Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
November 15, 2010

Why Not?

 by Thomas A. Droleskey

Some in the fantastic world of self-delusion that exists within the counterfeit church of conciliarism are in various states of apoplexy or wonderment over the fact that the most likely choice to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George, the conciliar "archbishop" of Chicago, Illinois, as the president of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), "Bishop" Gerald Kicanas, did not believe that the open, flagrant embrace of unnatural vice of one Daniel McCormack before his "ordination" as a conciliar presbyter disqualified him for what the conciliar church considers to be the Holy Priesthood. This is one of those issues that has gotten real "old," at least for me, as it is completely astounding that anyone would be astounded by the loss of the horror of the sense of personal sin that has been and continues to be exhibited by the "hierarchy" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

That is, the outgoing president of the USCCB, the aforementioned Francis "Cardinal" George, played his own nefarious role in protecting "Father" Daniel McCormack, whose descent into unnatural vice before his "ordination" as a conciliar presbyter was just a precursor of the moral crimes that he committed upon twenty-three boys. The same "Cardinal" George admitted in January of 1998 to Stephen G. Brady, the president and the founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., that he, "Cardinal" George had known all about the moral corruption of the then conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois, Daniel Leo Ryan, for years, urging Mr. Brady to "wait" to expose more evidence about Ryan in addition to the information that had been brought forth by Brady in February of 1997 and was reported by this writer in the pages of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment and More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case; these articles--and an editorial that I wrote that appears on the same page as the second article--were, of course, eight years before I, bright light that I am, finally concluded that the Catholic Church could be responsible for none of the outrages that I was criticizing). Ryan was allowed to resign in "good standing" in the conciliar structures in 1999, and it was not until 2003 that a commission appointed by George got around, quite belatedly, to admitting that the charges against Ryan were true all along. Steve Brady had been correct all along.

Why not Gerald Kicanas as Francis George's successor? Why not? Why the uproar represented by the following stories?

UPDATE: Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas has responded to media reports of what he did and didn’t know regarding Daniel McCormack. Bishop Kicanas’ interview can be found here.

When the U.S. Bishops gather in Baltimore next week they’ll be tackling a host of pastoral and social issues, but perhaps the most important thing they’ll do is to choose whom among them will lead them as a body over the next three years. Who will set the tone, and be the public face and voice for the country’s bishops?

The big story next week will be, who shall lead them?

As a hierarchical body, the Catholic Church doesn’t often have elections, but when it does, they’re important.

If the USCCB goes with reigning practice, they’ll choose current vice president Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas. His selection, however, is not a foregone conclusion. There are a host of other names included among those being considered, such as: Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans; Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif.; Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap., of Denver; Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky.; Bishop George Murry, SJ, of Youngstown, Oh.; Archbishop Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore; Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit; and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City.

Whether or not Bishop Kicanas is elected, will be next week’s story. If he isn’t elected, the story will be why the bishops parted with recent practice. If he is elected, the story will be how the bishops treat their own, and the message the bishops are sending to society about their willingness to prevent sexual abuse. If Bishop Kicanas is elected it’s likely to strain the USCCB’s credibility.

The bishops, and their spokesmen, can repeat over and over that this gathering is not about the sexual abuse crisis, but if the media makes it about sexual abuse - and one can be sure that it will - then whether or not it’s on the official agenda, it will be the topic foremost on the minds of American Catholics.

To give some indication of what’s likely to follow Bishop Kicanas’ election, one only has to look at a couple of stories that have already been reported – one from Spero News, and the other from WBEZ, Chicago Public Radio. Bishop Kicanas’ election is a potential powder keg.

In his story, “Abuse Lurks Behind Catholic Election,” Chip Mitchell tells the horrific story of Father Daniel McCormack, who molested at least 23 boys. The story demonstrates that Bishop Kicanas, while rector of Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary, was aware of accusations of sexual misconduct against McCormack, but chose to ordain him anyway.

Asked about it, Bishop Kicanas essentially said that he would do it again.

“It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him,” Bishop Kicanas said shortly after being elected as vice president of the USCCB, in a quote that appears in the deposition of Cardinal Francis George. “There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience,” continued Bishop Kicanas. “I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.”

The Spero story goes even further. In “Catholic Bishops to Elect Enabler of Child Molester as National Leader,” writer Mary Ann Kreitzer goes so far as to say that Bishop Kicanas’ election is “fitting” for what she describes as that “vile bureaucracy.”

The blog Boston Catholic Insider has actually issued a “Red Alert” asking readers to contact their local ordinaries to respectfully ask them to vote for a candidate other than Bishop Kicanas.

If these are the stories that have been written prior to the election, what can we expect following the election, and for the next three years?

While the bishops may not have a good mechanism for fraternal correction within their ranks, one mechanism that bishops do have a great deal of control over is whom they elect as their leader.

There’s been speculation that there’s an unspoken practice that the election of the body’s president follows an alternating pattern, as if the body were somehow trying to balance two wings of parliament.

The Church, however, is not parliament.

If there is some unspoken rule, it’s one that should be dismissed. The words “liberal” or “conservative”, “progressive” or “orthodox” cannot truly describe the Church or those in it. If such a practice is taking place with the election of the USCCB’s president, it must be rejected, embracing instead presiding USCCB president Cardinal Francis George’s “simply Catholicism.”

When the bishops gather next week, they have an opportunity to show that elections do matter. It would be best if they met behind closed doors and outside the purview of the media, held an honest conversation not about the voting practice of the previous era, but about who is the best person to lead the brotherhood of bishops at this time and place, and then voted accordingly. ( http://www.ncregister.com/blog/elections-do-matter...especially-among-bishops/)

Three years after he was quoted as saying that it would have been “grossly unfair” to bar the ordination of Daniel McCormack—who would go on to notoriety as a convicted serial molester—Bishop Gerald Kicanas has reacted with some asperity to a National Catholic Register columnist’s suggestion that his handling of the case might prove embarrassing when (as seems inevitable) he is elected later this month as president of the US bishops’ conference.

In comments to the Register, Bishop Kincanas says that he would never have advocated McCormack’s ordination if he knew that the man would be accused of molesting dozens of boys. Well, yes. But did he have any reason—back when he was rector of Mundelein seminary—to suspect that McCormack might have troubles with sexuality?

At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him. I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.

Right. Understood. At the time, he was not a certified abuser. But was he troubled?

I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.

The Register correspondent, Tim Drake, poses the obvious question in an interesting way:

You said, “I was more concerned about his drinking.” You were more concerned about his drinking than what? Your statement seems to indicate that there were other problems/issues, more than just McCormack’s drinking.

No response.

Finally, after roughly 1,000 words, Bishop Kicanas divulges the information that there were concerns about McCormack’s behavior. There were reports of—can you guess?—consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking. Thus the rector was concerned about the young man’s alcohol consumption. But there was never a hint that McCormack would be unfit for the priesthood, because—let’s hear it one more time--

While he was at Mundelein, no allegation or report or concern of sexual abuse of anyone was ever made against McCormack.

( http://www.catholicculture.org)


Why the outrage? Why? What's new?

Look at the names of just some of those who have been presidents of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (and its predecessor organizations, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC) in the course of its forty-four year history):

The late John Dearden? The man who hand-picked the notorious supporter of the lavender agenda, Thomas Gumbleton, to be an "auxiliary" bishop in the Archdiocese of Detroit? John Dearden? The man in whose archdiocese was launched "Call to Action," a group with an agenda to push the conciliar revolution to its utmost limits and beyond?

Joseph Bernardin? (See Another Kennedy in the Deep Waters.) The man who said that the inspired writings of Saint John the Evangelist were the "source" of anti-Semitism? (See Voices From Hell?) The man who wanted the "Windy City Gay Men's Chorus" to sing at his wake? The man who gave us the "consistent ethic of life" (see More Committed to Error Than We Are to Truth)?

Joseph Fiorenza? (See No to Father Zigrang,Yes to Eric Law, written in my "resist but recognize" days.)

Wilton Gregory?  (See item five in  Pray for the Consecration of Russia, another "resist but recognize" article.) Joseph Bernardin's right-hand man who did not believe that those inclined to commit perverse acts against nature were disqualified from being "ordained" to the conciliar presbyterate?

William Skylstad? The man presided over the bankruptcy filing of the Diocese of Spokane to forestall paying victims of clerical abuse?

Oh, yes, Gerald Kicanas will make a perfect president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops if he is elected to that post this week at the USCCB's annual meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.

Why the surprise?

More the point, however, is the lack of outrage over the fact that each of the other possible choices to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George as president of the USCCB are molesters of souls.

Each of the other possible choices to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George supports conciliarism, lock, stock and barrel.

Each of the other possible choices to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George supports false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, inter-religious "prayer" services.

Each of the other possible choices to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George countenances the spiritual molestation of children by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Each of the other possible choices to succeed Francis "Cardinal" George offend God every day by staging the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

As horrible as it is that Gerald Kicanas was morally blind to Daniel McCormack's unsuitability for the reception of what the conciliar church purports to be holy orders, it is more horrible that those who are outraged about Kicanas's dismissive attitude concerning a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance do not understand the gravity of the offenses against God and souls represented by the apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and errors of conciliarism.

After all, there is a certain logic to Gerald Kicanas's false belief that "Father" Daniel McCormack" merely had "developmental" issues when the man who almost everyone save for a tiny, tiny, extremely small number of Catholics who are at war with each other more than they are with the enemies of Faith as the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth sees fit to make no statement or take any action following "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch's open denial that Our Lord died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. Five hundred eighty-four days have passed since Zollitsch committed this apostasy. Five hundred eighty-four days. Ah, the false "pontiff" is far, far too busy esteeming the symbols of false religions publicly and giving "joint blessings" with the "clergy" of false religions to bother with such trifles as to defend the integrity of the Catholic Faith.

That so few people see this as problematic or symptomatic of the deeper sickness that is conciliarism itself is what is astounding, not the fact that an enabler of a serial child molester did not see that the man's inclination to perversity was a complete impediment to the reception of what is believed to be holy orders in the conciliar church.

No, it must be those of who have recognized and rejected conciliarism who must be the problem, we must be "deceived," not those who are oblivious to the horror of personal sin while they themselves sin grievously in the objective order of things, leaving subjective judgment to God alone, by denying multiple tenets of the Holy Faith and saying and doing things that reaffirm Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the errors of the day.

Readers will either accept or reject the simple truth that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us errors of any kind, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to sponsor one blasphemous, apostate "novelty" after another. The Catholic Church has condemned "novelty" as she cleaves to her immutable Deposit of Faith:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).


I report. You decide. It is, however, a great grace to recognize the truth and to embrace it no matter the earthly consequences that will occur as a result.


Today is the Feast of Saint Albert the Great, one of the great sons of Saint Dominic's Order of Preachers. Here is the description of his life and work as found in Sister Mary Jean Dorcy, O.P.'s, St. Dominic's Family, The Priory Press, 1964, pp. 86-88):

Today in Cologne, the spires of a building begun seven centuries ago still point to heaven. It is only a legend that credits the design of this cathedral to St. Albert the Great. But it is so typical of his own life, pointing all beauty to heaven, that is a legend very easy to believe. Albert--whom even secular history calls "the Great"--spent his life in teaching that science and faith have no quarrel, and that all earthly loveliness and order can be traced directly to God.

Albert was born in Lauringen, in Swabia, around 1207. His keen observation, which was later to show itself in his scientific works, had its initial training in the woods near his father's castle, where he and his brother, Henry--who also became a Dominican--hunted with hawks and hounds, and became experts in falconry. Sent for further studies to the University of Padua, which was queen of the natural sciences, as Paris was of theology, and Bologna of law, Albert delved happily into new fields of science. He found many new things at a Padua, but his greatest find was a fellow German, Jordan of Saxony, who captured his heart for the new Order of Friars Preachers. He was received into the Order, probably in 1223.

A legend is told of the period which serve to bring out both the greatness of Albert's science and his love for our Lady. Albert, it is related, had not worn the white habit for long when it became plain to him that he was not match for the mental wizards with whom he was studying. Anything concrete, which he take take apart and study, he could understand, but the abstract sciences were too much for him. He decided to run away from it all; planning a quite departure, he carefully laid a ladder against the wall and waited his opportunity. As he was kneeling for one last Hail Mary before he should go over the wall, Our Lady appeared to him. She reproached him gently for his forgetfulness of her--why had he not remembered to ask her for what he wanted? Then she gave him the gift of science he so much desired, and disappeared. Whatever the truth behind the legend--and it has survived, almost unchanged, through the years--it is equally certain that Albert was a devout client of Our Lady and a master scientist.

Albert had an enquiring mind. He was an experimenter and a classifier at a time when all experimental knowledge was under suspicion. There was not a field in which he did not at least try his hand, and his keenness of mind and precision of detail make his remarks valuable, even though because he lacked facts which we now have, his conclusions were incomplete. He wrote on botany, astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, geography, and meteorology; he made maps and charts and experimented with plants; he studied chemical reactions; designed instruments to help with navigation; and he made detailed studies of birds and animals. He taught at both Cologne and Paris, where he had the happiness of seeing a quiet student from the Kingdom of Sicily rise like a brilliant star that would outshine all others. What must it have been to watch the mind of Thomas Aquinas develop and unfold to the wisdom of time and eternity, and to help him open the doors to profound truth? The man for this work would need great humility and great sanctity, and these Albert had.

Albert was bishop of Ratisbon for two years, but resigned in order to return to the classroom. He outlived his beloved pupil by several years, and, in extreme old age, he walked halfway across Europe to defend a thesis of Thomas' that was challenged.


I, for one, believe what some call the "legends" about our saints. I believe that Our Lady appeared to Saint Albert the Great, who is, after all, one of my own patron saints (my name is Thomas Albert Henry Droleskey and my late father's name was Albert Henry Martin Droleskey and his maternal uncle's name was Albert Delfausse), to remind him to rely upon her for his needs. This is pretty good advice for us in these days of apostasy and betrayal, is it not?

Look, the insanity of this time will pass. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will take place. Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism will be defeated. All we have to do at the present time is to suffer--and to suffer well--the difficulties of the moment as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins, which have so worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, by offering everything we have and do and suffer up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

On this great feast day, which is especially dear to the members of the Order of Preachers, it is good rejoice on this, the first anniversary of the founding of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church, for all of the good that is being done for souls there by Father Markus Ramolla and the Reverend Mr. Bernard G. J. Hall and the dedicated staff of volunteers who have worked so hard in the past three days to turn their new facility into a truly fitting place for Catholic worship, which is now enhanced with the pews that were once in Saint Clare's Church in Columbus, Ohio, where Father Ramolla served as pastor until the unfortunate events of a year ago now. There is indeed great hope for Holy Mother Church when such good is brought out of difficulties, and it is precisely the sort of good that will be brought out by God as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest by the vanquishing of all of the forces of Antichrist that are at work in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We have work to do to plant a few seeds in behalf of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as the humble clients of her Most Holy Rosary, to which Saint Albert the Great, a faithful son of Saint Dominic, was so devoted.

What are we waiting for?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Ransom, 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 Albert the Great, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.