

Tweet

At press conference earlier this afternoon, it was announced that four sexual abuse survivors were filing an 11-count lawsuit alleging cover ups and conspiracy against every Catholic diocese in Illinois.

From the Chicago Sun-Times, 2:24 PM CST:

Suit accuses Illinois dioceses of conspiracy; seeks all priest abuse records 

By Sam Charles

Four survivors of sexual abuse by priests filed a public nuisance and conspiracy lawsuit against every diocese in the state Thursday, asking a judge to order the release of all records related to every abusive priest in Illinois. 

Jeff Anderson, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, said the goal was to expose “a conspiracy of silence, a conspiracy of secrecy, a conspiracy of self-protection and scandal-avoidance that is causing a hazard and a danger in real time today.” 

Anderson said the dioceses have long maintained records of abusive priests that are no longer involved in ministry, as well as records of top church officials who were “complicit” in covering up abuses. 

Three plaintiffs chose to identify themselves while the fourth opted to remain anonymous. 

Darin Buckman, one of the three public plaintiffs, said he was sexually assaulted by Father John Anderson of the Peoria Diocese between the late 70s and early 80s when Buckman was between 8 and 14 years old. 

“He took away my manhood and my childhood,” Buckman said at a Thursday press conference, fighting back tears. “I knew I had to come to this so no other one child would be sexually abused again, especially in the Catholic diocese.” 

Buckman said he contacted Anderson and his co-counsel in the case, Marc Pearlman, more than two years ago. Anderson and Pearlman then requested records from the Peoria Diocese but were ignored. 

“You’ve gotta remember, once something like this [happens], what comes [next] is blame. [It’s] my fault,” Buckman said. “Depression, anxiety, alcoholism. It’s part of the avenue of coping with what happened.” 

The 11-count lawsuit alleges negligence, public nuisance, conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation or non-disclosure of facts. Three of the four plaintiffs are also seeking damages. 

The overall goal of the suit, Anderson said, was to bring about the release of all information relevant to the abuse of children by priests in Illinois. 

“To abate the continuing nuisance, Plaintiffs further request an order requiring that each Defendant publicly release the names of all agents, including priests, accused of child molestation, each agent’s history of abuse, each agent’s pattern of grooming and sexual behavior, and his or her last known address,” the suit states. 

The Peoria Diocese, as well as the dioceses of Joliet, Springfield, Rockford and Belleville, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. 

Read the rest here.

The Archdiocese of Chicago did not directly respond to the allegations but issued a statement that included an lengthy historical review of its own policies and procedures. Here it is in its entirety:

Statement of the Archdiocese of Chicago on Lawsuit Filed Today 

October 18, 2018 

We understand a lawsuit has been filed against the six dioceses in Illinois and the Catholic Conference of Illinois by attorneys Marc Pearlman and Jeff Anderson on behalf of sexual abuse victim-survivors from some Illinois dioceses. We have not had time to review the lawsuit. In 2006, the Archdiocese of Chicago published on its website the names of diocesan priests against whom there were substantiated allegations of child sexual abuse. The list can be found at protect.archchicago.org. 

In January 2014, and again in November 2014, the Archdiocese of Chicago released documents from the files of the priests with substantiated allegations of abuse against them listed on its website. Only the names of victims, material that would identify them or material protected by law was redacted in the more than 20,000 pages released. This information contains the details about the abuse the lawsuit seeks. These documents can be found on our website at docinfo.archchicago.org. 

History 

In 1991, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin convened a lay commission to review the Archdiocese of Chicago’s procedures for handling accusations of sexual abuse. 

In 1992, the Archdiocese of Chicago put in place policies and procedures to address allegations and issues related to sexual abuse of minors. It created one of the first offices of Victim Assistance Ministry to provide direct outreach and support to victim-survivors and their families and created an independent office (now known as the Office of Child Abuse Investigations and Review) to receive allegations of abuse of minors by clergy. 

In 1993, the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Independent Review Board was convened to review allegations of abuse and to make direct recommendations on the accused clergy’s fitness for ministry to the archbishop. 

In 2002, the Archdiocese of Chicago adopted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Charter for theProtection of Children and Young People, including its “one-strike” rule that removed priests with even one substantiated allegation of child sexual abuse permanently from ministry. Every allegation, regardless of when the abuse is alleged to have occurred, is referred to the civil authorities. 

Building on a decade of experience in handling abuse cases, in 2003, the Archdiocese of Chicago created the Office for the Protection of Children and Youth (OPCY) to bring together the various ministries within the archdiocese that had been operating to ensure the archdiocese is a safe place for children. Its offices work together to stay current on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. 

Office for Assistance Ministry (OAM) personnel reach out and extend supportive services to victim-survivors from the moment they come forward with an allegation of clergy sexual abuse. This includes traveling throughout the country to meet with and listen to victim-survivors. OAM personnel also provide the opportunity for victim-survivors to receive independent professional counseling from fully accredited therapists. Additionally, OAM personnel have worked in collaboration with victims-survivors to respond to their need for healing. This has led to the development of the Healing Garden, annual Mass for Hope and Healing and Pinwheel Service for Child Abuse Prevention, victim-survivor led peace circles, and the Healing Voices magazine. To date more than 400 victim-survivors and family members have been served by OAM personnel. 

Office of Child Abuse Investigation and Review (CAIR) is headed by a lay professional who provides a compassionate and thorough process for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse against archdiocesan personnel. Archdiocese personnel notify public authorities of all reports of possible abuse of any kind and from any date, regardless of legal requirements.

• The Director of CAIR serves as staff for the Independent Review Board, which is an advisory board for the Cardinal. The Board’s main charges are ensuring the safety of children and determining a cleric’s fitness for ministry. More than 230 Board meetings have been held. 

Safe Environment Office personnel provide resources to educate archdiocesan clergy, employees and volunteers on how to prevent child sexual abuse, how to recognize sex offender behavior and how to create safe environments for children and youth. 

Since 2003, more than 3,700 training sessions in the archdiocese have been held, training more than 263,000 adults. 

• Archdiocesan parishes and schools are required to provide valuable training to children and youth on how to recognize, resist, respond and report grooming or abuse.
• Safe Environment Office personnel also screen, through name-based background checks, all clergy, employees and volunteers. Office personnel also receive and review fingerprint results for school personnel.
• All employees and volunteers who work with children and youth in the archdiocese must submit a CANTS (Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking Systems) Form.
• All employees and volunteers in the archdiocese must abide by the archdiocese’s Code of Conduct.
• The archdiocese requires Mandated Reporter Training for all clergy, school personnel, religious education personnel, youth ministers and coaches as part of the archdiocese’s Safe Environment Compliance. 

Priest Monitoring Program is the Archdiocese of Chicago’s stringent monitoring program of clergy with substantiated cases of sexual abuse against them. These men have been withdrawn from ministry and are prohibited from presenting themselves as priests. They are required to comply with numerous restrictions to provide safety for the community, the program participants, and the Church. 

In 2006, the Archdiocese of Chicago published on its website the names of all diocesan priests against whom there were substantiated allegations of child sexual abuse. The list has been updated as necessary. The list can be found atprotect.archchicago.org. 

In January 2014, and again in November 2014, the Archdiocese of Chicago, released documents from the files of the priests whose names appeared on our website list of men with substantiate allegations against them. Only the names of victims, material that would identify them or material protected by law was redacted in the more than 20,000 pages released. These documents can be found on our website atdocinfo.archchicago.org. 

In September 2018, Cardinal Cupich called for an independent review of the archdiocese’s policies and procedures and the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation process to heal victim-survivors, their families and the community.

Rabbit Hole: Cupich Commends Ouellet's Attack on Vigano, Reaffirms "Communion" with Francis

Tweet

Cardinal Blase Cupich, From the Archdiocese of Chicago Website

In a "statement" posted today on the Archdiocese of Chicago website, Chicago's Cardinal Blase Cupich sided with Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops Cardinal Marc Ouellet who yesterday released a strongly worded letter, criticizing Vatican whistleblower Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and defending Pope Francis.

Viganò had called on Pope Francis to resign for, among other things, covering up the sexual crimes of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and rehabilitating him after McCarrick had been quietly sanctioned by Pope Benedict.

Viganò released his 11-page letter on August 25 and then went into hiding.

Cardinal Cupich initially responded to the controversy surrounding Viganò's letter by arguing that looking into the substance of the claims would be to go down a "rabbit hole." In a widely criticized television interview, he said that the pope has “got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church.”  

Francis has refused to directly address this charge and charges of his involvement in other sex-abuse coverups following in its wake but has made thinly-veiled attacks on Viganò and other critics, going so far as to equate him or them with "Satan."

In turn, Ouellet yesterday called Viganò's accusation "monstrous and unsubstantiated" and part of a "political plot."

Many have commented that Ouellet did not really deny and in fact arguably confirmed the basic substance of Viganò's main charge.

In his original letter Viganò had also claimed that Cupich's elevation to Archbishop of Chicago was recommended by Theodore McCarrick. Others have confirmed that it was supported by Pope Francis over the alternative choices and objections of other bishops, including Cupich's predecessor Cardinal Francis George.

Here is Cardinal Cupich's statement:

Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, on the Open Letter of Cardinal Marc Ouellet, October 8, 2018

In a statement released by the Vatican Press Office on Saturday, October 6, Pope Francis pledged a thorough study of the documentation present in the Archives of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal, now Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. The Holy Father took the occasion to renew his commitment to address the scourge of abuse within the Church, and to do everything possible to prevent it. In the Vatican declaration, the pope also stated that the Church will not tolerate any cover-ups or accept a different standard for bishops who abuse or cover up, calling this behavior “a form of clericalism that is no longer acceptable.” This clear statement does not come as a surprise to me, for I am convinced that Pope Francis has no hesitation in following a path of accountability. As he remarked during his visit to the United States in 2015: “We will follow the path of truth wherever it may lead.”

The first installment of fulfilling this renewed pledge of openness came the very next day by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who has served as the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops since his appointment by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. In an authoritative and compelling manner, he provided a detailed response to the central charges against Pope Francis regarding the case of Archbishop McCarrick. Cardinal Ouellet made clear that the Holy Father has given him the full freedom to speak in a way that provides information based on his personal experience and the documents of the Congregation for Bishops.

In his capacity as Prefect, Cardinal Ouellet also called to account those attacking or countenancing attacks on the Pope and the Church. In that spirit, I join my voice to those of the Prefect and of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in urging “all in the Church particularly the bishops to reaffirm our communion with Pope Francis who is the visible guarantor of the communion of the Catholic Church.”

Jeepers, Creepers, Where'd You Get That Stang?

Tweet

The man they call Pope Francis was roundly mocked for the bizarre ferula he wielded for the opening of the Synod on Youth on Wednesday.

He was Gandalf. It was a slingshot, etc.

Some wag even modified a photograph to use the fork as a "V" for Vigano.

As far as I know, Catholic commentator Ann Barnhardt was the first to identify it as a stang or Wiccan forked staff.

The stang as such seems to have been invented by mid-20th English occultist Robert Cochrane. Cochrane led the life of an English eccentric, though it would end tragically. He founded two covens (the first broke up due to factional infighting), and maintained an ongoing feud with a rival pagan sect leader. Later he got into a tiff with his family over a claim that he came from a long line of magicians. His Wikipedia entry includes this priceless line:

His nephew, Martin Lloyd, has refuted that the family were ever Witches, insisting that they were Methodists.

Cochrane cheated on his witch-wife, who then threatened to hex him. A few months later he committed suicide by ingesting belladonna on Midsummer Eve. He was thirty-five.

But I digress. 

Sarah Anne Lawless, a contemporary self-proclaimed witch, describes the construction of a stang as follows:

Many make a stang according to Cochrane’s instructions – a tall forked piece of Ash wood with an iron nail in the base, two arrows crossed at near the top and a wreath circling them. This is tradition specific, a stang can be made from any type of wood and instead of being naturally forked one could top a staff with a goat or deer skull or bind antlers or bull horns to the top with rawhide to create the fork. A stang can be any height – from three feet to six feet. I use a three-foot three-pronged Hawthorn staff myself. 

To give it an added function, some witches put a candle between the tines or screw a hook into the wood to hang a lantern from. This is practical as well as representing the light of cunning and wisdom.

From Green Witchcraft III: The Manual, Volume 3

The Bergoglio stang incorporates the requisite iron nail as a crosspiece at the top. Perhaps it could be used to hang a lantern from, representing the light of cunning and wisdom.

Where did he get that stang?

Francis claims that it was a gift from "youth" to be used at the Synod on the same.

Miss Barnhardt posted a picture apparently verifying this.

But if you look carefully, there's another interesting detail. The woman on the left (who according to reports is a not so young thirty years of age) is wearing a red string bracelet, which Barnhardt describes "as a very common talisman in witchcraft/Wicca and Kabbalah, which is basically a hybrid of Talmudic Judaism and witchcraft."

Apparently, it's worn by all the youths.

Is Bergoglio a Satanist? I don't know. I mean it's not like he performs religious rituals wielding a stang or anything.

But to be serious, while in the face of this wicked circus, it's often healthy to laugh, it would be foolish to laugh this off. If the Catholic faith is true, and thus Satan and Satanism exists, if heresy and heretical prelates are on the move, and if Satan is ultimately behind this, as the Catholic Church teaches, why wouldn't we now be seeing such a link?

What do you think heretical antipopes do?

Or, more to the point, what does Satan do with them? 

Read the two recent pieces by Ann Barnhardt here and here.

I think she gets it precisely right:

As I have said and written before, one of satan’s most clever moves has been to foment, encourage and push mentally ill and demonically oppressed people to LOUDLY broadcast insane, ridiculous, totally false “conspiracy theories”. We all know the types and categories. Mind control beams, “chem trails”, shape shifting lizards, underground civilizations, flat earthers, the list goes on and on and on. 

What this has done is make it almost impossible to point out, discuss, and warn about ACTUAL sinister goings-on and actual, honest-to-goodness conspiracies that are very real . . . 

I am morally certain that Antipope Bergoglio’s carrying of a Stang with the iron nail so prominently positioned, into the opening of a farce synod whose entire agenda is the ratification of sodomy, is a clear case of manifestation of satanism. 

And if that makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it. Some conspiracies are real.

FULL INTERVIEW: Is Cupich Enforcer Bp. Mark Bartosic Gay? We Asked Him.

Tweet

Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Mark Bartosic

If you would like to skip the relatively long and arguably tedious background and commentary, scroll down close to the bottom for the text, and all the way to the bottom for the video of the interview.

Last Sunday, September 23rd, after the 8:00 AM Mass at Resurrection Parish, I interviewed new Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Mark Bartosic. Bartosic had been presiding in the absence of Pastor Paul Kalchik who had left the previous day, allegedly under threat of arrest. Fr. Kalchik is now in self-described hiding.

At the beginning of Mass, Bp. Bartosic read a short statement about Kalchik's departure to the relatively small number of parishioners. I assume many if not most of them were already aware of what had happened. The Mass went on as normal, and the parishioners were outwardly quiet and polite.

Bp. Bartosic professed sympathy for, and even friendship with, Fr. Kalchik - "we all want what's best for him", etc. - and even stated that he and Fr. Kalchik had been part of the same book club.

After Mass, outside the main doorway, Bp. Bartosic greeted parishioners and answered some questions. There seemed to be only three media people there - a young reporter from one of the local TV stations, an unidentified man with a recording device and myself. We spoke with Bp. Bartosic and the parishioners relatively informally.

The unidentified man with the recorder asked Bp. Bartosic what books he had read in that book club with Fr. Kalchik. As I recall, Bp. Bartosic claimed not to remember or sort of evaded the question.

One of the most interesting bits of news from a parishioner (which the TV reporter seemed very interested in) was that someone had been placing or tossing little rainbow flags against the wall of the church - items that had been meticulously gathered up and removed by a parishioner or maintenance person.

Someone had also planted small rainbow flags across the street on the sidewalk grass. Catty-corner from the church there was a house that had a full-size rainbow flag hanging from its second story porch.

******

A word on the interview, namely, that part of it where I asked Bp. Bartosic the question -

"Are you a homosexual?"

One might ask, isn't it, well, a bit impolite, just a tad bit, to walk up to a bishop, point a videocamera in his face and ask him whether or not he's gay?

I'll let the reader decide that. But I will say this: in Chicago it's usually redundant.

The Chicago archdiocese is gay.

It's very gay.

It's gayer than a rainbow flag dipped in Chanel Antaeus.

Every Chicago Catholic knows this.

Admittedly, this knowledge is often personal or anecdotal.

So one goes church shopping (a dubious practice, but one I engaged in while in the transitional stage before converting to the Faith), and one discovers in sequence that each pastor is:

Gay.

Gay.

Probably gay.

Straight (perhaps) but acts gay.

Gay.

Straight (what happened?)

Gay.

Flaming.

Admittedly, many parishioners seem perfectly fine with it. He's our sweet Fr. Frump and we love him. Isn't he darling?

And of course we all have our stories: One bumps into one's pastor at a gay bar (no, that's not my story - I just heard about it). Or one's heterosexual pastor is ostracized and denied promotion. Or (this is my story), one's heterosexual catechism instructor tells one that in his first attempt to go through seminary he was hit on repeatedly and then, after he reported it, was labeled a "homophobe" and given mandatory counseling - where he was then hit on by his male psychiatrist!

Then there's the one about the middle-aged pastor who was found dead in his mirror-lined rectory bedroom, naked and hooked up to a sex machine. I think you've heard that one before.

Isn't he darling?

In 2005, incoming Pope Benedict tried to do something about the situation in Chicago and other dioceses. The Congregation for Catholic Education issued an Instruction that included this stipulation:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

It should be pointed out that the Instruction didn't really say anything new but merely reiterated (as it itself references at a number of points in the text) the longstanding position of the Catholic Church.

But as might be expected, just as the longstanding position of the Church had not been taken seriously for many years, the Instruction itself was in practice ignored, at least at suburban Chicago's Mundelein and other similar seminaries. The non-gay seminaries did perhaps attempt to apply it, though of course it wasn't really intended for them - they had been following it anyway.

Interestingly, Pope Francis himself reportedly re-endorsed the Instruction, though this, too, had little practical effect.

There are a few things that shouldn't need to be said but I'll say them.

I know there have been and continue to be some good priests, religious and candidates to the same who are homosexuals, at least as they might define themselves. I am certain of this.

Nevertheless, the "homosexual network" within the Chicago archdiocese has been a plague. This is not because all homosexual clerics are sex-abusers or bad priests, but partly because the mix of loyalty and fear sustained by the network has a tendency to compromise all. That probably 50% plus of seminarians, priests and bishops in Chicago are homosexuals while at the same time the Church officially claims they should not be there (if their condition is deep-seated) and that homosexual attraction is a "disorder" is a frankly untenable position.

Among other things, it pretty much puts at least half of all Chicago priests in silent conflict with the teachings of the current Catholic Church, even the official teachings of the current "FrancisChurch", at least the official teachings.

In fairness, this is why Fr. James Martin and other homosexual and homosexual-friendly prelates want to change those teachings.

Of course a large proportion of Chicago's homosexual priests are sexually active. One of them was sexually active in a car not too long ago.

And homosexuals make up the vast majority of sex-abusing priests as well as a good share of those guilty of covering up for abuse. As for those homosexual priests not in these categories, again, unfortunately the dynamic of the network is such that it in some way compromises all. Are you going to enthusiastically expose the gay sex-abuser who happened to be in your seminary class, the same one who knows your little "secret"?

Bp. Bartosic didn't.

As I reported last week, the fact that the three new auxiliary bishops for Chicago, including Bp. Bartosic, all graduated from the same "Pink Palace" Mundelein Seminary class of 1994 - a time when active homosexual behavior among students was public and pervasive and many good heterosexual candidates were in one way or another driven out of seminary - is extremely troubling. Indeed, Fr. Kalchik himself proposed that their ordinations be put on hold - a claim that was no doubt one factor in Cardinal Cupich's decision to remove him.

Fr. Kalchik wrote in a letter:

Another recent development that needs mention: The three priests slated to be elevated to the rank of bishop this coming month are all from the very same ordination class as former Fr. Daniel McCormack, Chicago's very worst, most notorious gay predator priest. I met Fr. McCormack once in 1995 right after he was ordained, and that very day I reported to seminary officials how off Fr. McCormack was!

At this point in time, it is all a matter of public record, Fr. McCormack was convicted and sent to jail. My question today is how could these three men live with a man like McCormack for four years, day in and day out, and not know or at least be suspicious of his character? Are they not already compromised if they knew or suspected what he was and did not say a thing? To say the least, I have serious reservations about these three classmates of McCormack all being raised to the episcopacy here in Chicago.

Now, just a few days later, one of those classmates permanently kicked Fr. Kalchik out of his parish.

In Chicago, when you bring a letter, they bring a gun.

On the most charitable interpretation, Bp. Bartosic is a nice gay man who loves God and His Church (albeit a God and a Church whose character and commands he may somewhat misunderstand), loves serving his flock (if one interprets "serving" partly as political activism concerning immigration and racism, etc.) and has kept his clerical vows of celibacy.

But this (by assumption) nice gay man has now, willingly or not, found himself in the position of being an enforcer for the Chicago priestly gay mafia.

Or, perhaps, given what happened to Fr. Kalchik, "gay gestapo" is a better term.

I have great sympathy for Fr. Kalchik. I have little for Bp. Bartosic.

And I think many Chicago Catholics are tired of being polite.

******

Here is the interview.

I was one of two or three "media" people asking Bp. Bartosic questions. At first I somewhat continued with the topic at hand, the circumstances of the departure of Fr. Kalchik. This part of the conversation was recorded only in audio:

Mahound's Paradise: You were here yesterday when he left (Fr. Kalchik). Can you tell us about the circumstances of his leaving?

Bishop Bartosic: Uh, he left voluntarily. Uh, I will not...

MP: Did you threaten to call the police if he didn't leave?

B: No.

MP: You didn't?

B: No.

MP: Was there a threat that the police would be called at all by anyone?

B: Uh, not from me.

MP: Did you arrive alone yesterday? What did you tell him when you arrived yesterday?

B: We had a conversation that was...

MP: Can you tell us a bit more about the conversation?

B: Well, we talked about, uh, uh, you know, what was, um, best for the people and best for Paul. And he decided to step away.

I should here note that while Bp. Bartosic's statements pertaining to the alleged threat to call the police seem to be in contradiction to Fr. Kalchik's earlier account, Church Militant later tweeted that the explicit threat was made by two other clerics. Thus, Bp. Bartosic's answer - "Not from me" - may have been technically true.

After a few more questions from another person, I identified myself:

MP: Oakes Spalding from Mahound's Paradise. I'm going to ask you for the record, are you a homosexual?

(Long silence)

B: Who are you?

MP: Oakes Spalding from Mahound's Paradise...

B: From what?

MP: It's a Catholic blog. I think the Cardinal is probably aware of it. [He is, but that was more me being annoying.] Can you answer the question, are you a homosexual?

(Long silence)

B: I can't believe you would ask that.

MP: Well, according to the current rule of Pope Francis. If someone has deep-seated homosexual tendencies, they're not admitted to the priesthood. Now you won't say whether you're a homosexual or not?

(Silence)

MP: Can you just answer the question?

B: I won't answer the question.

MP: Because?

(Silence. At this point I turned on the video recorder.)

MP: Can you answer the question as to whether or not you are a homosexual?

(Silence)

MP: Can you answer why you won't answer the question?

B: Uh... (silence)

MP: Do you think that priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or (rather) seminarians, should be admitted to the priesthood?

B: I'm not going to engage this conversation that you're having with me.

MP: So even though that's the rule of the current Catholic Church, supported by Pope Francis, you're not going to go on the record supporting that?

B: Yeah, I'm, uh, I'm uh . . . I'm not going to talk to you about this.

MP: Are you a supporter of the "rainbow flag"?

B: I'm not going to go here with you. Sorry.

MP: Do you have anything else you want to say to the readers of Mahound's Paradise?

B: No.

MP: Thank you.