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

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.

Rev. Matt Foley, New Interim Administrator at Chicago Car Sex Priest Parish, Was Inspiration for Chris Farley's "I Live in a Van Down by the River" Character

Tweet

Daily Herald (suburban Chicago), August 2, 2015

The Archdiocese of Chicago announced today that Rev. Matt Foley, pastor of St. James Parish in Arlington Heights, would be the interim administrator of the nearby Mission San Juan Diego, the scandal-wracked parish that recently woke up to the news that its then pastor, Diego Berria, had been arrested in Miami for having public car sex with another priest. This was only three years after an associate pastor at San Juan Diego was arrested and later convicted for possessing child porn.

It turns out that Rev. Foley was a rugby team friend of the late Chris Farley at Marquette. Indeed, he was partly the inspiration for the comedian's famous "I live in a van down by the river" motivational speaker character.

Farley based the character on some of the characteristics of his father and an old football coach, but named him "Matt Foley" the night that his friend, the newly ordained Rev. Matt Foley, was in the audience at Second City for one of the first performances of the skit.

According to suburban Chicago's Daily Herald in 2015:

Foley met Farley on the first day of rugby practice in 1982. Farley was a freshman. Foley was a year older and not sure what to think of the big guy who showed up to practice in nice shorts and a polo shirt with his collar popped. 

"He was kind of a prepster. Rugby is a rugged group, and I thought he might have a difficult time. But he fit right in and he was a pretty decent athlete, too," Foley remembered. 

Farley didn't hesitate to use his size to make others laugh, a skill that he would continue to capitalize on for years to come. 

"He was really creative in terms of his physical comedy even back then," Foley said. After college the two were on the same traveling rugby team. When Foley was in seminary in Mundelein, Farley would come out to visit him, and they'd play basketball or talk about faith. 

"He was very religious," Foley said. Farley attended daily Mass in college and continued to ask Foley for spiritual guidance as he struggled with addiction later in life. 

A few years later, Foley was a newly ordained priest working in North Lawndale and Farley was onstage at Second City. 

There, he invented an over-the-top but down-on-his-luck motivational speaker character that he based on both his father and his old football coach. If he had a friend in the audience the character that night would take the friend's name. 

"My name is Matt Foley, and I'm a motivational speaker," Farley began one night when Foley was in the audience. The two went out after the show, and Farley told him he wanted to keep using that name. 

When Farley got to "Saturday Night Live," he intended to bring the Matt Foley character with him. 

On May 8, 1993, Foley got a call from his old friend. "Matt Foley is going to be on tonight; you've got to watch it," he said. 

Foley turned in and heard his name on national TV for the first, but certainly not the last, time. 

"It was a little shocking," he admitted. "But I thought the skit was hilarious."

Okay. Is there anything wrong with that?

Of course not. The best priests attend Second City all the time.

That was a joke.

In seriousness, Foley's accounts of his relationship with the baptized and (according to Foley) at times devout Catholic Farley, described in numerous interviews and articles as well as a 2015 documentary on Farley's life, are interesting and occasionally moving. One imagines or hopes that their friendship helped the extremely troubled Farley in some way.

But at the least it's an odd fact that illustrates the...looking for a right word...zaniness of what we might call Cupich Church.

Since his name was taken for The Man in the Van, Rev. Foley, 50, worked at a number of parishes in Chicago. He also spent time ministering to the poor in Mexico and served both his country and the Church as a chaplain with special operations units in Afghanistan.

Foley's work in Afghanistan, where according to reports he repeatedly risked his life, sounds more than admirable. He doesn't appear to be a soft prelate, let alone a member of the Lavender Mafia.  

But in other ways he does appear to be a solid Francis/Cupich priest.

When Cupich was chosen as Archbishop of Chicago (forced in, as we now know, by Pope Francis and Cardinal McCarrick against the wishes of many), Foley was quoted in the Chicago Tribune waxing hopeful and making a recommendation:

I would emphasize spreading the good news as opposed to telling people what to believe.

Foley listed Toni Morrison as his former "favorite leisure author".

And just a few days ago the Facebook page of St. James Parish linked to Vigano attacker and Francis defender Cynthia Wooten's article on Francis' diagnosis of "clericalism" as the central problem in the sex abuse crisis. It was the parish's only link to a news story on the crisis.

But it's Cupich Church, so what would you expect?

How many priests in Chicago don't love Toni Morrison?

And maybe The Man Who Lives in a Van Down by the River is exactly what is needed to clean up a parish at ground zero of the Chicago homosexual priest network.

I hope so. But I doubt it. 

Influential Lay Group Legatus Puts Annual Tithe to the Holy See in Escrow

Tweet

In a letter dated today, Tom Monaghan, the founder and current chairman and CEO of Legatus, a lay association of US Catholic businessmen, informed members that the organization's annual tithe to the Holy See would be placed in escrow "pending further determination" regarding the sex abuse coverup allegations of the last few weeks.

Legatus was created 31 years ago by Dominos Pizza founder Monaghan. Membership is limited to owners or CEO's of businesses with at least $6.5 million in annual revenue or $275 million in assets under management.

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, the international chaplain of Legatus from its founding through 2012, called it “the most influential lay organization in the Church”.

IRS records show the 2016 tithe to have been approximately $730,000. Even assuming the 2018 total to be somewhat higher, the amount of money is obviously not in itself substantial in the overall scheme of Vatican finances.

However, a source inside the Vatican communicated this:

It is significant because it is from a single source. And it is important because everyone in Legatus also makes personal donations, and each donor is the type of person that gets others to donate. Or not. I think the Vatican will be taking it seriously.

Mahound's Paradise also believes it to be notable because Legatus is a "mainstream" Catholic organization with no previous record of opposition to Francis or his policies.

Interestingly, the president of the other well-known Catholic institution founded by Monaghan, Ava Maria University, initially expressed his support for Pope Francis' approach to the crisis a few days ago, but was then was forced to backtrack in the face of a backlash from alumni and others, including a resignation announcement from the University's alleged current regent.

Catholic journalist and blogger Thomas Peters was one of the first to break the story on social media, writing that "If Pope Francis refuses to speak, US Catholic laity will speak with their wallets."

Vatican Source: "the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb" - Former Nunciature Official: "Viganò said the truth."

Tweet

Carlo Maria Viganò

Only hours after the release of former nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò's statement implicating Pope Francis in the Cardinal McCarrick sex-abuse cover up, more and more sources are confirming its believability.

Among other things Viganò related the "stormy conversation" between then-nuncio Petrio Sambi and Cardinal McCarrick in 2011 when McCarrick was informed that Pope Benedict XVI had imposed sanctions on him:

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires ad interim after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it — about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that "the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor."

Catholic News Agency contacted Msgr. Lantheaume:

[We] requested an interview with him to discuss the account attributed to him by Archbishop Viganò. Lantheaume, who has now left the Vatican diplomatic corps and serves in priestly ministry in France, declined to give an interview, and said he had no intentions of speaking further on the matter.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.

The internationally known Fr. Carlos Martins of the Companions of the Cross and the head of Treasures of the Church sacred relics ministry wrote on his Facebook page:

I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia. He said that the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb. Two things are universally noted regarding Viganò: 1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported. In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor. This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief...

In the words of the Curial official I spoke with this afternoon, what Viganò has reported “makes the Borgia popes look like saints.” The feeling in the Curia right now is that the response of Viganò’s enemies will to try to discredit him personally, both because of the impeccability of Viganò’s character and the impossibility of his having interpreted the facts incorrectly. Their only hope will be to try to take energy away from the perversion and corruption that he uncovered. They will likely state that he is a bitter man who is seeking personal aggrandizement after having been exiled from Rome. When this occurs, don’t buy into it. Viganò is retired. He has nothing personally to gain from this [h/t Vox Cantoris].

Rod Dreher tweeted a few hours ago:

US Catholic priest e-mails re: Pope Francis: "He's dead to me. A total fraud now. All these years he has been hammering priests and bishops and now he is shown to be a hypocrite. ... I'm hearing from Rome that Vigano's letter is absolutely credible. No doubts."

And against the attempts by Cardinal Cupich (who Viganò claimed owes his red hat to McCarrick) and others to cast doubt on the very existence of the sanctions against McCarrick, the moderate to liberal Catholic academic and commentator C. C. Pecknold tweeted:

I’ve been hearing all day from reliable sources claiming high-ranking prelates and Vatican officials have confidentially confirmed that private sanctions were in place against McCarrick. It now appears that the Vatican will not dispute this if they go on record.

The response from Francis and his allies to Viganò's statement has been in hindsight predictable, tracking the strategy employed against the dubia and the dubia cardinals. He cannot confirm the claims, obviously, since that would be tantamount to admitting grave crimes that Francis himself has strongly and repeatedly condemned.

Indeed, a few commentators (including this mischivious one) noted how Viganò's bombshell document was released only a few hours after the scatologically-prone Bergoglio had publicly referred to those who covered up clerical sex-abuse as "caca".

But any denials run the risk of being exposed as lies.

Thus, the "no comment" of yesterday's papal plane interview.

But at the same time, Bergoglio's minions are going after Viganò with verve and viciousness:

Massimo Faggioli: Viganò is a "terrorist".

Austin Ivereigh: Viganò is engaged in a "crude putsch" for "Team Burke".

National Catholic Reporter's Michael Sean Winters: Viganò is the conservative Catholic Oliver Stone (!) - "a trafficker in conspiracy theories who mixes fact, fiction and venom..."

And so on.

I hope they're terrified.

Twenty-four hours ago, I judged that Francis could easily survive this. He didn't rise to the top for nothing. Now I am not so sure.

"Beautiful Morning," Hilary White wrote, attaching a video: "Ding Dong the Witch is dead."

She hope she's right.

Catholic Publisher, Author, Speaker and Columnist Cited in Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report as Ex-Priest Who Abused 17-Year-Old Female High School Junior

Tweet

Faith Meets World by Barry Hudock

Note: this is a somewhat revised version of a post I wrote a few days ago. Though there were no inaccuracies in the original post, this takes into account some information acquired in the interim, clears up some ambiguities and features somewhat different commentary. For reasons I do not wish to go into, instead of editing the first post, I elected to delete the original and put up this "new" post instead. Those who read the first post, can wade through this one if they have the patience. It's not that different. But the changes are arguably important. I hope readers will indulge me and forgive me for this. 

In 1996, Barry M. Hudock was a 27-year-old assistant priest at St. Peter's Cathedral in Erie when a sexual relationship was initiated with a female 17-year-old high school junior at Erie's Mercyhurst Preparatory School.

According to the Pennsylvania grand jury report (p. 416):

This sexual abuse occurred in several different locations within the victim’s local parish community, as well as in different states. In 1997, the Diocese of Erie assigned Hudock to The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. Prior to that appointment, Hudock, the victim, and another high school student traveled to Washington in the summer of 1997. Trautman documented that Hudock and the victim had engaged in kissing prior to the trip in the church rectory. He also wrote that a “major episode occurred” in a hotel room where the three stopped to stay for the night. Subpoenaed Diocesan records revealed that Hudock groped and kissed the victim on numerous occasions. It was also reported that Hudock showed the victim pornographic videos, undressed her in his rectory and sexually assaulted her.

The report does not explicitly say when the diocese became aware of these events, but a source close to the investigation indicates that it was not until 2008, after Hudock had left the priesthood (see below).

It appears that diocesan officials acted on the information swiftly and appropriately.

BishopAccountability.org notes that Hudock vanished from the Official Catholic Directory in 1998 and 1999 but then turned up again as the sole priest at St. Anne's in Wilcox, Pennsylvania from late 1999 to early 2001. This may have been due to Hudock being assigned further studies at Catholic University, outside the diocese. 

Shortly thereafter, Hudock was laicized. Though I can't confirm this, I suspect it was voluntary.

Up to now, the only unusual thing about this case, one of hundreds in the grand jury report, is that Hudock's victim was female.

But what makes's Barry Hudock's story notable is that after being laicized, the ex-priest would go on to carve out a career in Catholic publishing. He perhaps unsurprisingly attempted to keep his past a secret.

Soon after leaving the priesthood, Hudock started writing on Catholic themes, publishing at least five books under the pen name "Barry Michaels" for Pauline Books and Media. These first books appear to be mainstream volumes, three of which are analyses of documents released by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There was also Saints for our Times: New Novenas & Prayers and a 32-page biography of Saint Damien.

During this period, Hudock appears to have quickly married and either fathered or inherited through his wife, seven children.

He also found full-time work, notably, as a teacher at a coeducational Catholic high school.

But his past would soon catch up to him:

In 2008, the victim was having a difficult time dealing with the psychological issues stemming from her victimization at the hands of Hudock. She had been seeing a professional counsellor in Texas when she contacted the Diocese of Erie. The Diocese agreed to pay for her medical bills and provided her with airfare to be seen by the team at St. Luke’s Institute in Suitland, Maryland.

Trautman notified Hudock’s then-employer, Christian Brother Academy, a Catholic Preparatory high school in Syracuse, New York. Hudock was working there as a teacher. Trautman also notified the Bishop of Syracuse and Hudock himself. Soon after this notification, the school terminated Hudock. Trautman also notified the Erie County District Attorney’s Office.

Christian Brother Academy would later claim that they were unaware of Hudock's past. There currently appears to be no evidence that Hudock acted inappropriately in any way in his teaching position.    

It is unclear whether legal action was ever contemplated or initiated against Hudock, though what he did would seem to be liable for prosecution under either Statutory Sexual Assault or Corruption of Minors. It might be that the authorities just missed the twelve-year statute of limitations window for these offenses.

After being terminated from Christian Brother, Hudock would work with two non-profits in Appalachia, becoming Executive Director of one of them, according to his own biography. 

He also ratcheted up his career in Catholic writing and later publishing. Eventually he would became the Publisher for Parishes at Liturgical Press, with a consequent moderate profile on social media.

Liturgical Press is a leftist Catholic publisher affiliated with the Benedictine St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota. The catalog of the Press features some useful translations of classic Catholic works, but it primarily contains 1970's style offerings that one might argue verge on parodies of Catholic heterodoxy. For example, there is Wisdom Commentary, a “fifty-eight-volume feminist commentary on every book of the Bible,” - with each book (all fifty-eight) authored by a feminist (and female) author. The Liturgical Press truthfully presents it as "A Significant Milestone in the History of Feminism and the Study of Scripture."

Through Liturgical Press, Hudock authored under his own name four books: The Eucharistic Prayer: A User's Guide, Faith Meets World: The Gift and Challenge of Catholic Social Teaching, Struggle Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray's Journey Toward Vatican II and Easter, Season of Life and Fire (Alive in the Word).

While it appears that these volumes were far from best-sellers even within the Catholic community, they were quite favorably reviewed by readers and critics. His volume on John Courtney Murray, especially so.

He also translated from the Italian: Will Pope Francis Pull it Off?:The Challenge of Church Reform and The Mind of Pope Francis: Jorge Bergoglio's Intellectual Journey.

Hudock put together Living Laudato Si for Our Sunday Visitor, which is now also now featured on the website of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

With what some might call chutzpah, the ex-priest also managed (according to his own website) to pen a number of pieces for OSV's The Priest magazine whose Vision is "To build up the Body of Christ by fostering a holy and healthy clergy with strong morale and deep fraternity who will continue the work of Christ with a servant’s heart."

Hudock also advertised on his blog and website, Faith Meets World (now Private), that he was available to give talks at parishes, schools and the like on such topics as catholic social justice and the "preferential option for the poor, powerless and the marginalized."

Finally, Hudock wrote numerous columns for various publications including America, Commonweal and Sojourners.

One recent article for America was titled, "When my daughter whispered to me, 'I wish girls could be priests,' I didn’t know what to say."

Predictably, this article created a minor kerfuffle on social media, featuring much praise as well as some criticism. 

*************

That Hudock was an accused sexual abuser became at least quasi-public at least as early as May 15, 2018, when his name was added to the BishopAccountability.org site.

Presumably as a result of this he resigned from Liturgical Press on June 15, 2018. It also appears that Liturgical Press pulled the books that he authored, though not those he merely translated, from its catalog.

He also announced a new venture, IdeaHouse. According to the website's About section:

IdeaHouse is a Minnesota-based contract/consulting business for book publishers, other media organizations, and writers. I have particular interest in projects related to theology, spirituality, and pastoral ministry, as well other humanities-related subjects like history and literature. 

My experience runs deep, and my track record means you can be confident about the results. I thrive on offering creative services and solutions that help great companies and great writers do better work.

When the Pennsylvania grand jury report became public a few days ago, his name was featured in a number of articles that made note of his termination from Christian Brother. Last Thursday, Ruben Rosario wrote about the Hudock case for Pioneer Press in the Twin Cities. He presumably did so because Hudock and his family now reside in Minnesota.

Hudock did not respond to requests for comment by Rosario. After I messaged Hudock, he blocked me on Twitter, protected his Twitter account and changed the status of his blog and website to Private.

As far as I know, he has not yet commented publicly on the recent revelations.

But it is unlikely any of the publications he has recently written for are now unaware of them. Five days ago Our Sunday Visitor wrote an Editorial titled "Naming names: For any coverage of this painful story to be complete, and for any healing to begin, full transparency must first exist". Among other things, it announced that

Barry Hudock, a former priest of the Diocese of Erie, has done freelance writing for various publications of OSV for the past seven years. He is no longer is affiliated with the company in any capacity.

One interesting question is whether any publications that featured his material were previously aware of them. I suspect they were not, though they may have been aware of his status as an ex-priest.

*************

What are we to say about this?

As a priest, Barry Hudock committed moral and potentially legal crimes. I say that not to pass judgment but to describe facts that no one would dispute. As stated above, his actions potentially fell afoul of at least two statutes.

In the eyes of the Church he compounded these by getting civilly married before the laicization process had run its course.

The grand jury report obviously leaves a quite negative impression, with references to showing the young victim pornography, sexual activity in the rectory, and sexual activity in a hotel perhaps with the knowledge or participation of one other unidentified person.

There may be another side to the story. But it is unclear whether Hudock or anyone else will ever publicly tell it. It's also unclear that it can or should be told.

But it should be said that whatever Barry Hudock did or was accused of doing, it's in a completely different category from the lurid tales of ritualized sodomy with altar boys and the like now emerging from the report.

As a priest he had a sexual relationship, possibly consensual, with a young woman who by one measure was not underage.

I think he was entitled to try to build a new life, arguably free from permanently wearing a "sex abuser" label.

He at least partly succeeded in that, becoming a husband and father, and a successful writer.

But much of how he did that is potentially troubling. After the incident, it presumably became obvious to Hudock that he was unsuited for the priesthood. But this realization was notably belated. One might question why Hudock himself decided to remain a priest for four or five years after the events, ministering to, and presumably working with teenage women in his two posts. And why did he then, even after being laicized, see fit to take a teaching job at a co-educational Catholic high-school?

On the other hand, priests and ex-priests often fall into the category of "over-educated", relatively unemployable in skilled jobs other than teaching, writing and the like. There is no evidence that Hudock was what might be termed a serial predator. I suppose only Barry Hudock and God can answer whether, given the circumstances, he made the appropriate choices in the first years after the events. 

Should priests or ex-priests, involved in scandal and then laicized, be barred or bar themselves from any kind of Catholic work or writing? I do not think so. But for my part, for someone with Hudock's particular "secret" to insinuate himself into writing articles for, among other things, The Priest, advising priests, of all people on Catholic matters without reference to his past is somewhat dishonest. Would he advise them to break their vows and get civilly married if it suited them?

And that Hudock has increasingly enthusiastically advocated for and participated in the current popular watering down of Catholic moral teachings is to my mind creepy. You would think an actually changed man would put a premium on holding the line.

Or not. Maybe he honestly believes in the new theology of "discernment" as Francis and others have defined it.

Two weeks after his resignation from Liturgical Press, he Tweeted a picture of himself reading Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings as a beach book.

And what some could term Hudock's failure to judge what might or might not be wise or appropriate when it comes to self-reference has its comic side. On his Faith Meets World website he listed Scent of a Woman at the front of the list of his favorite films.

Maybe he just liked the movie.

There's a well-known phenomenon of ex-religious creating and then clinging to a status of public commentary on things Catholic. Is that laudable or is it tragic? I tend towards the latter view.    

It's also well known that Catholic dissent often stems from self-justification. But one can always turn it around, at least up to a point.

Does Barry Hudock still need to?