Boy, If Only Leo Knew, Huh?, part five

Although the pseudo-religion of the conciliar sect is an expression of Modernism and has as two of its fundamental building blocks a “reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism and false ecumenism, it must never be forgotten that many, although far from all, of those who were the progenitors of the conciliar religion and who have evangelized in its advance for the past nearly sixty-seven years have been sodomite sympathizers, sodomite enablers, and/or active sodomites themselves.

To be sure, Mrs. Randy Engel, who is not a sedevacantist, documented in The Rite of Sodomy the fact that there were colonies of sodomites within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church well before the dawning of the conciliar “Age of Aquarius” when the Rosicrucian Mason named Angelo Roncalli walked out on the Balcony of Saint Peter on Tuesday, October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, and was succeeded by a man known to the Milan, Italy, police as a patron of males near the city’s train station, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, whose lavender touch was especially seen in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. One of the reasons that the conciliar revolution was so successful was that a veritable brigade of sodomites eager to impose a “new catechesis” based upon the precepts of dogmatic evolutionism and moral relativism existed within the Catholic Church and had made many older religious communities of men nests of sodomy.

Although the clericalist propensity to protect institutions and their reputations within the Catholic Church when faced with proven cases of clerical predatory behavior before the aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council and then Montini’s deliberate appointment of his fellow practitioners of perversity to the conciliar hierarchy, the arrogant coverups of such predatory behavior by conciliar officials is the absolute consequence of this sect’s systematic recruitment, advancement, and protection of sodomites.

We have seen the conciliar "bishops”, and their chancery factotums engage in all manner of self-exculpatory "spinning" to deny the scope and extent of the clerical abuse that they had suborned for decades. This has been the standard modus operandi of the conciliar "bishops" and their factotums when caught up in the vast web of the clerical abuse scandals:

1.      Denials that anything occurred

2.      Attempts to claim that they were “framed” or “set-up.”

3.      Accusations that the victims have been lying.

4.      Efforts to intimidate the victims and their family members/friends/supporters with threats of lawsuits, sometimes threatened by chancery officials or attorneys for insurance companies in the employ of a diocese or religious community.

5.      Numerous threats to publicly humiliate the accusers with a recitation of their own sins and faults.

6.      More recently, of course, the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his “boys in the lavender band” have denied the sodomy is any kind of moral crime at all and/or that sodomite behavior between “consenting adults” is neither a moral nor a civil crime.

7.      The Bergoglian crew, led by the likes of James Martin and Timothy Radcliffe, have also suggested that there are distinctions between pedophilia and ephebophilia (abuse of teenagers between the ages of fourteen and nineteen years of age.)

8.      That presumed priests and religious who purvey obscene material, including that featuring children, is neither criminal nor immoral.

As we have seen, this policy of denial and intimidation and browbeating backfired about twenty-three years ago when problems that had been reported for a long time before that in The Wanderer, among other publications, began to see the light of day in the secular media. The conciliar church has had to pay out over $5 billion  (see U.S. Catholic Church Spends $5 billion on 16,276 Clergy Sex Abuse Allegations in 20 Years) in compensatory and punitive damages to victims as a result of the systematic protection and promotion of the predators while the victims were intimidated, stonewalled and browbeaten.

Cover-ups usually unravel, however. They unravel because the liars can’t keep their lies straight. They plot, scheme, and conspire. However, sooner or later, the Master of Lies and the Prince of Darkness with whom they have been allied, whether wittingly or unwittingly, betrays them to their own dim wits to be humiliated publicly, hoping that such people will fall into the depths of despair and that the scandals they have so caused so needlessly and so selfishly will demoralize and depress Catholics into quitting the practice of the Faith and to reaffirm non-Catholics in their hatred of It.

Such was the case of the corrupt predator named Daniel Leo Ryan, who was conciliar “bishop” of Springfield, Illinois, from 1983 to 1999. A product of the homosexual stronghold known as the Diocese of Joliet under “Bishop” Joseph Imesch, himself a product of the epicenter of what Mrs. Randy Engel calls the “Homosexual Collective,” the Archdiocese of Detroit under John Cardinal Dearden, Ryan consorted with males who trafficked themselves and abused at least two of his priests. He engaged in indescribably horrific behavior with them. He told them that they could always go to confession to him if “things went too far,” demonstrating that he had no concept of the horror of sin in general and the particular horror represented by enticing a person into the commission of a Mortal Sin by presuming that God will give them the Actual Grace to have true contrition and firm purpose of amendment for it after the fact of its commission.

A courageous layman, Mr. Stephen G. Brady, who had founded an organization called Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., was approached by the two priests who had been abused by Ryan. These men presented Brady with credible evidence of abuse. Brady thereupon wrote to Ryan in November of 1996 to demand his resignation lest the charges be made public. Ryan did not respond. The Vatican Nuncio in Washington, D.C., "Archbishop" Agostino Cacciavillan not only did not respond to an attorney’s letter about the abuse. Cacciavillan betrayed the names to the two abused presbyters to Daniel Leo Ryan himself! (This prompted a courageous layman and ex-Marine, Frank Kelly, the head of the no-exceptions Virginia Right to Life, an organization that has no links to the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee, to confront Cacciavillan outside of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, District of Columbia, in November of 1997, as many of us were praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary for the conversion of the conciliar "bishops" who were gathered inside for their semi-annual gathering against the Holy Faith. Mr. Kelly, who takes no prisoners, walked wight up to Cacciavillan and poked his fingers right at his chest, saying, "You belong in jail for what you did to protect Daniel Ryan." Cacciavillan scampered into his car in great fright.)

I was approached with the matter shortly after Brady wrote his letter to Ryan, informing the editor of The Wanderer, Mr. Alphonse J. Matt, Jr., about it. Mr. Matt wanted to send the information to the Congregation for the “Bishops” in the conciliar Vatican (this was during the days of my being an “indult Catholic, if you will, before I came to understand the true State of Church in 2005 and 2006, although I knew that conciliar “popes” defected from the Faith in many ways, being unwilling to come to the correct conclusion as to what this meant). I had a classmate of mine from Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, “Father” James Conley of the Diocese of Wichita, who worked in that congregation (Conley has been the conciliar “bishop” of Lincoln, Nebraska, since November 20, 2012). Conley told me that the congregation was going to do nothing despite the evidence that had been amassed.

Having done what we thought was our due diligence, Steve Brady held a press conference at the Springfield Hilton on February 11, 1997, to reveal his findings. The secular media buried the story. The communications director for the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who is still on the job despite all the spinning she did (or maybe because of it), denounced Brady for lying about Ryan. My own story was published in the February 20, 1997, issue of The Wanderer. And it was shortly thereafter that a true priest, Father John A. Hardon, S.J., took one of the abused conciliar presbyters to Rome to meet with Dario Castrillon “Cardinal Hoyos,” then the prefect of the conciliar congregation for the clergy, to present the matter to him. The Vatican did not remove Ryan at that time. The presbyter, however, was given protection as Hoyos had him transferred to another diocese to work under Father Hardon.

Making a long, involved story short, more witnesses emerged a year later. Even Francis "Cardinal" George, the late conciliar archbishop of Chicago from 1997 to 2015, admitted to Steve Brady that the American “bishops” had known all about Ryan for years. George wanted silence from Brady in exchange for a “relationship” with the “hierarchy.” Steve refused. The Vatican did nothing. Nothing, that is, until the threat of a lawsuit by yet other victims in 1999 caused Ryan to go into an “early retirement.” He continued to function publicly until February of 2003, at which time a “special commission” finally concluded what Steve Brady had asserted from the beginning: Ryan was guilty as charged.

Cover-ups usually unravel. And whether they unravel or not in this life, all of the plotting and all of the scheming and browbeating and intimidation used to intimidate victims will be revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. All of the plots and schemes of abusers and liars in this life get revealed on that Last Day, meaning that no matter what level of success a cover-up had in this passing, mortal vale of tears, it winds up destroying the souls of all involved for all eternity unless they repent of their sins and make reparation for them, first of all by apologizing to those who they abused and then attempted to victimize yet a second time by accusing them of lying when in fact they were telling the truth.

Thus, even though an auxiliary “bishop” working under Joseph ““Nighty-Night, Baby” Tobin in Newark, New Jersey (Tobin refused to investigate the well-known accusations against a previous conciliar “archbishop” in Newark, the late and much disgraced Theodore Edgar McCarrick) named Elias Lorenzo, was the head of a Benedictine school where Benedictine clergy engaged in a monstrous abuse of children who were enrolled there, it is probably going to be the case that no ecclesiastical sanctions will levied against him or, quite possible even interfere in his possible appointment as “Nighty-Nighty” Tobin’s successor when the latter retires next year:

Disturbing details of clergy abuse at the elite Delbarton school in New Jersey could be made public thanks to a recent court decision — placing the spotlight on a former top church leader who could be the state’s next cardinal, The Post has learned.

Auxiliary Bishop Elias R. Lorenzo — a potential successor to Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin, who will reach the mandatory retirement age in May 2027 — served for three decades as a teacher and clergy leader at the all-boys Catholic school in Morristown.

During his time, at least 30 students came forward with sexual abuse allegations against Delbarton clergy, the Survivors Network of those Abused By Priests said — some with lurid claims of being brutally abused hundreds of times by Benedictine monks.

In June, the state’s top court ruled that a new grand jury investigation into clerical abuse across the state can move forward — which insiders say will include examining claims of a cover-up at the exclusive school.

The Camden Diocese battled to block the investigation in court for seven years but announced they were dropping the fight in May, according to NorthJersey.com.

“From what I know, it would make sense for them to include Delbarton in the investigation,” New Jersey State Senator Joe Vitale told The Post of the grand jury investigation.

“You would certainly want to know how leadership played a role in all of that,” Vitale said. “And everyone who played a role at Delbarton at the time that abuse was alleged to have occurred should be part of the discussion.”

A similar grand jury investigation in Pennsylvania in 2018 revealed that over 1,000 children had been victims of clergy abuse, the AP reported. It was considered the most extensive examination of a state’s Catholic clergy abuse at the time.

Delbarton — a Benedictine Catholic middle and high school in tony Morristown where tuition is $48,725 a year — boasts a long list of famous alumni, including “Game of Thrones” star Peter Dinklage, Yankees starting shortstop Anthony Volpe and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s sons.

But for the last decade and a half, the school has been in the news over sex abuse allegations against several clergy members at the school — including a former headmaster.

Most recently, a 2021 lawsuit filed by a former student claims that he was raped and abused more than 150 times by a trio of monks as a Delbarton seventh grader in the 1970s.

Lorenzo served as Prior at St. Mary’s Abbey — the second-in-command of the Benedictine order that oversees the school — from 1995 until 2002, and later served as the rector of the Abbey Church and on an abuse review board until 2008. He also taught at the school during this time.

A spokesperson for Delbarton said that Lorenzo was never part of decision-making on the review board but did not respond to other questions asked by The Post.

Delbarton released a public letter in 2018, acknowledging that 30 victims claimed they were abused by 13 clergy members at the school.

But survivors have long accused the school of waging a campaign to silence them, according to NJ.com. 

Victim Tom Crane, whose lawsuit was settled in 2018, told the Daily Record that he endured a “nightmare of intimidation” after filing the suit claiming he and his brother were sexually abused by two Delbarton monks in the 1970s.

His attorney Gregory Gianforcaro, who currently represents 31 plaintiffs against Delbarton and nearly 50 victims total, said prosecutors are certain to include the school in the new grand jury investigation.

“I am confident that once the results of this investigation are public that there’s going to be a lot of information that will surface about the survivors,” Gianforcaro told The Post.

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office told The Post that it could not confirm or deny any details about the investigation, and the Archdiocese of Newark said the AG’s Office has not contacted them.

In 2020, the late Pope Francis appointed Lorenzo — along with two others — as Auxiliary Bishops of Newark. 

When current Cardinal Tobin reaches his mandatory retirement age in 2027, insiders said Lorenzo will be among four bishops who could be in contention for the prestigious role. 

The Archdiocese’s office said that the Attorney General’s office has not contacted them regarding Lorenzo, and that the process to appoint a cardinal is “a complex, confidential and lengthy one.”

One organization — Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP — is calling for Lorenzo to be removed from consideration entirely, claiming in a statement last week that he was “complicit in the cover-up at Delbarton.”

“Bishop Lorenzo’s rise cannot erase the pain experienced by Delbarton survivors,” said Mark Crawford, SNAP’s New Jersey coordinator. “It is unacceptable that someone who held authority during decades when so many students were being preyed upon should now be considered for further promotion. 

“Our members demand transparency and accountability,” Crawford added. “Under Lorenzo’s watch, children were abused by wolves in sheep’s clothing.” (Exclusive | NJ probe could uncover details of clergy abuse at Delbarton school.)

Boy, what if Leo knew, huh?

Well, I will grant you that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV may not know anything at all about the Delbarton School scandal or about Elias Lorenzo’s role in it.

However, we do know about how he has handled similar cases when serving as the conciliar sect’s Midwestern provincial superior for the Order of Saint Augustine based in Chicago, Illinois, and when he was the “bishop” of Chiclayo, Peru:

A group representing survivors of clergy abuse alleges Pope Leo XIV has a poor track record handling allegations of sexual assault committed by priests and clerics.

That includes when he ran the Midwest Augustinian Province over two decades ago, when he was a bishop in Peru and most recently as the Dicastery for Bishops at the Vatican.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, called on the pope to enshrine in canon law that the Catholic Church has zero tolerance for sexually assaulting children and any clergy member who does so should be permanently removed from the church.

“There is no global zero-tolerance law in the Roman Catholic Church,” said Peter Isley, global affairs chair for SNAP. “That’s why when it comes to the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults and the cover up of these crimes, there has been no justice.”

Church officials did not respond to the Sun-Times’ request for comment.

Isley, alongside his colleagues from SNAP, laid out for reporters Tuesday morning the “incontrovertible” proof that Robert Prevost was involved in the cover-up of sex crimes committed by priests. James Ray, a former Chicago priest accused of molesting at least 13 children, is on that list.

Years after he was accused of assault, Ray was moved to a Hyde Park Augustinian monastery near a Catholic grade school and a daycare center. He told the Sun-Times Prevost signed off on the move.

Another case involves three sisters in Chiclayo, Peru, when Prevost was bishop there. The three women allege they were assaulted by a priest while they were young girls, said Sarah Pearson, a spokesperson for SNAP.

In 2022, the women told Prevost about the abuse, and he told them he believed them. However, he never opened an investigation, Pearson said. Last summer, the new bishop at the Diocese of Chiclayo says the case was “improperly handled,” according to SNAP.

In addition to the zero-tolerance law, SNAP is calling on the Vatican to provide reparations for survivors, enter into international legal agreements, and establish an independent panel of survivors and experts overseeing how bishops handle abuse cases. (Victims group claims Pope Leo XIV has a history of mishandling cases of sexual abuse committed by priests.)

Sex abuse scandals have rocked the Catholic church for years, with priests around the world accused of victimizing children and others, and the institution criticized for a weak response.

As Pope Leo XIV becomes leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, his stance on abuse will play a central role in shaping the church’s future as it tries to rebuild trust.

To better understand the direction he might take, a team of New York Times reporters examined Leo’s handling of two sex abuse cases in Peru, while he was bishop in the small city of Chiclayo, from 2015 to 2023.

We found stark contrasts. In one case, Pope Leo — then called Bishop Robert Prevost — sided assertively with victims of sexual abuse. He clashed with powerful Catholic figures to seek justice for victims of Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, a cultlike Catholic movement that recruited children of elite families and used sexual and psychological abuse to control members.

In the other case, the pope is accused by victims and advocates of failing to adequately investigate claims by three women that they had been abused by priests as children.

The Times investigation found that while the pope was a bishop, at least two priests accused of abusing minors continued clergy work — sometimes with children — while under investigation. The reporting also found that a priest appointed by Bishop Prevost to counsel victims told them not to expect much accountability from the church because their abuse had not “reached a situation of rape.”

The findings raise questions about how much oversight the future pope put in place to ensure accountability and protect victims from potential abusers.

For years, abuse claims had plagued Sodalitium, an ultraconservative Catholic movement founded in Peru in 1971 by a layman, Luis Fernando Figari, that eventually received approval from the Vatican. But senior clergy in Peru largely turned a blind eye to the accusations against Sodalitium.

A 2015 book, “Half Monks, Half Soldiers,” revealed a culture of sexual, psychological and physical abuse within Sodalitium. A subsequent independent investigation showed how Mr. Figari’s methods included using a spiked whip to punish members, making his dog bite them and making them wear a belt that caused electric shocks.

Bishop Prevost emerged as one of the few senior Catholic figures in Peru who sided with the victims. He helped some to get mental health counseling and financial settlements and turned up the pressure on Sodalitium.

In interviews, Sodalitium’s victims praised his handling of their cases and argued that Bishop Prevost’s involvement unleashed unsubstantiated attacks against him over the abuse cases in Chiclayo from people sympathetic to Sodalitium.

Dozens of victims ended up coming forward, and the once powerful movement was forced to pay millions of dollars in settlements. Only weeks before Leo was selected as pope, the Vatican ordered Sodalitium to disband.

Three women in Chiclayo said that after they approached Bishop Prevost in 2022 they received very different treatment.

Speaking to Peruvian news outlets, they have said that they told Bishop Prevost that they had been abused by two priests in the diocese as children. One, the Rev. Eleuterio Vásquez, had taken two of the girls to a mountain retreat, where he had gotten into bed with them and began touching and rubbing them.

One of the women, Ana María Quispe, now 29, has spoken out extensively on social media, saying on TikTok that Bishop Prevost told the women he believed them and encouraged them to report the abuse to civil authorities, which they did.

But then, Ms. Quispe said, not much seemed to happen. Civil authorities closed the case quickly, saying the claims went back so many years they were beyond the statute of limitation. The Vatican closed its own investigation in August 2023, citing the decision by civil authorities and a lack of evidence.

The women have accused church leaders of failing to deliver justice or accountability, laying part of the blame on Bishop Prevost.

The diocese claimed that Father Vásquez had been “prohibited” from celebrating Mass amid an investigation.

But social media posts reviewed by The Times showed Father Vásquez continuing to participate publicly in Mass at least three times during the inquiry.

He was even photographed jointly celebrating Mass with the future pope.

A spokesman for the Vatican, Matteo Bruni, said Bishop Prevost’s investigation went “beyond the requisites” and included receiving a written report from the women and searching archives for other accusations.

He said that the church allowed Father Vásquez to publicly celebrate Mass only once during the investigation. If the priest did so at other times, he added, it was “unknown to the bishop.”

In a second case uncovered by The Times, another priest in Chiclayo accused of sexually abusing a minor was barred from working as a priest in his parish in 2019. But more than a dozen Facebook posts identified by The Times, many of them from the period when Bishop Prevost led the diocese, showed the priest continuing to do clergy work for years — often with children. (Takeaways From a Times Investigation of the Pope’s Legacy on Sex Abuse.)

Yes, this is a very mixed record.

However, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has, as noted recently Boy, If Only Leo Knew, part four on this site, said not a word about San Diego, California, auxiliary “bishop” Ramon Bejarano’s recent praise of the so-called “LGBTQ community” as he “apologized” for the “harm” that allegedly been to them by the Catholic Church and, presumably. Catholic teaching. In this regard, though, it should be noted that it was he, Robert Francis Prevost, was the prefect of the conciliar dicastery for “bishops” that the pro-sodomite, pro-statist, soft on pro-abortion Catholic politicians Robert McElroy was transferred from San Diego to succeed the pro-lavender friendly Wilton Gregory as the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia.

Thus, the man from Chicago by way of Chiclayo, Peru, really meant it when he said on May 9, 2025, that he wanted to continue his predecessor’s agenda, which was, of course, very much “oriented,” shall we say, in the direction of all things lavender.

Although it might be a stretch to claim that the following story about the upcoming audience he is giving a group of sodomite activists is more proof of Prevost/Leo’s desire to follow in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s morally relativist footsteps as “papal audience” can be little more than opportunities for chit-chat and photo opportunities, it is nevertheless telling the seventh in the current line of antipopes is granting an audience that, to cite an example, Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II, for  his other Modernist faults (dogmatic evolutionism, liturgical progressivism, false ecumenism, episcopal collegiality) would never have granted:

Pope Leo XVI will receive a pro-LGBTQ+ Catholic reform organization during celebrations in October, the first time the group has been invited “in this form,” the Vatican announced this week.

Eight representatives from We Are Church will visit the Vatican from October 24 to 26, during a “Jubilee of synodal teams and participatory bodies,” the Vatican’s official news source confirmed on Tuesday. The visit will come as part of the 2025 Holy Year observations, initiated by Pope Francis prior to his death in April.

Recently resurfaced remarks the then-cardinal made in 2023 may provide a hint.

Ascending to the papacy in May, Leo — the first U.S.-born pope — is seen by many as a successor to Francis’ legacy as a progressive leader. But Leo is also a skeptic of LGBTQ+ reforms, and has declared that marriage is “between a man and a woman,” though he has also affirmed that the Church will continue to offer blessings to same-sex couples (which are not equivalent to marriage rites) on a “case-by-case basis” per a previous declaration issued by Francis. It’s not clear how long the We Are Church representatives will have to speak with Leo when they arrive in October.

“We were pleased that this meeting of synodal teams and bodies of the World Synod will also take place in the Vatican as part of the Holy Year, and that the invitation was open,” We Are Church cofounder Christian Weisner told Vatican Radio this week.

“Our patient work over 30 years, during which we have often been present in Rome at bishops' synods, council commemorations, papal elections, and other events, may have contributed to this,” Weisner added. “I also see the passage through the Holy Door as a sign for the Church as a whole: to leave mistakes behind and to set out again and again in Christian hope.”  (Pope Leo Will Receive a Pro-LGBTQ+ Catholic Group at the Vatican for the First Time.)

Yes, Leo does know about this one as he will be posing for photographs, at the very least, with supposed Catholics who do not believe is a sin, photographs that will show up in their fundraising letters and appear on their websites.

However, it is NO accident that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s Vatican has backed a pro-sodomite “bishop” based in New Zealand who has told a conciliar traditionalist community, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, which began in 1988 in association with the Society of Saint Pius before petitioning Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in 2008 to be  “reconciled” with his conciliar sect, that they are to leave the Diocese of Christchurch immediately as their [conciliar] “faculties” have been removed:

The Vatican has sided with a New Zealand bishop who has evicted a traditional Mass community out of his diocese, despite the flourishing order strongly denying any wrongdoing.

On August 10, Bishop Michael Gielen of the Diocese of Christchurch issued a letter announcing that the Vatican has formulated its decision against an appeal made by the The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (FSSR) in New Zealand, following a shock decision by Gielen to expel the FSSR last summer.

With the Vatican now bolstering his July 2024 move, Gielen wrote that:

Therefore the removal of priestly faculties for the members of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer in the Diocese and the directive for their departure remain. This also applies to those priests who arrived after the decrees were announced. Any sacraments celebrated by a priest without faculties are illicit.

The Latin Mass community of the FSSR was established on the small Scottish island of Papa Stronsay in 2012, with the New Zealand house dating back to 2014 and a more recent house in Montana being set up in 2020.

A Brief Interjection:

This is revisionist history.

As noted earlier, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer was established in 1988 in association with the Society of Saint Pius X and its “reconciliation” with the conciliar authorities twenty years later caused a few of its members to remain with the Society of Saint Pius X.  I had written two articles about the Transalpine Redemptorists before 2012, one of which was published in 2010, at which time the community had already been well-established on Papa Stronsay Island (see The Cost of "Recognition" Keeps Getting Higher and Higher).

Back to the Lifesite News story:

Background

The decision handed down from the Vatican’s Congregation (now Dicastery) for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL) against the New Zealand branch of the community came through in early August. The dicastery has been a source of controversy given Pope Francis’ decision to appoint a religious woman as its head, creating canonical difficulties, thus prompting Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime to be made pro-prefect in order to have legal power in issuing documents from the dicastery.

“I ask all the Catholic faithful to receive this decision with understanding and trust in the wisdom of the Church,” Gielen added. “My foremost concern remains the spiritual health and unity of our Diocese.”

The public background is found in July 2024 when Gielen ordered the FSSR to cease their public ministry within 24 hours. Stating that the measures were “for the good of the church and the faithful,” Gielen ordered the community to leave his diocese reportedly within 90 days. His decision had come on the back of a Vatican investigation from CICLSAL, but Gielen did not publicize what had prompted the investigation.

In order to replace the daily traditional Mass offered by the FSSR, Gielen established a weekly Mass on Sundays. Any other public Masses in the old rite celebrated by the Son “are illicit – that is, outside the rules of the Church,” wrote Gielen at the time, repeating it since.

The FSSR subsequently appealed his decision with the Vatican, and it is the result of that appeal which has now recently been made known.

Bottom of Form

Why the bishop’s order?

Since the publication of the bishop’s expulsion order last summer the local media has focused on allegations of unauthorized exorcisms performed by the FSSR, suggesting this is behind the bishop’s move. Media reports have also portrayed the FSSR as a thriving cult. However, the FSSR has firmly and consistently denied the veracity of any such allegations, attributing them to the “spirit of destruction that is targeting the chaplaincy and our religious community.” (See LifeSiteNews’ prior analysis on the situation here.)

Additionally, such allegations did not form any part of the bishop’s, or the Vatican’s, investigation – thus appearing to be a peculiar fascination of the media without grounding in the ecclesial reality.

Outlining this fact, Father Martin Mary – the rector major of the FSSR community – wrote in November that despite the swirling accusations against the Sons found in the media, there was no accusation of any crime from the diocese or from the Vatican:

The truth is, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have not been accused of any crime – neither by civil authorities, the Diocese of Christchurch, nor the Vatican, even after its investigation. The ‘recommendations’ from the Vatican lack the citation of a single canonical crime committed.  The diocese of Christchurch ‘refused to say what exactly the investigation found,’ because it didn’t find anything!

Bishop Gielen’s stated reason to us (different from what was suggested from the pulpits) was his desire to assign the Latin Mass Chaplaincy to another group, making our services no longer needed.

Following Gielen’s latest letter, the FSSR informed this correspondent this week that his decision to try and evict the community is “very unjust.”

“Our Congregation was given a canonical invitation to the diocese with no time limit nor any conditions,” the FSSR noted. The former bishop “founded a canonical house which by canon law has its own rights.”

The FSSR also told LifeSiteNews that their presence is not simply to provide a Latin Mass for locals in Christchurch:

But, unjustly, the case of our opponents was framed as if the canonical house was there only to care for the diocesan chaplaincy to the Faithful who want the traditional Mass.

Such a portrayal of the FSSR’s presence in the diocese, the community stated, is false. They pointed to the fact that their main residence, or domus, lies in the countryside over two hours from the church in Christchurch, as a place for the community to live in monastic solitude.

However, sources close to the community have suggested that something else is really at play. Namely, the FSSR’s very public opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates at a time when the New Zealand bishops followed the official government mandates in that regard. The FSSR became nationally famous for joining in protests against the mandates, being the sole religious community to do so in such a public manner.

Delivering a famous speech during one such demonstration, Father Michael Mary of the community lamented the fact that the ecclesial hierarchy had “remained quiet” when it came to opposing vaccine mandates. “If we don’t get this right then this whole country is going to be subjected to a tyranny that will not finish, it will carry on with Communism and all our natural freedoms that have been given to us by God are going to be taken away from us.”

The FSSR’s leadership is this matter has led some close to the community to suspect that Gielen is motivated by a desire to expel them due to their leadership on this matter in which the bishops failed, rather than anything else.

FSSR’s future

In recent weeks, the community’s house in the hills was burnt to the ground, in what some have described as possible arson. Members of the community have also experienced increased violence and threats against them – following the media campaign against them.

Whilst awaiting the now-delivered Vatican’s decision, the congregation sought to peacefully maintain its presence in the diocese. In blog posts on a website connected to the congregation, one entry read:

… priests and monks who worship God in the Latin Mass are separated into a different class of people. We exist only in the lower of a two tier system. Before the Holy See has decided matters our presence has been taken from the Christchurch diocese website; our names have been deleted from the official list of clergy and wiped from the list of priests present as recorded in the New Zealand Clergy Directory.

Toward the end of 2024, the order acquired the historic Anglican church of St. Albans in the Diocese of Christchurch. However, it would be a private piece of property owned by the order and not given any official status as a church. The church was renamed Mission Immaculata.

But should the community now be forcefully evicted from the diocese, LifeSiteNews understands that several will find themselves having to be separated off from the religious order they entered.

The FSSR “have people here who are on visas. There is nowhere for them to go,” a member told LifeSite. Without being given a place to live by the bishops, and given the fact that “we cannot get everyone visas to live in foreign countries,” the FSSR called Gielen’s order “a no can do situation.”

“The situation is one of being asked to do the impossible,” the FSSR told this correspondent. “When the impossible is not done, they will come down on us with censures.”

The future of the FSSR – after having grown as an international community established in New Zealand – remains uncertain, as the bizarre order from Gielen appears set to be enforced to the detriment of the religious in his diocese. (Vatican backs bishop's order to expel Latin Mass community from New Zealand diocese.)

Although I do not know how many of the members of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer are true priests given its twenty-year association with the Society of Saint Pius X nor if Father Martin Mary Sim was ever conditionally ordained by one of its bishops, the fact that remains that those who want to be in the good graces of the conciliar sect have to face the consequences of having sought recognition from those are agents of Antichrist. Live under conciliar protection, then be prepared when such protection is revoked.

Sure, “Bishop” Gielen has targeted the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer because they adhere to a semblance of the true Catholic Faith, not because of the "exorcisms” he claimed that its presbyters have performed and probably not even because of their opposition to government of New Zealand’s plandemic tyranny.

“Bishop” Gielen is a supporter of the sodomite agenda, which is absolutely incompatible with collects mentioning the need of man to make reparation for his sins, to a God Who judges souls, to the possibility of losing one’s soul in hell for all eternity, and to the Holy Mass itself as a propitiatory offering for sins as the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in Spirit and in Truth.

Where is my proof that Gielen is a supporter of the sodomite agenda?

Right here, my friends, right here:

The New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference (N.Z.C.B.C.) has issued a momentous new document this month on sexual diversity in Catholic schools and colleges. The publication of “Aroha and Diversity in Catholic Schools,” is a response to the broad request for support on LGBTQ issues facing Catholic school leaders in New Zealand. The first line announces: “All young people in our Catholic schools should feel welcome and loved.” (Note: the Māori word aroha means “compassionate love.”)

This important work of the New Zealand bishops manifests the love of Jesus Christ in its courage to seek “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” for LGBTQ children in Catholic schools and colleges. For this unique effort among Catholic leaders, “Aroha” deserves global recognition and praise.

In an exclusive interview, Outreach corresponded via email with members of the National Centre for Religious Studies (N.C.R.S.), which is part of the N.Z.C.B.C.’s Te Kupenga–Catholic Leadership Institute, about their role in helping draft the new document, subtitled “Guidelines for Good Practice Demonstrating Compassion, Respect, and Sensitivity in Catholic Schools and Colleges Regarding Sexual Diversity.” 

On beginning the drafting process, the N.C.R.S. members said, “The bishops genuinely care for the young people in their schools and want to support them. Throughout the process, the New Zealand bishops have been compassionately aware of the need to support vulnerable young people.”

Signing the document were the five Catholic bishops of New Zealand: Cardinal John Dew, the Archbishop of Wellington; Bishop Michael Dooley of Dunedin, Bishop Michael Gielen of Christchurch; Bishop Stephen Lowe of Auckland; and Coadjutor Archbishop Paul Martin, S.M., of Wellington.

Historical and cultural context

In September 2020, the New Zealand Ministry of Education released new guidelines for education on relationships and sexuality. These governmental guidelines included gender considerations for all grade levels. In response to this curriculum from the Ministry of Education, the N.C.R.S. updated its own guidelines for teaching human sexuality in a document titled “Wonderfully Made in God’s Image.” This revised guide is in conformity with both Catholic teaching and the New Zealand Ministry of Education guidelines.

As conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity continue to widen in New Zealand, these updated documents were seen as insufficient to address some of the specific challenges currently faced by Catholic schools and colleges. The bishops have been attuned to this conversation, so the new document acknowledges that in the culture there are some “ideological stances which run counter to Catholic teaching on human sexuality.”

In an interview with Outreach, the N.C.R.S. members offered the following examples.

According to 2018 census data, 48.2 percent of the New Zealand population is religiously unaffiliated. Additionally, the Catholic Church is navigating cultural divergences among its members from official doctrines, including the legalization of prostitution, same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

The bishops are also concerned about the over-sexualization of society, which targets young people and influences their principles and choices. Said the N.C.R.S.: “We believe that there is a deep richness in church teaching on sexuality, and we wanted to help with how this can be practical in the context of a Catholic school. We encourage those in education to take part in the study of all the richness that the teaching of the church has to offer, and then they are more able to make better judgments for the benefit of the community as a whole.”

According to the N.C.R.S. members, the bishops’ process for drafting the Aroha document “highlights the reality that being followers of Jesus today is just as complex as it was in Jesus’ time, and the church needs to be just as creative, compassionate and strong in its message of love and faith as modeled by Jesus.”

Preparing the document

The writing of “Aroha and Diversity” was an exercise in synodality and co-responsibility. According to the N.C.R.S., in receiving numerous requests for help, the bishops “listened to school principals, guidance counselors, directors of religious studies and diocesan religious education advisors. Principals involved in the drafting process were very clear that this document was needed urgently in schools. This awareness was supported by the New Zealand Catholic Education Office.”

“Policies and procedures are important and helpful, but they cannot always determine exact courses of action,” said the N.C.R.S. “This is why Jesus gave us examples and parables rather than policies in the Gospels.”

The N.C.R.S. also told Outreach that they “spoke to some groups of high school seniors and some school leavers [graduates], to see what they had to say about positive and negative experiences in New Zealand Catholic schools, and what advice they had to offer.” (A sample of student responses is included in Appendix 1 of the document.) The N.C.R.S. said: “This seems reasonably unique in bishops’ conference documents in this area. We think it is extremely significant.”

Also significant is the choice to use what we might call “LGBTQ language” in this document, similar to the use of the term “LGBTQ+” in the U.S.C.C.B. National Synthesis Report, part of the universal church’s deliberations for the Synod of Bishops. The U.S.C.C.B.’s rationale was that it reflects what was heard from the voice of the people during the listening sessions.

Similarly, the N.C.R.S. members told Outreach, “We used LGBTQIA+ because we wanted to show inclusivity. This is also the terminology used in the Ministry of Education documentation on relationship and sexuality education, and it is the language used by young people in general.”

While the United States continues to see sweeping diocesan policies emerge in response to LGBTQ issues, “Aroha and Diversity” takes a far different approach. When deciding on events or activities, the document advises that “each situation must be judged on its merits.”

“Policies and procedures are important and helpful, but they cannot always determine exact courses of action,” said the N.C.R.S. “This is why Jesus gave us examples and parables rather than policies in the Gospels. All situations must be judged on their merits because the uniqueness of our young people deserves respect, and they need appropriate support and guidance.”

The document emphasizes: “It is very important that ‘Aroha and Diversity in Catholic Schools’ is not seen as a new Catholic anthropology or sexuality theology. It is a pastoral document written to support schools and the young people in them, which affirms what the church already teaches. It is also unlikely to be a final document, but is a step on the journey of continuing dialogue.”

New approaches

The bishops’ letter that introduces “Aroha and Diversity” makes clear that “this document is not intended to be a statement of Catholic understanding of the anthropology of the human person.” The document is not an instruction but a pastoral guide intended “to clearly articulate the rich teaching of the church, and to provide practical information and tools to help schools make informed decisions regarding the support of rangathi [young people] who are grappling with issues around sexual diversity.”

The body of the document is unique in at least three ways.

First, since it is intended to be a pastoral guide, the document shows a preferential option for the principles of Catholic social teaching. Second, the document features a pastoral approach to catechesis on human sexuality. Third, the bishops of New Zealand prioritize the affirmation and buffering of young people. We will highlight each of these areas individually. . . .

For example, the bishops remain clear on the official Catholic teaching on marriage, while also admitting that this “does not mean that other couples cannot commit to wonderful, loving, and enduring relationships, it simply means that such relationships are not ‘sacramental marriage’ within the Catholic Church as they cannot be open to the possibility of new life without external intervention” (no. 17).  

The nuances here are presented carefully, and the N.C.R.S. told Outreach that the bishops were intentional “not to reinforce any harmful attitudes.” The goal of the document is to stand in aroha [love] rather than in judgment, and to promote relational, empowering, transforming, practical care for young people in Catholic schools and colleges.

This approach seems to embrace the message of Pope Francis that the church is like a polyhedron, which “has a form similar to the sphere, but it is multifaceted.” Francis said, “I like to imagine humanity as a polyhedron, in which multiple forms, in expressing themselves, constitute the elements that compose the one human family in a plurality.”

That sentiment is echoed in proposition 5:

From a Catholic perspective the profound awareness that every person is made in the image and likeness of God includes that we are not all the same, literally “thank God”. There is significant diversity in the way this image and likeness is present and lived in the world.

Catholic understanding is richly nuanced by tradition and formal teaching that seeks to place aroha love and pūaroha compassion for community and individuals—as relational with one another, God, self, and creation—at the centre of any decision-making process.

3. The Affirmation and Buffering of Young People

“Aroha and Diversity” recognizes the internal and external risks faced by LGBTQ young people. These concerns are named as ridicule, bullying, sporadic school attendance, poor concentration, low achievement, self-harm and suicide. In response, the bishops of New Zealand propose a “person first” strategy.

Proposition 24 states: “The Catholic Church has a renewed emphasis on its role in safeguarding all members of the community. The Catholic Church has a responsibility to protect those who are children and vulnerable in our community.”

This sentiment is an echo of The Identity of the Catholic School for a Culture of Dialogue, the January 2022 document from the Congregation for Catholic Education, which asserts that “the Catholic school is a school for all, especially the weakest.”

Choosing to stand in solidarity, the bishops’ document expresses a covenantal promise to LGBTQ young people in proposition 26, which declares in part:

·         “You are welcome and acknowledged as being made in the image and likeness of God.”

·         “Our school will be supportive of your journey of self-discovery.”

·         “Our school will provide support that ensures your well-being and safety.”

·         “There are staff who are available to discuss your needs, interests, and concerns as young people.”

This promise assures holistic care for all students, starting from a position of “awareness that our schools are filled with wonderful, diverse, and uniquely gifted young people” (no. 6). All of this is expressed to meet the demands of the Gospel so that all children “feel loved, supported, nurtured, and protected” (no. 7). (New Zealand bishops release trailblazing document for Catholic educators on sexual diversity.)

Where did I find this information?

Well, I did a search and found it on none other than “Father” James Martin’s “Outreach” website, none other than Robert Francis Prevost had, in his pre-antipapal days, “tweeted” out material that Martin had posted on social media platforms on several occasions.

Boy, if only Leo knew, huh?

Robert Francis Prevost had to sign off on the decision the conciliar dicastery.

He saw.

He signed.

Thus, he knew.

The conciliar religion is incompatible with true Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals.

Finally, the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, headed by “Bishop” Michael Martin, who banned the staging of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition several months ago without a  word of reproof from Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV (see Michael Martin's Boilerplate Liturgical Revolutionary Claptrap), has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the North Carolina Supreme Court to support the decision of a private non-Catholic school, Charlotte Latin, to expel students whose parents had objected to the school’s teaching of the lavender agenda in the name of “academic freedom”:

Sure, “Bishop” Gielen has targeted the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer because they adhere to a

The Diocese of Charlotte – headed by Bishop Michael Martin, who notoriously banned the Latin Mass in his diocese – is siding with a school that expelled children after their parents complained about the school’s adoption of woke ideology, including graphic, sexually explicit LGBTQ+ books.

The lawsuit by parents of the expelled children, Doug and Nicole Turpin, Turpin v. Charlotte Latin School, now before the North Carolina Supreme Court, “asks whether a private school can invite open dialogue and then expel students in retaliation for their parents’ protected speech.”

“Doug and Nicole Turpin sent their children, Olive and Luke, to Charlotte Latin expecting them to flourish,” begins the Turpins’ legal complaint. “Instead, Latin expelled them – abruptly, without warning, and without process.”

“The reason?” asked their filing, “Doug spoke up.”

Charlotte Latin School, which is not Catholic, “is marketed to parents as an apolitical, merit-based classical education private school which teaches children how to think, not what to think,” wrote Doug Turpin in an April 2023 op-ed. “When a new headmaster … was installed in mid-2020, a notice was sent out to all parents that the school has a new ‘foundational’ position which said DEI would be the lens through which every aspect of the school’s culture and curriculum will be managed.”     

“Suddenly, alarming virtue-signaling, and woke class assignments were implemented,” said Turpin, who explained: 

I was one of the leaders of a group of 60+ alarmed parents who created a group, Refocus Latin, which requested an audience with Latin’s Board. We were invited to make a presentation, with the explicit promise there would be no retaliation against us.   

The presentation included images of artwork that suddenly began to appear in the school, such as a picture of Jesus with his throat cut and black blood flowing out from his body with the words “God is Dead.” The presentation also included a book that amounted to a how-to manual for gay sex found in the children’s library and a story containing a man graphically raping a young boy. 

Turpin also noted, “my son reported to me that his teacher taught the class that Republicans are White supremacists who are trying to create Jim Crow 2.0.” 

Earlier this week, the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte requested permission from the state Supreme Court to submit an amicus brief in support of the school’s freedom to terminate enrollment of students whose parents oppose it embracing a woke ideological stance. 

“Although the Diocese agrees with Charlotte Latin that it had an enforceable contractual right to terminate Plaintiffs’ children’s enrollment when – in its sole discretion – Charlotte Latin determined that Plaintiffs had made a collaborative relationship impossible or had seriously interfered with its mission, the Diocese also presents this Court with an alternative argument, made by no existing party, that underscores the broader significance of this case for private religious schools across North Carolina and highlights First Amendment concerns that no party has addressed in depth,” wrote diocesan attorney Joshua Davey.

“The Diocese operates a network of Catholic schools that, like Charlotte Latin, require enrollment contracts expressly reserving the right to terminate enrollment when, among other reasons, parental conduct undermines the school’s mission,” added Davey. “These contractual provisions are essential tools that allow religious schools to carry out their faith-based educational missions while providing clarity and transparency to families who voluntarily choose to enroll.” (Diocese of Charlotte backs school that expelled children after parents challenged woke, LGBT content.)

Although the parents in this case should have realized that Charlotte Latin has the “right” under the religiously indifferentist Constitution of the United States of America to set its own curriculum, the intervention of the Diocese of Charlotte in the matter was gratuitous and, whether intended or not, sent the plain signal that parents of students enrolled in diocesan schools had better not complain about any instances in which the same sort of programs in the advancement of perversity are mandated to be taught. The “contractual agreement” is what matters, not the Catholic Faith.

Boy, if only Leo knew, huh?

Well, it is only by Our Lady’s graces that we know that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not now nor can ever be the Catholic Church, and we must keep begging her as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to persevere in the truth as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state of the Church Militant on earth and in the world-at-large far more than are ready to admit or perhaps even to understand.

Trusting in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, therefore, we surrender ourselves to the will of God at all times, ready to suffer what we must now here below so as to enjoy her Divine Son’s Easter Victory in Paradise for all eternity.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, O.P.

Saint Lawrence the Martyr, pray for us.

Blessed Ceslaus, O.P., pray for us.

Appendix A

Father Francis X. Weninger on the Tenth Sunday after Pentecost

GOSPEL. Luke xviii. 9-14. At that time: To some who trusted in themselves as just, and despised others, Jesus spoke this parable:Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee, standing, prayed thus with himself: O God! I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men: extortioners, unjust, adulterers: as also is this publican; I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven: but struck his breast, saying: O God! be merciful to me a sinner! I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other, because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. 

Our Lord, after having spoken of faith and prayer, addressed Himself to those who thought themselves good and just, telling them the parable of the Pharisee and publican in the Temple. Two men went to the Temple to pray: one was a Pharisee, a proud man, who thought he had always done great things, who was puffed up with his good deeds and boasted of them even to God Himself. The Pharisee asked for nothing, but took all the glory to himself. He stood up right, head erect, and facing the altar, full of pride, he prayed in this manner: “God,” he said,

“I give Thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men: extortioners, unjust, adulterers: as also is this publican; I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.”

What did he pray for? Really, nothing; he came to pray, but he broke out in praise of himself. May not this Pharisee be a picture of ourselves? May there not be also some Pharisees among us, my dear young friends? Are there not many who go to church to pray, but forget for what they are there? Ask that young man when he comes out of the church what favors he has asked of God at this most precious time of public prayer. You have been present at Mass, you have recited some prayers, but you did not think of what you were doing. St. Augustine says: “How can you expect that God will attend to your prayers when you do not think of them yourself?”

Young people are very apt to enter a church just as the Pharisee did, as if they were going to a place of amusement; their genuflection is a careless jump before the Blessed Sacrament, their heads are raised, their eyes are wandering and in a few minutes they will be able to tell who is present; they notice who comes into the church, and who goes out, and all this while the holy sacrifice of the Mass is being offered. It is almost impossible to believe it: they are disrespectful here in their exterior deportment, but they would know very well how to behave in company or in the presence of some great one of the world. But many come to church to do worse than the Pharisee: they come to laugh, to talk, and to disturb others who wish to pray; they come to commit sin and make others commit it. The Apostle Paul cried out with zeal, “Have you not your homes, or do you despise the church of God?” as if he wanted to say, have you not places where you can talk and laugh, need you come to the house of God to do this? No good pastor can look at this without concern; he will not allow you to talk, he will step in at once with a reprimand or send you out of church as a punishment. “My house is the house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves,” he would say, using the words of Our Lord when He drove the desecrators out of the Temple. The pagans shame us in this regard; they go to the temple of their false gods with reverence and respect; the Mohammedan never goes into his mosque without taking off his shoes at the entrance and washing his feet as a sign of respect. These idolaters worship false gods made of wood, stone or metal, but with such respect that our outward show of piety and devotion, in many cases, is inferior to theirs.

Almighty God, who is thus carelessly treated by His worshippers, will not let such conduct pass unpunished. St. Chrysostom says that the reason of many of our calamities, wars, and famines, is because our churches are not held in sufficient respect, and kept exclusively for the purposes of prayer. Even Socrates, the pagan philosopher, asserts that the desecration of the temple is a sign of the anger of God, and foreshadows great calamities that are about to come upon the nation. The first Christians considered the churches heaven itself: here they came sprinkled with ashes, clothed in sackcloth, with a rope around their waist and humbly kissed the feet of the priest: not only did the common people do this, but even tyrants and kings.

The Emperor Theodosius entered the cathedral of Milan in a poor garment, and when he came to the threshold fell flat on his face, repeating the words of the psalm: “I have been humbled, Lord, exceedingly; quicken Thou me according to Thy word.” He remained in that attitude during the sacred functions.

St. Gregory of Nazianzen writes of his mother that she was so recollected in church that she never sat down, never spoke, never turned her back to the Blessed Sacrament.

These examples show that in former times great outward respect was shown in church. I will not ask you to come to church covered with ashes or dressed in sackcloth; but when you are there assume a respectful posture and ask God to pardon your sins.

Now let us go back to the Gospel; the Pharisee said, “I give Thee thanks that I am not like the rest of men.” What pride, what blindness this is! In reality this Pharisee was an impudent sinner. Here he was, in the presence of this great healer of the human race, standing before God with his soul stained by this dreadful malady of pride, yet he utters not a word to ask for help in the sickness of his soul. He should have opened his heart to God in groans and lamentations; he should have recognized the meanness of this vice, and begged of God the grace to overcome it; but the Pharisee never thought he was sinfully proud; that all the good in him was changed into wickedness by this vice.

We sometimes feel about the same way, for how often do we hear as an excuse for the want of religion, “I do not steal, nor curse, nor get drunk. I do no man any injury.” Supposing you are all that you say, are you therefore free from sin? Are not the bad conversations held with your companions, sins? Are not bad thoughts which kill the soul, sins?

I am ready to believe, my young friends, that you are not guilty of great sins, but even so, can you say, “I thank God, I am not like those other young men.” Just reflect for a moment: supposing you are not guilty of grave faults ought you on that account be proud? You know well enough that you lack much, as followers of Jesus Christ. You commit many venial sins; you know you tell many little lies; you are frequently disobedient; you have very little devotion, very little respect for God in church; you are careless at your prayers, and by these smaller sins, instead of advancing in the path of virtue, you are going back. Again, you say with some pride, we are not as bad as others, for we have not committed great crimes.

If, my dear young people, by a special grace of God you have not, up to the present, fallen into certain great sins, yet if you continue in your cold way, you will in the course of years certainly fall into them. If pride is your governing vice, you will certainly come to a great fall, for it is the punishment of pride to descend into the most abject humiliation.

In the lives of the Fathers, we read of a monk who lived a long time in the desert, doing great penance and practicing many virtues; but somehow he had not that humility which a holy man ought to possess. Almighty God wished to save him and so, to humble him, He sent him a temptation and the monk fell.

Instead of keeping your eyes on the wicked so that you may say, “Thank God, I am not so bad as to be capable of doing that,” keep your eyes on young people who are virtuous and exemplary, and ask yourself why you are not as good as they are. These people are devout in church, they frequent the Sacraments, hear the word of God, are obedient to their superiors, patient, mild, polite and modest in thought, word and action. Am I like them? Remember you must acquire all the virtues of the good if you would be good yourself. Even supposing you are doing very well, that you appear to walk in the path of virtue, you cannot consider yourself perfect, and you cannot thank God that you are better than others; for after all you are only like a servant who has merely done his duty and is not worthy of special commendation for that.

Athens was a great school of philosophy and many students flocked to it. In the first years the Athenian student boasted that he knew everything; some years later on he felt that he knew but little, and finally, compared to what he ought to know, he admitted that he knew nothing. It used to be said at that time that the student who had reached that pitch of philosophy was the one most applauded for his success.

Solon, the Gentile philosopher, held this principle: “Of this,” said he, “I am sure, that I know nothing.” I think the same holds true of virtue; the greater opinion we have of our virtue the less we have of it.  “When you have done all that is required of you, say you are useless servants.”

We have said enough of the proud Pharisee; let us now consider the publican. Who is that at the farthest end of the church? Why does he not come up and approach the altar? It is the poor, penitent publican. There he stands, beating his breast with shame, and with tearful eyes raised to heaven, cries, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” Yes, truly he was a sinner; but he acknowledged himself as such, he bewailed his sins and received pardon for them at once. We ought to have that same feeling, that we are sinners; we should acknowledge that we are not fit to stand before God in His holy place. Let us with sorrow confess our sins to a priest and say,

“Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” Make a good examination of conscience, that your sorrow may extend to all your faults, none forgotten and none concealed. Make up your mind firmly that you will hate these sins in the future; turn your eyes to the Heart of Jesus, and pray to Him that He, your Judge, may forgive you.  “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And when you rise from the feet of the priest, you will hear the sweet words, “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace and sin no more.”

St. Francis de Sales says, “When you go to confession, imagine you stand with your sins beneath the cross, that drops of blood are falling on your soul from the wounds of the dying Lord, washing away every stain of sin."