Thomas A. Droleskey
Ignored entirely by the study prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York that was released on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, by the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is the conciliar church's embrace of a culture that is almost entirely devoid of any sense of the horror of personal sin. After all, the conciliar "popes" have committed grave sins against the honor and glory and majesty of God by directly violating the First and Second Commandments, esteeming the symbols of false religions and engaging in the forbidden, blasphemous exercise of "inter-religious prayer services, and by, among many other things, supporting one proposition after another that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic church.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have been almost without any sense of outrage over the abuses committed by their "priests" against minors and others. The first impulse of these false shepherds has been to "protect the institution," to safeguard their own "reputations" at all costs, believing that it is morally just and necessary for them to have ignored complaints brought to them by parents and victims and, worse yet, to subject those good Catholics to forms of legal intimidation and emotional brow-beating that would make even a low-level Mafioso "don" seem like an amateur bully. That the John Jay study ignored this culture of deceit and corruption, this culture of bullying and intimidation, this culture that has bred toleration for, if not an actual de facto acceptance of, perverse acts against nature as being "good" in and of themselves makes the entirety of its one hundred fifty-two pages and its four hundred eighty-one end notes a work of social science fiction.
Those who do not have the eyes of Faith, seeing things through the cold unreality provided by quantitative analysis and the insanity of social scientific "paradigms", can never understand the reality of the horror of personal sin and how a culture friendly to and supportive of sinful behavior has been created, fostered and institutionalized in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Naturalists are incapable of thinking in supernatural terms. So are those who once had the true Faith but who have lost It, whether because they are steeped in sins that the seek to rationalize to glorify or because their disordered self-love convinces them to embrace various Modernist propositions to tickle the ears of others, thereby gaining their respect and esteem here in this passing, mortal vale of tears. Saint Paul the Apostle speaks to us of the sort of naturalists who composed the John Jay study and the sort of heretics who have convinced so many Catholics worldwide that a new "age" requires new beliefs and a new "liturgy" and a new pastoral praxis:
For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the
spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no
man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not
the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may
know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak,
not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the
Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man
perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually
examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (2 Cor. 2: 11-15)
I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living
and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be
instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all
patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will
heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn
away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But
be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist,
fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-5)
The John Jay study is nothing other than a fable concocted by naturalists to tickle the itching ears of Modernists. It is that simple.
Indemnifying Sin and Protecting the "Institution" and Its Ways at All costs
The truth about the proliferation of scandals in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is indeed quite simple, something that I have tried to point out any number of times in various articles and in an audio presentation last year (Scandal In a Church of Apostasy.WMA).
Parents and victims have been victimized by "bishops" and "priests" once they brought their legitimate complaints to them, who they believed to be shepherds of the Catholic Church.
Parents and victims have been victimized and bullied and browbeaten by attorneys employed by archdioceses and dioceses and religious communities.
Parents and victims have been victimized and bullied and browbeaten by attorneys employed by insurance companies.
"Bishops" and "priests" and chancery factotums have lied openly and repeatedly to parents and victims and to the general public, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
The conciliar "popes" have refused in most, although not all, instances, to impose ecclesiastical sanctions on "bishops" and "priests" guilty of immoral activity and/or of treating the sheep with cruelty and bitter vindictiveness for daring to come forth with their true stories of suffering beyond all imagining.
A vast network of those engaged in perverse acts against nature and/or supportive of such acts has been created in the conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America and elsewhere in the world. This network exists in seminaries and religious communities and parishes and diocesan/archdiocesan chancery offices and schools and universities and colleges. It is all pervasive.
As noted in part one of this two-part commentary, psychologists and psychiatrists in the employ of--or contracted by--officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been directed to deem as "normal" and "well-adjusted" candidates for admission to seminary study and/or religious life if they are not "rigid" and "inflexible" in matters of Faith and Morals, that is, if they are open to "change" and "new directions." This has created, at best, an effeminate clergy in the conciliar church and, at worst, a perverted one.
"Bishops" in the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium and elsewhere have been able to undermine the innocence and purity of children by means of explicit, indeed shockingly sinful, classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth Commandment without a single word of reproof from any conciliar "pope."
Consider yet again the case of Godfried "Cardinal" Danneels of Belgium, who turned a blind eye to the abuse of one of his own "bishops," Roger Joseph Vangheluwe, and who endorsed a program of "instruction" in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that can be described in only one way: as coming straight from the devil to corrupt the minds and hearts of children to lead them into wanton lives of sin and debauchery. Here is a description of the program in question that is being included here only for the sake of emphasizing the many things that got omitted from the John Jay study that is nothing other than a whitewash of truth itself
His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels, who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until 2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: "[Unspeakable act} makes me feel groovy," "I like to take my knickers off with friends," "I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex." The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are "playing doctor". . . .
The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the "correct" attitude reply: "Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun." This "catechism textbook" was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:
"When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy [forbidden acts]. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is 'groovy', while the opposite is the case."
I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent "who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way." I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: "This is why I insist - yes, the days of meekly asking are over - that you forbid the use of this 'catechism book' in our children's classrooms."
Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of both institutions - the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges - whence came the editors in chief of this perverted "catechism" textbook. . . .
After I started my campaign against the Roeach textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were schools where children were taught to put [certain contraceptive devices]. . . .and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of [acts omitted].
Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text "Respect for parents and children," and we said the rosary.
Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. "I shall not be pressured," he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop's door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997.
... On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels's door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner.
Meanwhile Danneels's friends in the press started a campaign against me. "Colen continues to pester the bishops," was the headline in Gazet van Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels's spokesman at the time, phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to "be obedient" to the bishops.
If this is true, then it certainly puts the Belgian police raid into context, does it not? And it also puts Benedict's response into context -- one that is not flattering to the Holy Father. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/danneels-approved-pedophilic-catechism.html#ixzz0sMls5dLR)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not seem to care that Godfried Danneels sanctioned this outrageous program and stonewalled those parents who complained about it. No, it was more important last year, 2010, for him to to call "deplorable" a thoroughly justified police investigation into the vast criminal enterprise known as the hierarchy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in Belgium.
Those who would might try to assuage themselves by saying, "Well, that is Belgium. Things are different in the United States of America." No, they are not.
Consider the case of new recently installed auxiliary "bishop" of Indianapolis, Indiana, Christopher Coyne, when he served in a press liaison capacity for Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts. The then "Father" Coyne justified a program instituted after the scandals that erupted in his home archdiocese that outraged the sensibilities of even "conservative" Catholics there, especially when it became known that the program was designed by people who promoted the selling of human beings for pursuing of trafficking in immoral practices:
On September 29, 2003, a frustrated Rev. David Mullen sent a letter
to newly installed Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston, pleading for
help. "Talking About Touching" (TAT), a controversial safety education
program designed for children in kindergarten to fourth grade, had just
been accepted in the Archdiocese of Boston. He wrote:
I am most distressed that you have decided to impose the
evil [TAT] program on the parishes of the Archdiocese. We have learned
nothing from the clergy abuse crisis: Pastors are still ignored,
parents' rights are ignored, the innocence of children is tossed aside,
and arrogant chancery officials are still convinced that by shuffling a
few papers and giving a few orders all will be well. And of course, we
refuse to think like Catholics. Over three months ago I wrote a letter
to Bishop Lennon, with copies to all the other auxiliaries, regarding
the various objections I have to this program. It was not even
acknowledged. I have included a copy of this letter for your eyes.
it didn't end there for Father Mullen. In October, he appeared on the
Fox News Channel and again described TAT as "evil." This was followed by
an interview with the Boston-area News Channel 7, where he said the
sexually graphic program was unsuitable for his parish and that he
refused to implement it.
Father Mullen wasn't alone in his concern. The adoption of the
program ignited a firestorm of parental protest throughout the
archdiocese. Criticism was coming from all corners.
In response, Rev. Chris Coyne, spokesman for the Archdiocese of
Boston, told Channel 7 that the TAT curriculum was "excellent" and
confirmed that the program would be required in all schools as part of
the archdiocese's response to the scandal. Father Coyne later
acknowledged to CRISIS that he was "not unsympathetic to some of the
concerns" and that the situation with parents and some pastors was "a
bit intense." An understatement, to be sure. After numerous meetings,
phone calls, and unanswered letters, many Boston-area parents feel
estranged from their bishop. Others have removed their children from
diocesan schools rather than subject them to "kid-porn education."
How did it get to this point?
A Nightmare for Parents
The parents who reviewed the introductory TAT video last spring were
stunned. In one scene, a kindergartener asks his mother, "Mommy, what
is sex?," to which the celluloid mom responds, "Sex is when two people
get undressed and rub their private parts together." One woman who
attended the screening later voiced her disgust with chancery officials:
"What is Catholic about this program? This is one more sellout to
secular values. On second thought, this is exactly what I've come to
expect from the chancery – they've sold us out in favor of dancing with
John Bettinelli, a father of three boys at St. Catherine of Sienna school, reported his reaction to the video preview in Catholic World Report:
"There was no mention of chastity or love, or that the two people
should be married, or even that they should be of the opposite sex."
Despite a summer of protest and efforts to convince chancery officials
that TAT was a disastrous choice for an archdiocese attempting to dig
itself out from underneath a scandal of historic proportions, the
divisive curriculum was nevertheless mandated for Boston's Catholic
Bishops across the country have instituted various programs to
create "safe environments" in an effort to comply with the Charter for
the Protection of Children and Youth adopted by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in June 2002. According to the
USCCB's communications office, the guidelines for such programs call for
"training programs for children and young people that include
'age-appropriate materials pertaining to personal safety.' This includes
information about improper touching and relationships."
The USCCB's newly established Office of Child and Youth Protection,
headed by former FBI agent Kathleen McChesney, monitors compliance with
the charter via audits – the first of which has just been completed.
While the USCCB doesn't designate particular programs to be used in
Catholic schools, Sheila Horan, McChesney's assistant, told CRISIS that
TAT is among three programs mentioned when a diocese asks the office for
suggestions. Horan noted that a bishop is free to choose or design a
program that best reflects the needs of his flock, provided that the
program meets the charter guidelines. While several programs have been
used in public schools, there's no specifically Catholic option in the
marketplace. As a result, each diocese has been under pressure to
quickly review, select, and implement a program in order to meet the
timeline of the first audit.
This haste, critics contend, may be responsible for the adoption of a
child-safety program that ends up doing more harm than good.
The COYOTE Connection
At the heart of the TAT controversy are two central concerns raised
by alarmed parents. First, the sexually explicit curriculum violates the
Vatican's own directives on appropriate sex-education material. Second,
TAT shifts the burden for "safety" to children rather than charging
parents, educators, and clergy with their protection. Several parent
groups sent detailed reports to Archbishop O'Malley that outlined their
objections, among them the criticism that TAT material was developed by
the Committee for Children (CFC), a former Seattle-based prostitution
rights advocacy organization. Indeed, the CFC is the sanitized name of
COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics). Parents' groups such as
Faithful Voice and Concerned Parents point out that those who support
prostitutes' rights simply don't have an educational philosophy
compatible with Church teaching.
Deacon Anthony Rizzuto, appointed by Bernard Cardinal Law to head
the Boston archdiocese's Office of Child Advocacy, Implementation, and
Oversight, disagreed. He dismissed the charge that TAT should be removed
on the grounds that its creators don't share the Catholic view of human
sexuality, even with the COYOTE link.
Rizzuto isn't alone. Harry Purpur, director of education for the
Diocese of Orlando, Florida, and Sister Lucy Vasquez, chancellor of the
diocese, likewise defended their decision to mandate TAT in the diocesan
schools, despite the known COYOTE connection. When contacted, Purpur
rejected the notion that the CFC was compromised because of the link. "I
did due diligence before accepting this program," he said, "and the
only COYOTE I found was an animal." But one school staffer questioned
Purpur's claim, noting that Purpur came to Orlando from Seattle, home of
the CFC. Even after Purpur was given verification of the COYOTE
connection, he still declined to consider other safety-education
When parents raised objections to the sexually explicit material in
the curriculum and cited a scathing critique of TAT by Dr. James
Dobson's Family News in Focus, Rizzuto and Purpur dismissed the
source. This despite the critique quoting Rev. Bob Carr, a Boston
priest who told Focus that he "will refuse, if ordered, to teach this
curriculum in his parish."
However, the claimed ignorance of Rizzuto and Purpur to the link
between COYOTE and the CFC falls flat on the evidence. Focus on the
Family is a highly respected Evangelical resource that reaches millions
of parents and ministers. Its May 2003 critique of TAT and its COYOTE
connection was available to anyone interested in the facts. The critique
listed Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sex Information and Education
Council of the United States, an organization that promotes abortion and
graphic sex education) as supporters of TAT. Lois Matheson, the CFC
spokeswoman, refused to discuss the history of the committee. "I think
that really distracts from the real issue here," she said. "I don't know
how that's relevant."
But angry Catholic parents found it most relevant. Many were
informed about COYOTE's strong homosexual element – doubly worrisome for
Boston in the post-scandal months. The shared history of COYOTE and the
CFC was hastily deleted from the CFC's Web site after irate parents
flooded the Boston archdiocesan offices, protesting the introduction of
TAT in their schools. However, several parents had already downloaded
the history before it was removed: "1976: Seattle COYOTE changes its
name to Judicial Advocates for Women, becomes a non-profit and
identifies its mission: To educate the public about the realities of
prostitution." By 1979, according to the published history, Judicial
Advocates for Women initiated a "curriculum review committee" to
research child-abuse prevention and changed its name to the Committee
for Children. (Mary Jo Anderson: Suffer the Children, Inside the Vatican, May 3, 2004.)
"Bishop" Christopher Coyne believed that the abominable program described above was "excellent." "Bishop" Coyne, permit me to introduce you to Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, on the matter of such classroom instruction, no less the type you believed was so "excellent:"
Another very grave danger is that naturalism which
nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of
purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with
dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called
sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the
dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy
initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even
in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the
occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to
harden them against such dangers.
Such persons grievously err in refusing to
recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the
Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in
ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that,
particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much
of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous
occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.
In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things
considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune,
from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the
grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are
well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately
described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:
Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that
often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find
occasions for and induceements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest
importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so
delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor
refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its
poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that
instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it
in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during
the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which
produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity
and closing the door upon vice. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri,
December 31, 1929.)
"Excellent," "Bishop" Coyne? "Excellent"?
To those who would seek to defend "Bishop" Coyne by claiming that we "need to do something" to "teach" children about the "facts of life" in "these times," as a conciliar presbyter said to me in precisely those words in one of our last conversations eleven years ago, have surrendered to the forces of naturalism referred to by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri.
How do children learn to grow
in purity? By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds,
bodies, souls, and strength. By eliminating, as far as is humanly
possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating
the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose
children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed
relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with
playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture
and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be
instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the
means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments,
which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of
conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day
with fervor and devotion.
Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our
children from stealing. Do children, who are naturally curious, have to
learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to
know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such
"theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to
steal? Children do not need explicit classroom instruction in matters of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to know the "facts of life" in "these times." They need the Sacraments. And it is the lack of true Sacraments in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that make children all of the more vulnerable to the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil and to the rotten, immoral curricula in what passes for "Catholic" schools and "religious education" programs run by men and women who have lost the sensus Catholicus almost entirely.
Then again, one must remember that "Bishop" Christopher Coyne, although considered to be a strong voice of "orthodoxy" by some "conservative Catholic commentators, principally because he, the then "Father" Coyne, was eaten alive by ultra-progressive conciliarists during a short stint as a pastor at Our Lady Help of Christians Church in Newton, Massachusetts, a few years ago after he replaced its outspoken, openly lavender-friendly pastor of many years, "Father" Walter Cuenin. Well, the mere fact that the then "Father" Coyne suffered while at Our Lady Help of Christians Church in Newtown, Massachusetts, does nothing to detract from his saying a perverted program was "excellent" or his saying that candidates for the conciliar presbyterate are not disqualified because they find themselves "attracted" to other men. "Father" Coyne's statement about such candidates for the conciliar presbyterate drew the ire of a fellow "conservative" on a some kind of blog called "Bettnet," which, it appears, is not run by the now septuagenarian named Peter Edward Rose:
No gays, says bishop; they’re okay, says priest
Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne, Indiana, was in his old stomping grounds in Boston over the weekend, creating a bit of controversy by publicly stating that men with a homosexual orientation should not be ordained.
‘‘We must be very careful of who we accept in the seminary and who we ordain as priests,” D’Arcy told parishioners at Our Lady of the Presentation Church, the Brighton parish in which he grew up. ‘‘It’s time to ordain men of quality, not to just look for numbers.”
He said good priests are men who would be good husbands and good fathers, modeling behavior that is implicit in the concept of fatherhood, including the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood. It is a belief that says that homosexual men, by the very orientation they embody whether they are chaste or not, cannot be such role models. I know that there has been much debate over this topic, and Bishop D’Arcy’s comments won’t settle it, but I find it interesting he says this.
He also adds:
To put a gay man in the priesthood, in a mostly male environment, is unfair, given the potential attractions, D’Arcy said. ‘‘We don’t put these [heterosexual] men in with attractive women,” he said, referring to seminarians. ‘‘You’re putting him in with men. It’s not fair to him, it’s not fair to them, it’s not fair to the church.”
D’Arcy said that if the church can bring men to seminaries who have the right temperament for the job, those priests will attract more good men to work for the church. ‘‘If we ordain men with pathologies and difficulties, they will draw the same kind,” he added. ‘‘Don’t just pray for priests, pray for priests of good quality.”
I also find it interesting that Father Christopher Coyne, the Boston archdiocesan spokesman and a professor at the seminary, contradicts the bishop.
‘‘The main issue is celibacy,” he said, adding that D’Arcy’s concerns about gay priests ‘‘aren’t necessarily shared by others.”
That’s a pretty bold assertion. He doesn’t say he’s speaking for Archbishop Sean O’Malley, so maybe this is his own opinion. Aren’t we often told that we should always obey our bishops and never dissent from them in public? What do those of you who keep telling me this say to Father Coyne?
Of course, Father then goes on to tell us that the Boston archdiocese is selective enough in choosing seminarians. “‘I don’t see the need here in Boston,’ he said of possible overhaul. ‘I can say the process in Boston is a good one.’” Maybe it is better now, but the experience of the past few years certainly wouldn’t lead us to believe it. We’re going to need some time and evidence to change our minds on that one.
It’s interesting, once again, that when a conservative bishop voices his opinion, he is quickly corrected, not even by one of his colleague, but by an underling. I’m still waiting for some fraternal correction of a liberal bishop for his dissenting or even just unwise statements by a conservative bishop. (No gays, says bishop; they're okay, says priest.)
This is what you find when you peek into that old conciliar fowler's lair, madness, and lots and lots of it. And madness, at least the last time I looked, has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. Madness is from hell itself. It is not normal or natural for a man to be "attracted" to other men. To say that one can have such a perverse, disordered, unnatural attraction to commit one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as long as one remains "celibate" is to put such a disordered inclination with the natural attraction that males are to have for females as part of the Order of Creation (Nature) ordained by God Himself. In other words, to make such an assertion as did the then "Father" Coyne, in direct contraction to "Bishop" D'Arcy, is to place himself in opposition to that which God Himself has ordained as part of our human nature. It is indeed madness. Utter madness born of the sentimentality and naturalism that is of the essence of Americanism, which is itself the issue of the marriage of the false precepts of Protestantism and the naturalism of the allied forces of Judeo-Masonry.
The Long Arm of the "Law," "Cardinal" Law, That Is
"Bishop" Coyne did more than serve as a spokesflack for Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, who accorded Edward Moore Kennedy a full Novus Ordo service of "Christian burial" on Saturday, August 29, 2009 (Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions) and who has called the crimes of the Third Reich against adherents of the Talmud as the greatest in the history of the world (see No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide) and who presided over the bestowal of a "papal" knighthood upon a pro-abortion Talmudic rabbi, Leon Klenicki, since deceased (see Interfaith Pioneer Honored and Continuing to Knight Infidels) at the behest of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, without treating his boss the way he treated "Bishop" D'Arcy by contradicting him publicly. "Bishop" Coyne served as the spokesflack for "Cardinal" O'Malley after he had taken over that role, at least on a de facto basis, in 2002, for the infamous Bernard "Cardinal" Law, and that is how he earned his "episcopal" stripes as the long arm of the "law," "Cardinal" Law, that is, still reaches into the Apostolic Palace.
Indeed, "Cardinal" Law, who served as "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, from March 23, 1984, to December 13, 2002, is still exercising his considerable clout in Rome despite the disgrace that he presided over as moral and civil criminals such as Father Paul Shanley and others were enabled time and time and time again (see Our Man in Rome - Boston Magazine). "Bishop" Christopher Coyne is now the second of Law's proteges to be promoted by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The first was "Bishop" Richard Lennon, who was an auxiliary "bishop" under "Cardinal Law, who was appointed as the conciliar "ordinary" of the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio, on April 5, 2006, and this is not counting the four other Law auxiliaries (Thomas Daily, Robert Banks, John McCormack, William Francis Murphy, Richard Malone) who got promoted to sees of their own despite their involvement in the enabling of clerical abusers in the Archdiocese of Boston. This reality of the "good old boy network" that gives men such as Bernard Law, who has been the Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome since May 27, 2004, so much leverage in the conciliar Vatican was totally ignored by the John Jay study that cost Catholics in the conciliar structures over one million American dollars to produce. (Law also "co-consecrated" "Bishop" William Skylstad, who took the Diocese of Spokane, Washington, into bankruptcy rather than to own up voluntarily to the extent of the cover-up of clerical crimes that had taken place there.)
It is interesting to note that "Bishop" William Francis Murphy, who has been the conciliar "bishop" of my former home diocese, the one in which I made my First Holy Communion on May 30, 1959, and was Confirmed on March 21, 1961, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, since September 5, 2001, inherited a mess left for him by the man who had been the conciliar "ordinary" there from May 3, 1976, to January 4, 2000, John Raymond McGann (who was succeeded by James Timothy McHugh of the McHugh Chronicles infamy until his death on December 10, 2000). "Bishop" Murphy, who played his own terrible role in assisting Father Paul Shanley, a cofounder of an organization promoting perverse "relationships" between men and boys, was well-prepared for trying to keep the lid on scandal when he moved south from Boston to his offices at 50 North Park Avenue, Rockville Centre, New York 11570 (yes, I sent a lot of letters there during my years as a "conservative" Catholic trying to fight "within the structures" although I was really Hunkered Down on Mindanao): deny everything in order to avoid bad press until forced to do otherwise:
Q: That is a pretty long,
pretty substantial period of time when the priorities were that we have
to get the new bishop [William F. Murphy, an Opus Dei-friendly auxiliary
'bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston who had enabled perverted priests
and presbyters under the morally bankrupt reign of Bernard "Cardinal"
Law] installed rather than we have to address the issue of a sexually
abusing priest who is the pastor of a parish where there is a number of
A: Well, it was a confluence of things happening, but it’s true, there was a time gap there, yes…
Q: … was that your decision to wait…
A: That was my decision…
Q: What, under the written policy that is in existence, or was in
existence at the time, that is in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 144,
gives you the authority to do that…?
A: Well, nothing really. There was just so many things happening
all at once that, you know, as you ask these questions, I, you know, it
was a mistake...
Q: …you and the Diocese became aware of the fact, by his
admissions, he [Priest O] had abused roughly 13 boys; is that right?
A: Around that, yes…
Q: …and yet you took a delay in even accepting him for the
initial evaluation, waiting for the installation of the bishop; is that
A: Yes…from hindsight, it was not prudent.
Approximately six weeks after the original disclosure, Priest W
[Michael Hands] was informed by a high-ranking Diocesan official that
Priest O [Charles Ribaudo] admitted abusing him. Priest O was then to be
sent for a psychological evaluation Initially, the Diocese wanted to
send Priest O to the same facility that was treating Priest W. Upon
Priest W’s objection, the Diocese chose a different one. Priest W was
also told that the parish was informed that Priest O was having heart
problems and needed
treatment for them The Diocese told Priest W that Priest O would
be the most heavily evaluated priest ever, and they hoped to reassign
him to his parish at a later time.
The Diocese was very concerned that Priest W would disclose the
abuse if they reassigned the priest. A high-ranking Diocesan official
spoke to Priest W and stressed that the abuse occurred twenty years ago, Priest W was led to believe there were no other victims. 84
Diocesan officials emphasized that Priest O was the pastor of a
financially important parish [Saint Dominic's in Oyster Bay, my own home
parish between 1965 and 1973 and again from 1980-1983 and 1985-1986];
disclosure of the abuse would ruin the priest’s credibility and be bad
for Diocesan public relations and finances. Priest W was also
told that that his parents should tell no one of the abuse. If Priest W
kept this quiet, the Diocese would continue to help him and pay for his
A Diocesan Official confirmed for the Grand Jury that he indeed
told Priest W not to talk about the sexual abuse he suffered at the
hands of Priest O. The following colloquy ensued in the Grand Jury:
Q: Did you tell him [Priest W] outright, don’t tell anybody else about this?
A: …um, I said to him, you know, I wouldn’t tell anybody else about this at this time.
Q: Why did you say that to him?
A: Because I just didn’t think it would be good for him to start blabbering that around at that time.
Q: You were very concerned about the adverse publicity
that such an allegation would have concerning [Priest O’s] position and
A: Yes, of course.
This of course was not true. As set forth in the narrative
concerning Priest O, there was an earlier allegation of sexual abuse
against him by another student at the same High School.[Holy Trinity
Diocesan High School, Hicksville, New York]. Diocesan Officials
summarily dismissed the charge as baseless. When Priest O was ultimately evaluated, the charge was found to be true.
Three or four weeks later, another high-ranking Diocesan Official
visited Priest W at his treatment facility. Priest W told him about the
abuse and its effect on his life. This official could only say about the
allegation, “That’s sad…because I hear he’s a very talented man”
In December 2001, Priest W was back in Rockville Centre for a
visit. A Diocesan official told him that they knew his mother had told
another priest in the Diocese about the abuse. At the same time he
reminded Priest W that the Diocese wanted to put Priest O back in his
parish assignment. There was a simple quid pro quo: remain silent about the abuse and the Diocese would continue to pay for his continued therapy This official, who knew Priest W’s mother as she had once worked for him, told him to call her and tell her to be quiet. Indeed, Priest O was returned to his assignment before Christmas with the explanation that his heart problems had been treated
Shortly after hearing of Priest O’s return, Priest W was visited again by a high-ranking Diocesan official. He confirmed the reassignment and the importance of remaining quiet.
Priest W explained that he would not volunteer the information to the
general public but would tell the Court handling his case about it as
well as the probation department during his pre-sentence interview. The
Diocesan official asked him to limit his disclosure and “…just say I had experienced sexual abuse by a significant adult in my life and not say he was a priest and not say his name” Priest W agreed to try and do so.
About five months later, Diocesan officials spoke with Priest W
about a pending article in Newsday that would reveal the abuse he had
suffered. They told Priest W that he must call Newsday and deny the truth of the article. They characterized the abuse as not that serious and advised Priest W “you better consult your conscience and call and try to save him [Priest O]
from this” Again, Priest W said he would not volunteer the information but would not deny it if asked. (Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury Report.)
Public relations and money. To
protect the "public relations" and the money of the Diocese of
Rockville Centre, which has been a particular nest of heterodoxy these
last forty years, senior officials there were willing to let priests and
presbyters, including Monsignor "Bud" Ribaudo, who is a true priest,
remain in their pastoral assignments no matter the threats that they
posed to the moral well-being of others (it goes without saying that
Ribaudo's adherence to the New Age movement made him just as much a
threat to souls as the conciliar revolutionaries headquartered at 50
North Park Avenue in Rockville Centre, New York). There was little or no
concern for the spiritual or emotional well-being of victims. There was
concern only for maintaining La Cosa Nostra's "code of omerta," the
code of silence, that is.
The life of the Holy Faith was lost in the souls of
many people as a result of the perverted behavior of priests and
presbyter and then again as a result of the clericalism exhibited by
chancery officials to use their clerical clubs to beat away the sheep
and to intimidate them into silence in order to protect their own
clerical club of privilege is itself a perversion of the Holy Priesthood
that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last
Supper. Priests have not been ordained to protect the reputations of
those of their subordinates they know to be guilty of serious moral
crimes or to assure themselves a steady flow of income.
Priests have been ordained to serve as "other
Christs" as they administer unto us, the sheep entrusted to their
pastoral care, the Sacraments that the very One to Whom their immortal
souls were figured at the moment of their priestly ordination instituted
for our sanctification and salvation. The members of Our Blessed Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ's true flock should not have to live in fear of
their shepherds when they bring legitimate concerns to their attention
to be resolved in a forthright, fair and just manner without at all
seeking to indemnify unrepentant, recidivist wrongdoers who have proved
themselves to be threats to souls, starting with their very own.
The pattern of silence in the Diocese of Rockville
Centre is what characterized the praxis of chancery office after
chancery office. The protection of the institution was more important
than the protection of souls and the permanent removal of unworthy
shepherds, continuing in the counterfeit church conciliarism the sad
practices of bishops in the Catholic Church. This pattern of silence to
protect the institution has been accompanied in many instances by
outright indifference of the horror of the sin of Sodom, which is one of
the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
This is what "Bishop" Christopher Coyne learned so very well at the knees of such apostates as Bernard Law and Sean O'Malley, O.F.M., Cap. He admitted as such in an amazing interview in 2002:
The Church's response to the press
TERENCE SMITH: Initially the Church dismissed The Globe's reporting.
WALTER ROBINSON: They did not even care to know what our questions were.
TERENCE SMITH: And Cardinal Law would not concede the problem. When he was publicly questioned at this January press conference, he chastised the press.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW: As I have indicated, there is no priest or former priest working in this archdiocese in any assignment whom we know to have been responsible for sexual abuse. I hope you get that straight.
TERENCE SMITH: The Church maintains that from the beginning, it has been trying to protect the confidentiality of victims and the accused priests.
Father Christopher Coyne is the archdiocese spokesman.
FATHER CHRISTOPHER COYNE, Spokesman, Boston Archdiocese: Any kind of institution likes to protect itself from public scandal and controversy like this.
Whether it's a religion or corporation or a civic institution likes to protect its self-from scandal, public scandal and controversy like this.(Online NewsHour: Challenging the Church, March 26, 2002.)
The then "Father" Coyne admitted later in the interview cited above that the Archdiocese of Boston had created the problem to begin as priests did not live as they were supposed to live, although he thought that a lot of cases of alleged abuse might be instances of "piling on" what purports to be the Catholic Church.
Lost, however, in the mind of one trained to be a company man was the simple fact that the Catholic Church is not simply "any kind of institution." The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. She has a responsibility to advance the sanctification and salvation of souls, and that cannot be done by morally corrupt "prelates" and their priest and presbyters as they protect one another and then use bare knuckle, hardball tactics to intimidate critics into silence, including those of presbyters who have come forth with tales of abuse by their colleagues. Our Lord would never use His shepherd's staff to drive away the sheep who came to Him seeking refuge from persecutors. He would, though, take a whip to those who profaned His Holy Church by enabling, if not promoting, moral corruption while at the same time seeking to protect themselves at all costs, including use of vindictive character assassination and raw intimidation upon those who are seeking to redress serious injustices and crimes.
(For a review of the sad story of "Father" James Haley, please refer once again to Catholic Citizens and Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde. See also an important link that discusses why those who seek to
minimize the harm of pornography are contributing to the moral
delinquency of souls, HARD-CORE HARM: Why you can't be soft on porn. A more detailed article about the persecution of conciliar priests/presbyters by their conciliar "bishops" can be found at Persecuted Priests. It is quite a commentary that conciliar officials have sought to protect the guilty while seeking to prosecute and persecute the victims of clerical abuse and others, including conciliar presbyters, who have brought this abuse to light.) We must remember that a false church that has false liturgical rites and false doctrines must seek to protect itself at all costs, including that of truth and justice, as it is in se, an institution of untruth and injustice both to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem on Good Friday.
Right at Home in Indianapolis
David Clohessy, the National Director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), described "Bishop" Coyne's approach in Boston in response to an e-mail to him on Monday, May 9, 2011, concerning "Bishop" Coyne's role there and about events that have been in the news concerning the Archdiocese of Indianapolis:
What, Mr. Clohessy, is your view of how the then Father Christopher Coyne
handled the matter of clergy abuse and Cardinal Law's involvement in the
enabling and protecting of the abusers when he had to answer questions posed to
him by the media?
A)--- he was disingenuous, callous, etc. . . .there should be a statement on
our site re Coyne promotion & our view of it.
Q) How did Father Coyne
handle the aftermath of clergy abuse cases in the years between the resignation
of Cardinal Law and his appointment to his position in Indianapolis?
sure but to the best of our knowledge, he did nothing to distinguish himself
from his largely timid, callous colleagues, nor to indicate that he "learned"
anything about how to better deal with the crisis or that he differed w/ Law in
any way. . .
Q) How do you, Mr. Clohessy, view Father Coyne's "promotion" to be an
auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, especially coming so soon
after the resolution of the Father Harry Monroe [a presbyter in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis who was a serial abuser of children] case?
--- as "payback" for his protection of and service to Law. . .don't see it
as connected w/ Monroe.
"Bishop" Christopher Coyne will indeed be right at home in his new assignment as an auxiliary "bishop" and vicar general of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, where, all denials aside, hardball legal tactics have been used to keep the archdiocese from paying out punitive damages to victims of clerical abuse and where there has been no proactive effort to root out clerical abusers in the conciliar presbyterate there. This press release from SNAP is but a snapshot of a massive amount of evidence to attest to this statement:
A national advocate for the victims of priest sexual abuse criticized
the Archdiocese of Indianapolis on Monday for an "immoral" strategy of
using technicalities to fend off lawsuits.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those
Abused by Priests, said the Indianapolis Archdiocese is "particularly
mean-spirited" in its use of "legal hardball."
Specifically, Clohessy cited the archdiocese's use of the statute of
limitations, which requires plaintiffs, most of whom say they were
abused as children, to sue before they turn 20.
Clohessy also said the archdiocese is wrong to use the First Amendment
to argue the church can't be sued or that the church is not liable for
priests from religious orders.
"Our position is fight fair, don't fight dirty," Clohessy said. "Fight on the merits, not on the technicalities."
Clohessy took issue with Indianapolis attorney Jay Mercer, who defends
the archdiocese in sexual abuse cases, for telling The Indianapolis Star
it doesn't matter to him whether the church wins on the merits or due
to the statute of limitations. "I don't see a difference. You may see a
difference," Mercer told The Star last month. "A win is a win."
Clohessy said if Indianapolis Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein truly cares
about sex abuse victims he would publicly object to such a statement.
"We think the attitude that (Mercer) expressed is indeed the attitude of the archbishop," Clohessy said.
"We don't think Jesus would approve of a church lawyer essentially saying we will win at all costs no matter what it takes."
Mercer could not be reached Monday for comment.
Greg Otolski, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said the church is not
using hardball tactics but merely going through the same legal processes
that would take place in any case.
He noted that the church continues to urge victims to come forward and,
as a matter of "pastoral care," offers them payment for counseling
without investigating their allegations.
"The pastoral issue and the legal issue are two separate things,"
Otolski said. "We are offering pastoral care to people. The legal side
of this is the law."
The archdiocese prevailed earlier this year in a Southern Indiana case
when a judge ruled that 22 plaintiffs filed their cases too late. The
statute of limitations will be a key in the 12 cases pending against the
archdiocese and former priest Harry Monroe.
Roger Pardieck, a Seymour attorney representing California resident
Gretchen Mayerhofer, said the archdiocese has not turned over personnel
records on the late Rev. Germain Belen. Mayerhofer alleges Belen
sexually assaulted her repeatedly in the 1970s at St. Benedict Catholic
Church in Terre Haute. Her case, filed in 2003, has yet to go to trial.
One problem, Pardieck said, is the difficulty getting church records.
"They have extensive documents. They are required by their canons to
keep extensive records," Pardieck said. "They said they have turned over
everything they have. If that is true, they haven't kept the records
they are required to keep." (Church's
Defense Called 'Immoral': Archdiocese Fights Dirty in Abuse Cases, Critic Says,
by Robert King, Indianapolis Star (8/15/06)
Although the Archdiocese of Indianapolis has paid out punitive damages to victims only in the case of "Father" Harry Monroe (see Rev. Harry Monroe—Assignment Record for a summary of the case and numerous links to newspaper articles and statements; a short article will be written on the case of "Father" Harry Monroe in the next day or so), it has paid out an unspecified amount, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to pay for "counseling" and the legal expenses of those who claimed to be victims of perverted clergy there. "Bishop" Coyne's predecessor as vicar general, "Monsignor" Joseph Schaedel, played the role of "good cop" to archdiocesan attorney Jay Mercer's "bad cop" by saving the archdiocese bad press and the paying out of punitive damages while agreeing to pay for legal expenses and counseling. I asked David Clohessy of SNAP in general terms if that was a fair assessment of the situation over the years. Mr. Clohessy gave a one-word response:
"Bishop" Christopher Coyne will indeed be right at home in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Right at home.
You won't see any of this reflected in the John Jay study that is truly a piece of well-paid fiction written by naturalists for Modernists. Like stories could be related ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Indeed, many of them have been related on this website (and in articles of mine in The Wanderer and The Remnant in days long gone by) over the years. Once again, my few and quite invisible readers, the antidote to the John Jay is to be found in a book that is not for the general reading public, but is a resource that proves the John Jay study to be a work of well-paid fiction, Mrs. Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy. The evidence there is massive. It is irrefutable.
Also irrefutable is the track record of doctrinal and liturgical and pastoral corruption that characterizes the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a place where Catholics in public life can support chemical and surgical baby-killing and "marriage" for those engaged in perversity with utter impunity while remaining in "good standing" in what they think is the Catholic Church, a place where major formerly Catholic universities hire open pro-aborts and where at least one actual baby-killer advised a conciliar "bishop" (see Stonewalling from Another Bishop Ryan), yes, a place where the only crime is to believe everything that the Catholic Church has taught without even a shadow of change or alteration and to worship as Catholics have always worshiped.
To Do One's Duty Before God
The truly sad part of all of this is that most of the men who have sought to "protect the institution" at all costs believe that they have been doing their duty before God. They really believe this to be the case. This belief, no matter the subjective judgments made by the individuals involved, is objectively delusional as the first obligation before God is to root out any man in what is considered to be the Catholic priesthood who is inclined to the commission of perverse acts against nature and to make certain that such a man is laicized if he is unwilling to live the rest of his life in a hermitage to make reparation for his sins by living lives of solitary prayer.
Alas, men who believe in and practice false ecumenism and in the "goodness" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo and who promote religious liberty and separation of Church and State do not understand their duty before God. If they did, of course, they would not be serving a false "pope" to promote false doctrines and to participate in a liturgical service that is hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.
Each of us is a sinner. Each of us has an obligation to do our own duty before God by making reparation for our own many sins that have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large in many ways that we may understand fully only in eternity. We must live more and more penitentially as the consecrated slaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, especially in these final days of May as we approach the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Tuesday, May 31, 2011.
This, of course, is the time that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive. The graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross by the shedding of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood and that flow through the loving hands of the Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to prosper supernaturally during this time of chastisement.
This era of apostasy and betrayal will pass. The true sensus Catholicus will be restored. Catholics will once again have a true sense of the horror of personal sin and they will seek voluntarily to make reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world as the slaves of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Men and their nations will submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church.
Yes, there will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when her Fatima Message is fulfilled. We may not live to see this with our own eyes. Moses was given a glimpse of the Promised Land, but died before entering there. The Apostles and the martyrs of the first centuries of Holy Mother Church did not live to see the glory of Christendom that resulted from their fidelity and their sacrifices. We must not look for "results" in our own lifetimes. We must simply try to be faithful to the true Church without making any entering into the traps of the old conciliar fowler's lair, making no concessions at all to a false church and its false shepherds and their overconcern with their own "reputations" and privileges that are as delusional as the John John study.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour our death.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us, on this your feast day!
Saint John the Baptist, 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 Augustine of Canterbury, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?