Boston Bloggers are in the middle of sorting out more tips on what transpired under Bp. Kicanas but have responded substantively HERE.
There is a timeline and some pretty compelling "rebuttals" to Bp. Kicanas' 'response'.
As is often the case with things we start to peel back the layers, I am getting the feeling that the election of Bp. Kicanas means something bigger than the USCCB electing a Bishop who sees ordaining a drunkard with three documented allegations of sexual abuse in his seminary file, including one minor, as fair play.
If you go over and read the thread in Commonweal, it's pretty scary actually. It really drove home to me that the Catholics who sell sexual liberation theology are dangerous. They're dangerous in the pews, in our parishes and all the way up to the USCCB. The liberation theologists supported Paul Shanley et al and while I have been skeptical their disputations about sexual abuse of minors was more about an agenda to strike at the Body of Christ, this incident really confirmed it for me.
The Commonweal crowd is deleting factual information posted in their comments section, and worst of all now saying that the abuse of older 'minors' is some kind of excusable offense to protect Kicanas and the USCCB from being held accountable -- it is painful. I've clipped their most disturbing twists of factual information below.
Here we have a Bishop who had a conversation with a seminarian after a complaint came in about his drunken night in a barroom groping a minor in the pants. He reveals to the Bishop that he was an alcoholic and the drink causes him to lose control sexually. He admits, directly to the Bishop, that the problem has led to numerous sexual encounters. The vice rector of the seminary testifies that seminarian's file contains a Memo describing three instances of abuse, including one instance with a minor. Kicanas, who was the rector of the seminary concludes that it would be grossly unfair not to ordain him and he clears the seminarian for ordination. Says he thought the "activity" was something the seminarian would eventually work out of his immature sexual system. The Memo describing the abuse disappears from the file. After 23 more victims, he says there was nothing he would have done differently. This week, he issues a statement full of holes.
This is the most egregious thing I have ever read from a Bishop.
SNAP spent the day today protesting and asking the Bishops not to vote for Kicanas.
SNAP member and supporters distributed leaflets outside Holy Name Cathedral and urged church leaders to vote against Bishop Gerald Kicanas, a former Chicago priest who is now a Bishop in Tucson.
According to SNAP, Kicanas was the rector of Mundelein Seminary where convicted pedophile priest Daniel McCormack studied. The group says Kicanas knew of McCormack's sexual abuse and did nothing about it.
"We question why they would want to pick someone who has a history of covering up for a child molester and someone who failed to warn parents about his problems," said SNAP's Barbara Blaine
I'm standing by waiting for Grant Gallicho to write about the SNAP folk being ignorant people who aren't in control of the facts or abusing a 16 year old is different than abusing a 10 year old and wouldn't be a red flag McCormack was a pedophile.
This story about Mundelin and this story about a seminarian victimized at Mundelin (though not during Kicanas' tenure) has made me realize that I've really been underestimating our little problem.
Here in Boston, we'll often get information from priests who are afraid of what they call the 'lavender mafia'. The interesting thing is, it seems to me to be worse under Cardinal O'Malley's regime but maybe I am just hearing it over the last seven or so years. In any event,
This story for me is something I have prayerfully thought about over the last few days. I don't think I ever really understood what they meant by it.
The story is a hard one because the priest who abused the power of his position actually was very remorseful and had been living a celibate life. I suspect he was abused himself. I hope and pray he made it through the gauntlet. Read:
The alleged affair began in 1990 during the student's freshman year. At that time, the former seminarian said, Yakaitis served as his spiritual director, counselor and academic professor. In a letter released Monday, the former seminarian said he understood his communication with Yakaitis as his spiritual director to be confidential.
"In the course of my spiritual direction with Father Yakaitis, I divulged my confusion about my sexuality, my dawning realization that I am gay, and my struggle to learn how to integrate my sexual identity with my desire to be a priest," he wrote. "Father Yakaitis presented himself as a mentor and a friend, leading me to trust and confide in him."
But, the former seminarian said, late in the fall of his freshman year, Yakaitis abused his role and began using alcohol, coercion and blackmail to initiate a series of sexual encounters. Every time the student tried to end the relationship, he said, Yakaitis threatened to terminate his seminary career.
In November 1991, the seminarian confronted Yakaitis when another student confided that he, too, had sexual encounters with the priest, the former seminarian said. During that confrontation, the student said Yakaitis told him that he would inform his family and the archdiocese of the student's homosexual behavior and expel him from the seminary.
Frightened by that prospect, the student withdrew from the seminary and continued his studies at Loyola University, he said.
In summer 1993, the student sought admission to St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein to "conquer my pain by facing the abuse and reclaiming my desire to be a priest," he said.
During a series of meetings, he said he notified a number of administrators within the archdiocese about Yakaitis' behavior, including Rev. Gerald Kicanas, now bishop of Tucson, Ariz., and Rev. John Canary, then vicar for priests, now rector of St. Mary of the Lake Seminary.
In a memo, Kicanas, then rector of the Mundelein seminary, recommended that the victim take two years off "to explore these issues in therapy to resolve the justified anger that resulted from this significant breach of trust."
Kicanas did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
The use of the Sacrament of Confession to exploit this man's weaknesses is incredulous. I also could not help but wonder about the oddly placed refence to the Sacrament of Confession in his explanation of what he meant by the word "activity".
This is unadulterated evil and I am really beginning to wonder if Bp Kicanas is a poster boy for the cult.
Incidently, while Kicanas didnt return phone calls to journalists covering the sexcapades, call this a hunch, but me thinks Kicanas was very proactive about making a phone call to Fr. Owen at the National Catholic Register to get a wordsmythed booty-protecting FAQ into the Register.
HERE IS THE TESTIMONY FROM THE DEPOSITION:
. I had thought that Father Kicanas was the
17 Rector.
18 o. Okay.
19 And it goes on to state of the seminary
20 identified that three distinct allegations of
21 sexual of both adults and of a minor on
22 the part of Father McCormack were brought to the
23 attention of the seminary officials in the spring
24 quarter of 1992. The former Vice Rector recalls
17 Rector.
18 o. Okay.
19 And it goes on to state of the seminary
20 identified that three distinct allegations of
21 sexual of both adults and of a minor on
22 the part of Father McCormack were brought to the
23 attention of the seminary officials in the spring
24 quarter of 1992. The former Vice Rector recalls
**CONFIDENTIAL***
1 Q. He should never have been ordained, should
2 he, based on that — based on that memo you
3 reviewed?
4 A. He would not have been ordained now and he
5 should never have been ordained then.
6 Q. The last paragraph of this document states
7 there was a sense — and this is quoting Kicanas –
8 there was a sense that his activity was part of the
9 developmental process and that he had learned from
10 the experience. Kicanas said, quote, I was more
1 Q. He should never have been ordained, should
2 he, based on that — based on that memo you
3 reviewed?
4 A. He would not have been ordained now and he
5 should never have been ordained then.
6 Q. The last paragraph of this document states
7 there was a sense — and this is quoting Kicanas –
8 there was a sense that his activity was part of the
9 developmental process and that he had learned from
10 the experience. Kicanas said, quote, I was more
11 concerned about his drinking. We sent him to
12 counseling for that.
13 It’s correct to say that that memo that
14 you reviewed and those documents regarding
15 McCormack’s seminary years belie the assertion made
16 by Bishop Kicanas?
17 MR. KLENK: I would object to the extent that
18 this deals with any report from a mental health
19 advocate or he’s done an analysis. I donJt want
20 him to do that because we are precluded by law, as
21 you know, from getting intoJthat sort of
22 information.
23 MR. ANDERSON: I think you can answer,
24 Cardinal.
98
McCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (312) 263-0052
***CONFIDENTIAL***
1 THE WITNESS: This is a memo based upon report
2 and the memo does say that his problem is drinking.
3 BY MR. ANDERSON:
4 Q. It also says that he had sexually abused
5 at least one minor
2 and the memo does say that his problem is drinking.
3 BY MR. ANDERSON:
4 Q. It also says that he had sexually abused
5 at least one minor
HERE ARE THE CITATIONS FROM THE COMMONWEAL CROWD:
I can’t quite grasp what you see as a problem. Kicanas appears to me to have addressed all of the concerns about his handling of McCormack, except perhaps for a 2nd or 3rd hand account of 3 “incidents” while M was at Mundelein. These incidents may have been the 3 allegations about a single incident in Mexico, or that incident plus two ‘experiments’ before Mundelein. K explicitly states “to our knowledge he never had any sexual activity with anyone during his four years at Mundelein”, which directly contradicts what has been represented as Cardinal George’s testimony....K considered these peer relations, and I am not sure there was a reason to question that.
When McCormack was an undergraduate (i.e. not under Kicanis’ supervision), he seemed to have had some boozy, consensual sex on a couple of occasions, as is wont to occur among college undergraduates,at least when I was in college. Presumably, both McCormack and his partner(s) were not minors...
That’s what I have to keep reminding myself — that there is more to their ministry than keeping perverts from children,...
Carol:
Again, your comment is nonresponsive. When McCormack was a seminarian the archdiocese had no accusations of pedophilia against him.... Let’s further imagine that Kicanas dismissed him from Mundelein. What do you think happens then? His latent abusive tendencies vanish? What happens if he’s not part of a hierarchical structure that demands obedience to a superior and on which he relies for material comfort?...I’m afraid you don’t have a command of the facts in this case.....Of course now we know he was a serial abuser. But at the time, it’s not clear to me that anyone at Mundelein had cause to remove him. They suspected he had a drinking problem (although I don’t know whether he really did, or this was just a way to get him into counseling) and send him to therapy for it....
The one significant difference is that George identifies the victim in the Mexican bar as a minor. Not as a child, but as underage. That raises questions about the age of people in bars in Mexico vs US. (Abuse of an 18 year old is different from abuse of 10 year olds...
Carol, you are ignorant. “Continued indulgences.” Where is your evidence for that?...
I refer, obviously, to statements like ““When they inventory their precious bank accounts, they will regret doing so.” As far as I know, this is a new low in modern anti-Catholicism: that Tighty-Righty dissenters would make threats about money to try to bully the bishops into electing their preferred candidate, is a new low.
Obviously, at this point, the bishops pretty much have to elect Kicanas, or look like a bunch of cowards. ...
I, for one, would not ordain Carol McKinley. Would anyone here?
I’d also suggest ignoring her....
Commonweal commenting ground rules state “Your comment will be more likely to be edited or deleted if it includes ad hominem attacks; is off-topic; contains inappropriate or offensive language, advertising, copyrighted material, or suspicious information.”
To that I would add, “ignores evidence or rules of logic.”
If a subscriber refuses to acknowledge known evidence related to a discussion or argues irrationally, that should be good enough to block the account, period.
Jeanne: feel free to ignore Carol’s comments. It’s a tricky balance. I edited a couple of her lines because they were personal attacks agains Kicanas (speculating about his psyche). ...I didn’t call her stupid. I said she was ignorant about this case, and showed why. I stand by that judgment. I also stand by my judgment that she has been demagoguing this issue from the get-go. Her failure to respond to my many corrections of her distortions was the tell. Incidentally, I know that conservatives here like to play the victim when people like me push back on their arguments forcefully. I’m not going to let this thread descend into victimology.
Grant Gallicho
CONTRIBUTOR
CONTRIBUTOR
Kicanas says he had not heard any allegations of sexual abuse at the time. He learned of inappropriate sexual conduct and, after investigating and speaking with McCormack...
END
I think that's the tip of the iceberg of what's going on here.
BTW - The Rainbow Sash Movement has endorsed Bishop Kicanas. So that makes Commonweal and the Rainbow Sash Movement.
Interesting.
The work is done and it's time to pray.
37 comments:
http://rainbowsashmovement.com/files/RSM_Supports_Bishop_Kicanas2.pdf
Unbelievable.
Carol,
Thanks for all you do.
I always thought you were soft on the sissies. And you always trashed my comments that seemed 'homophobic'(which is your right as a blogger) I find you have easily tossed Shanley's name about as a 'freak'. The truth of the matter is that Shanley is a folk hero to this crowd. Rainbow sash movement indeed. A few years back when Paul Shanley made his $300,000 bail,he had his choice of accommodations when he was exiled to p-Town. He owned an Inn in Key West for crying out loud!. What do you want to know about next? International missionary junkets and snuff sex? How about the free masonry homosexual connection?
Homophobia? If these people don't frighten you, you are not paying attention.
Saint Joseph 'terror of demons' guide and protect us.
Hi Carol,
Why did you go on a "pearls for swine" run? I know, they baited you. Then you tried to butter me up to join you (yes, I saw your short-lived comment). Those folks want a sodomite-run church, to confirm them in their sins against purity.
As long as Vatican policy is to ordain sodomites, you will have a Kicanas problem. Until the Church returns to ABSOLUTE ZERO TOLERANCE for sodomites and effeminates, this problem will recur.
And more, a seminarian with a thing for sleeping with women shouldn't be ordained. Nor should one with a drinking problem be ordained. But the rectors who pass sodomites will certainly go soft on these other problems.
It's a losing situation until Rome changes. But, as I posted over at BCI, Rome is the problem.
Carol,
Thanks for this post. I personally know a priest, rather senior, who let slip a comment about two gay priests in the area and their exploits. I was shocked (back then). He saw my look and turned white. He said, don't repeat that! They'll destroy me! So yes, the lavender mafia is alive and well in the Boston archdiocese. I agree there is a deeper agenda in the works in this election.
M
Hi Carol,
Don't feel bad. I know you meant well, and I didn't expect that two of us would whack you in the same thread. Good points Anonymous, BTW.
In defense of Rome, Pope Benedict has spoken many, many times. The problem is he is only one man & most Bishops in the US are not listening. Oh if only the UCCB’s President was appointed by the Pope as is the case in Italy.
Anonymous above has hit the nail on the head, the key elements & causes in all of this mess, the Masons. Let’s clean house & start there. How many Priests, Bishops and Deacons belong to this evil and incompatible with the Catholic Faith organization?
ROME has spoken but who listens? I apologize for the length of this but it is one of the main causes of the decline of the Catholic Faith in the U.S.
EXAMPLE- QUAESITUM EST
Declaration on Masonic Associations
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous code. This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.Therefore, the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the declaration of this sacred congregation issued Feb. 17,1981. In an audience granted to the undersigned cardinal prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation.Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov. 26, 1983Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Prefect
There is plenty more proof, let's rid the Church in America of Masons & see what's left!
...That's what I'm talking about
Hi KD,
I'll agree. But face it, what's easier to spot: a straight freemason or someone who's "light in the loafers"? My mom can pick 'em out at 100 paces.
BTW, when has Pope Benedict ever said not to ordain gays and effeminates?
P.S. My comment will not go over big once the "old boy" see's it.
So in that case I petition
St. Michael The Archangel Defend us in this battle!
I read the stuff on Commonweal last night and looked at some other websites covering the subject of priest offenders. It honestly turns my stomach when I think of this Bishop K in particular - now endorsed by the Rainbow Sash Movement. It is unbelievable these vices are yet embedded in the Church - and defended. It destroys faith and trust in ordinary faithful Catholics.
You are doing a great job covering this - I don't know how you have the stomach for it. Keeping you in my prayers - I know it is not easy!
Dear Carol:
I have had the same reaction as Terry. I feel sick to my stomach and dizzy. I took read through the invective at Commonweal. I am more convinved, than ever, that the Enemy has a stranglehold on the Church through Her priests. I read these postings and I think: I cannot be reading this. We must pray for our priests that they return to an understanding of the priesthood as sacrifice. Carol, be strong in your faith. God sees all of your efforts. He does.
I am at loss of what Carol is ignorant of????
If the Grant fellow knows more about it than us then in words of one syllable or numbered points, he might want to publish it this way in these comments
1.
2.
et cetera
otherwise keep quiet
Jerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vatican Says No Homosexuals in Priesthood – Approved by Pope Benedict
ROME, September 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Homosexual men may not be admitted to the Catholic priesthood, according to a soon-to-be released document that has been approved by Pope Benedict XVI. The document has been anticipated since before the death of Pope John Paul II and speculation has raged that it would retreat for political reasons from declaring a ban on ordaining declared homosexual men.
In a media update today, Catholic World News says that the text was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August. The document, to be classed as an “Instruction” comes from the Congregation for Catholic Education and says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate. It says that homosexuality, understood by the Catholic Church as a moral and psychological disorder, seriously “detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.”
The document is expected to be released to the public after the international Bishops synod in Rome in October.
In 2002, the same year the scandal of widespread abuse of minors by homosexual predators in the priesthood, Catholic journalist and author, Michael Rose, released his best-selling exposé of what he identified as a homosexual underground in the seminary system that reached all the way into chanceries. Rose implicated bishops and seminary rectors as well as priests in enormous network whose objective was to make the Catholic priesthood a “gay profession.” The presence of the “lavender mafia” in US seminaries, said Rose in his book, has led to a clerical culture in which the teaching of the Catholic Church on other doctrinal issues, especially on abortion, contraception and marriage, is undermined or ignored.
Since 2002, the mainstream media and significant portions of the Catholic community have been attempting to paint the issue as one of “priestly pedophilia,” rather than homosexual predation. This, despite statistics that have clearly shown the great majority of abuse victims were young adolescent men and boys in their teens. The scandal has been a disaster for Catholics in the US, resulting in billions of dollars lost to law suits and a number of dioceses declaring bankruptcy.
The controversy over the anticipated document has been fueled by a long delay and speculation that the Vatican intended to back away from an outright ban on homosexuals in the priesthood. As recently as August 31, The Age newspaper in Australia was reporting that an unnamed highly placed Vatican source said the document was to be “shelved.”
Today’s announcement came at the same time as the US Church gears up for a Vatican-ordered inspection of seminaries. Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, the head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services and the bishop appointed by Rome to head the investigation has said that he believes men with “strong homosexual inclinations” should not be allowed to enter seminaries.
A vocal group of homosexuals and their supporters in the priesthood and hierarchy have been advocating that the inspection of seminaries should focus on the issue of “celibacy” rather than homosexuality. This is seen by many as a smokescreen and a convenient back door for bishops who hesitate to support the Catholic teaching which has long been that homosexual men may not be ordained.
The seminary inspection will also investigate faculty members for dissent from Catholic teaching which Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has proclaimed is the root cause of the sexual scandals. In preliminary documents, the Vatican has ordered that areas to be examined include whether "there is a clear process for removing" dissident faculty.
Jerry
Vatican Says No Homosexuals in Priesthood – Approved by Pope Benedict
ROME, September 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Homosexual men may not be admitted to the Catholic priesthood, according to a soon-to-be released document that has been approved by Pope Benedict XVI. The document has been anticipated since before the death of Pope John Paul II and speculation has raged that it would retreat for political reasons from declaring a ban on ordaining declared homosexual men.
In a media update today, Catholic World News says that the text was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August. The document, to be classed as an “Instruction” comes from the Congregation for Catholic Education and says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate. It says that homosexuality, understood by the Catholic Church as a moral and psychological disorder, seriously “detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.”
The document is expected to be released to the public after the international Bishops synod in Rome in October.
In 2002, the same year the scandal of widespread abuse of minors by homosexual predators in the priesthood, Catholic journalist and author, Michael Rose, released his best-selling exposé of what he identified as a homosexual underground in the seminary system that reached all the way into chanceries. Rose implicated bishops and seminary rectors as well as priests in enormous network whose objective was to make the Catholic priesthood a “gay profession.” The presence of the “lavender mafia” in US seminaries, said Rose in his book, has led to a clerical culture in which the teaching of the Catholic Church on other doctrinal issues, especially on abortion, contraception and marriage, is undermined or ignored.
Since 2002, the mainstream media and significant portions of the Catholic community have been attempting to paint the issue as one of “priestly pedophilia,” rather than homosexual predation. This, despite statistics that have clearly shown the great majority of abuse victims were young adolescent men and boys in their teens. The scandal has been a disaster for Catholics in the US, resulting in billions of dollars lost to law suits and a number of dioceses declaring bankruptcy.
The controversy over the anticipated document has been fueled by a long delay and speculation that the Vatican intended to back away from an outright ban on homosexuals in the priesthood. As recently as August 31, The Age newspaper in Australia was reporting that an unnamed highly placed Vatican source said the document was to be “shelved.”
Today’s announcement came at the same time as the US Church gears up for a Vatican-ordered inspection of seminaries. Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, the head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services and the bishop appointed by Rome to head the investigation has said that he believes men with “strong homosexual inclinations” should not be allowed to enter seminaries.
A vocal group of homosexuals and their supporters in the priesthood and hierarchy have been advocating that the inspection of seminaries should focus on the issue of “celibacy” rather than homosexuality. This is seen by many as a smokescreen and a convenient back door for bishops who hesitate to support the Catholic teaching which has long been that homosexual men may not be ordained.
The seminary inspection will also investigate faculty members for dissent from Catholic teaching which Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has proclaimed is the root cause of the sexual scandals. In preliminary documents, the Vatican has ordered that areas to be examined include whether "there is a clear process for removing" dissident faculty.
sorry if this is dupl. had trouble posting.
Hi kd,
The Nov 29, 2005 Vatican instruction does not ban ordination of homos. That's discussed in the article I linked above (link). The document does not define "deep-rooted tendencies," and the former president of the USCCB, Bp. Skylstad, said that men with a lasting same-sex attraction can be ordained, according to the instruction.
So when did Rome straighten out Skylstad? You get three guesses, and the first two don't count. There is nothing to straighten out because the document specifically says it's OK to ordain homo-tendency types and those who had "transitory" problems.
Well, "transitory problems" is Kicanas' argument exactly re McCormack! Kicanas is fully in accord with the instruction. It's you complainers who are out of line, right?
Here's the Tradition of the Church, as decreed by Pope St. Pius V:
“So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity, taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the secular authority, which enforces civil law. Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of Our Pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be executed as mandated by law, according to the appropriate punishment for laymen plunged in this abyss.”
And if St. Pius V isn't clear enough, hear St. Basil the Great:
"The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils, and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship ... with young people."
Commonweal would be in a tizzy if a different bishop, say Chaput or Nienstadt, was likely to be elected USCCB president, and this same situation had occurred under their watch. They'd be brandishing pitchforks.
Jerry
Whatever. Solution is get rid of all the freemason's in the Church & see what's left.
and Pray for ALL the good & holy Priests - Adopt a Priest in Prayer.
Maybe it's just me but I don't get the joke about "Fundelin". Besides Carol's use of the term, I read it also on the convoluted thread on Commonweal, which I could make neither heads nor tails of, except that that Grant Gallego character or whatever his name is, seems to have a napoleon complex. If he'd enough faggots he'd be running the biggest auto-da-fe in town right on Boston Common. . I use "faggots" in the Inquisitional sense. Grant's sense would be of a different type of flamer. Where's Fr. Feeney when we need him? Apologies to Dick Cushing who went to the Perry School in Southie and had a Jewish brother-in-law and was great friends with Stan Blinstrub. I hope you're not with the majority of bishops, Your Eminence, your honoured skull paving the floor of the devil's jacks and getting the asperges of every demonic fiend that needs to relieve himself after his saturnalian licentiousness. Bejasus, it sounds like a night at Mundelein. But all Southie guys go to heaven, as a good old local Jebby once told me.
Anywho, what does "Fundelin" mean? The name of Kicanas' hotbed of homoerotic horniness is Mundelein, isn't it? Is it something to do with the buggers that ran it?
A side point: is anyone convinced that the majority of these bishops give new significance to the term "portly gentlemen"? I find it reprehensible to fund a cabal that drinks better wine and eats more beef than I can afford. I had thought that asceticism was a Catholic virtue. They must have changed that at Vatican II. Naaahh ...
Écrasez l'infâme!
Thanks for all your great comments.
The Rainbow Sash people know their peeps at the USCCB, don't they.
I agree Larry about the Commonweal crowd. Their 'concern' about sexual abuse was limited to Bishops selling celibacy and morality. What a bunch of frauds.
Interestingly enough, they're now complaining over there that they can't drum up the kind of support for Bp. Kicanas Grant was hoping to drum up. Apparently selling drunkenness,groping and sex as the the indicators of readiness for celibacy and ordination is not gelling.
n.b. Can we keep from throwing the Pope under the bus? He's with us. Really.
ps..I should have added that I am not jumping for joy about the chaos in Rome. But is it any different than it was 2000 years ago, really?
They're shivering under thy beds but they will come out eventually.
Jack,
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Fundelin was apparently the nickname seminarians gave Mundelein. It was sex, booze, wild music, dancing and more sex. In other words, it was a whore house. Kicanas must have had a good set of ear plugs which have probably come in handy every six months at the Bishop's conferences these past 20 or so years.
I have to tell you that many men homosexual men went into the seminary in good faith to be celibate and these bastards plied them with booze and took advantage of them. Reading the story of that poor young man, my blood pressure boils. What they have done to Christ's Church is despicable.
Pray hard.
"But is it any different than it was 2000 years ago, really?"
Pope St. Peter said, (2 Peter 4-10) "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment: 5 And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. 6 And reducing the cities of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhites into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, 7 and delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked: 8 For in sight and hearing he was just, dwelling among them who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works. 9 The Lord knows how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented: 10 And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming."
That's 1950 years ago. Sounds pretty solid to me. Really.
Jerry, sounds ghastly.
You know how I hate the word sodomites.
p.s. Jack - Have you seen Michael Voris' latest? He takes some good swipes at Voltaire.
Carol: Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Absolutely. Any Irishman who holds back is a crypto-Sassanach! ;-)
It was sex, booze, wild music, dancing and more sex
I'm reminded of Bernie Law losing it when he found out a priest had had an affair with a woman! I don't have the link at the moment but there was an article in the Globe during the heyday of the scandal when Bernie was praising the likes of Geoghan and damning some poor bastard that had fallen in love in God's natural way.
Kicanas must have had a good set of ear plugs which have probably come in handy every six months at the Bishop's conferences these past 20 or so years.
These "portly gentleman" dining on the the dime of the devout every six months? Is that in itself not a scandal? Throw the bums out! What's the use of a bishops' conference anyway? They should spend the time washing the wounds of lepers.
I have to tell you that many men homosexual men went into the seminary in good faith to be celibate and these bastards plied them with booze and took advantage of them. Reading the story of that poor young man, my blood pressure boils. What they have done to Christ's Church is despicable.
Yes, it is. I think that the teaching of the Magisterium is spot on. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the mental disease to know whether it is able to be cured or even suppressed. But if a man is inclined to same-sex attraction, despite the natural disorder of such inclination, and chastely refrains from homoerotic acts, then he should not be denied ordination. If he permits himself to be plied with booze and yields to his satanic impulses, then he is twice guilty and ought to find another career. The pervert who plied him ought to be drummed out of the priesthood forthwith.
But we both know that does not happen. The episcopate is rife with inverts as well. Sodom survived the hail of brimstone.
Pray hard.
Yes, exactly. And God bless you for your dedication to the Faith. You certainly give those Commonweal heretics a run for their money. They're nothing but a bunch of Kerry Healey episcopalians.
Thanks Jack.
btw - the cleric that abused the Sacrament of Confession sounds like he repented and worked hard to win back his soul. He did leave the priesthood (I think!) He was baited into whatever spiritual morass was going on under the nose of Kicanas and I pray that he has steadfast in holding onto Christ all the way through the race.
I wouldn't want to discourage him since the last record we have of him sounded victorious -- just in case he ever came across this.
Thanks for encouragement on the Commonweal thread.
Nighty nights!
Carol,
Yes I actually watched the entire hour of the "CIA" video. He makes some good points. But I'm not sure I'd like to live under a "Catholic monarchy" where only Catholics, and virtuous Catholics at that, are allowed to vote. He's a good presenter but a bit barmy. After all, even the Church acknowledges the Darwinian account of evolution. Once burnt by Galileo, twice shy, I guess.
BTW, when I write "écrazez l'infâme", I don't mean it in the worst Voltairean sense - merely that this masonic and sodomite infested temporal institution of our days should be crushed and the True Church of Christ be restored.
I vaguely recall that the cynic Voltaire called a priest for Extreme Unction (do they do that anymore in the masonic rite today?) to his deathbed.
Hi Jack,
"After all, even the Church acknowledges the Darwinian account of evolution."
Actually, it's just the recent two popes who've gone off the edge on this. The Church cannot admit evolution because it runs up against the Fall, Original Sin, and St. Thomas Aquinas. But this is going off topic.
Hi Jerry,
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! Or more accurately, a monkey's nephew, I suppose. And here I thought that apple-eating incident was allegorical! :-)
BTW, in the future, if Carol is praying for something, I'm going to bet heavily on her side. Great work, Carol, and thanks. Tim Dolan owes you a dinner. Commonsqueal has already started their weeping and teeth-gnashing. That site needs a cyber-exorcist. Is there a Rituale Romanum (the old one, you know, the Catholic one) online?
Hi Jack,
It was too early in the day for me to catch the sarcasm! I'll save the inquisition for another time.
Yes, Carol, good news and good work.
I hate to rain on the parade.
I love what you do, but this is a myth.
"I have to tell you that many men homosexual men went into the seminary in good faith to be celibate and these bastards plied them with booze and took advantage of them."
Homosexual is a verb. The only escape is to 'no longer be one of them'. It is a club complete with rituals and traditions and it is part of the occult. Please read about the issue of queers in the church on BHE.
A man who would rape a boy would have no trouble murdering him if he thought he could get away with it.
I think St.Michael The Archangel would tell you to go on the Commonweal site and defend your Faith without ad hominem attacks which would be much more productive then simply talking amongst yourselves.
Nancy,
I appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure that is right now a productive use of our time.
Carol, The Church is in serious trouble. Now, more than ever, she needs your help in defending the Faith.
Nancy,
I love your zeal. God bless you!
The people are in deep doo doo but the Church is forever. Luckily, Christ had the wherewithall to entrust His Church to a Higher power.
Generally speaking, the folks operating that site do not want their readers to know the truth. They will generally delete or block people who speak the truth. I need to use my time wisely. If you think there is something in particular over there I can contribute to, send me the link and I will post something and see what happens.
Those folks are in the darkness. They want a fan club, not truth. If the consciences of their readership wakes up, they lose their self esteem when their errors are exposed.
Post a Comment