THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

Christ's Charge to Peter, Peter Paul Rubens, 1611 (Wallace Collection, London)

Thinking the unthinkable
by Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky
Pastor, St Catherine of Siena, Arlington, Va.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2018

The word “unthinkable” is an amusing expression, an oxymoron wrapped in a single word. Nevertheless, it points us towards some very unpleasant things we are forced to think about, such as nuclear war or a Church in crisis.

Until very recently, the prospect of a pope promulgating significant doctrinal error was unthinkable. But many of us are now fretting about ambiguous papal pronouncements said to be “authentic magisterium” that directly oppose Scripture and Tradition.

It is always helpful to remember that a pope does not create doctrines; he elucidates doctrines to conserve the Faith he has received. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council defined the teaching authority of the pope. But they link his authority to Scripture and Tradition, the Church’s entire doctrinal history:

---

The Roman pontiffs... sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions. (Vatican I, Chapter 4).)

---

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council Fathers likewise link the authentic magisterium to Tradition and Scripture:

---

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. (Vatican II, LG 25)

---

For example, the infallible teachings about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption emerged from unsettled Catholic theology. But the deeper understanding could be explained in light of Tradition and in relationship with the rest of Catholic doctrines and dogmas.

On sexual matters, the Church’s constant teachings in her ordinary magisterium on the nature and goods of marriage – and intrinsic sexual disorders such as contraceptive acts and homosexual behavior – are well-defined infallible teachings of the Church rooted in Scripture and Tradition. These clear doctrines not only provide precise moral guidance but opportunities for fruitful theological reflection bringing even greater clarity.

The Council Fathers carefully defined the authority of bishops – and assumed their fidelity and goodwill in conserving and faithfully teaching Catholic truth. But the Fathers surely knew the many ways that unfaithful bishops betray their office, usually by neglect but sometimes by flawed teachings.

The Fathers apparently did not see the need to state the obvious: doctrinal violations of Church teaching by bishops cannot bind the faithful in conscience. It is at least conceivable that a pope might also reject and abuse the graces of his office in a similar way. Such errors may muddy the waters of the ordinary magisterium, but obviously cannot bind in conscience.

Of course, deliberate ambiguities in papal teaching, incompetence, and infidelity that tamper with the “authentic magisterium” would be disastrous: sowing confusion and even suggesting the unthinkable, that the gates of Hell have prevailed in the Church.

But this cannot be the case as a matter of logic. The truth of Christ remains. His Gospel is handed down in Scripture, Tradition – and the cumulative magisterial teaching of popes, bishops, councils, and synods throughout history.

Grace perfects nature and the pope’s teaching authority is not magic. Every presumed magisterial thought that a pope eventually decrees must always be judged against Scripture and Tradition. Even conciliar pronouncements, including the pronouncements of Vatican II, must also be aligned with Scripture and Tradition.

Does this imply a “pick and choose” magisterium? No. The interlocking strength of Scripture and Tradition, and the authentic magisterium throughout history, ensure that the truth of Christ will not be circumvented by innovations. Sometimes corrections need to be made – as Paul corrected Peter at Antioch. (cf. Galatians 2:11-21)

Hence, bishops (supported by orthodox theologians) must recognize their obligation to respond to papal pronouncements that are dangerously ambiguous or contradict Scripture and Tradition. They need to do so respectfully but firmly and without fear, both because – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – they have solemnly promised to do so by their oaths of office and because they have the historical content of Revelation on their side.

Corrections may also come from the faithful who are, after all, endowed with the sensus fidei (sense of the faith). But the elimination of doctrinal distortions and errors (and restoration of doctrinal clarity) is difficult. As widespread clerical dissent from Humanae Vitae demonstrates, doctrinal repair and restoration can lead to generations of painful conflict.

Unfortunately, like the prospect of nuclear war, the thought of significant papal doctrinal missteps is no longer unthinkable. But we should be confident that doctrinal error and schism can be avoided, with God’s grace, by a careful and insistent logic that protects the integrity of the Faith: Authentic papal magisterial authority cannot be in opposition to the doctrinal history of the Church. [An obvious Cathoic fact that Jorge Bergoglio chooses to ignore and defy - almost habitually now. But who can change Lucifer's primary and overweening sin of hubris?]

People, priests, and bishops need not shrink from the obligation to defend the Faith. We should consider it a privilege: “Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we too believe, and so we speak.” (2 Cor. 4:13)


Bishops now have to learn:
Stop waiting 0n (or for) Peter
[Lucifer seems to be wearing the 'shoes of the fisherman']
by Stephen P. White

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

Two weeks ago, members of the USCCB executive committee traveled to Rome to ask for the Holy Father’s help in addressing the crisis engulfing the Catholic Church in the United States. They came back empty-handed.

The primary goal was to convince the Holy Father to appoint an Apostolic Visitator to investigate the rot and corruption that enabled Theodore McCarrick to flourish – an investigation that the American bishops themselves have neither the capacity nor, frankly, the credibility to undertake on their own. The pope “nixed” that idea, according to Crux. Francis suggested the bishops go on retreat, instead of holding their annual November meeting in Baltimore.

Meanwhile, 70-million exasperated American Catholics wait for some response from Rome that might indicate that the nature and scope of the current crisis have finally, been understood.

Undoubtedly, the Viganò affair – and the American episcopate’s refusal to dismiss the allegations out of hand – has left a very sour taste in the pontifical mouth. But one wonders if the Holy Father understands how his silence – and his daily touting of it in his homilies – gives ordinary Catholics the painful impression that Rome is more concerned with making an example of its enemies than in meeting the needs of the suffering flock.

And while Pope Francis’s condemnation of the sexual abuse of children has been unequivocal (one would expect no less), it’s still not entirely clear that he grasps just how dire is the crisis of confidence in the bishops themselves.

While the Holy Father has been silent – even the papal press corps is growing frustrated – some of his closest associates are talking.

Cardinal Cupich was publicly blasted for telling an interviewer that “the pope has a bigger agenda” than dealing with the allegations of Archbishop Viganò and that, “We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”

The most charitable interpretation of his remarks might acquit the Cardinal of insouciance, but his eagerness to downplay and move beyond the Viganò allegations also tends to obscure the fact that the crisis of confidence in the American Church was brought about, not by the intemperate missive of Archbishop Viganò, but by the manifest failures of bishops – including many bishops we have right now.

Another papal confidant, Antonio Spadaro, S.J., ventured to defend the Pope’s response to these matters: “The Pope draws energy from the conflict,” Fr. Spadaro wrote on Facebook, “and sees it as a sign that his action riles. The driving force of the pontificate of #PapaFrancesco manifests itself precisely in the paroxysm of the backlash that generates and that are thrown at him.”

It’s not news that the Holy Father has a certain fondness for creative destruction in spiritual and ecclesiastical life – ¡Hagan Lío! Make a mess! – but sometimes a mess is just a mess. When conflict and division are presumed to be the hallmarks of wise governance and sound judgment, things begin to take on a conspiratorial tone. Everything is great; it proves we must be doing something right! Look at this colossal mess; it proves we must be doing something right!

That self-fulfilling quality of this pope’s relationship with the Church in the United States has a certain tragicomic tone. Ponder, for example, the following absurdity:
- The Holy Father seems to have learned much of what he knows about the American Church – i.e., that the American episcopate is full of right-wing ideologues – from the mendacious Theodore McCarrick.
- And yet the Holy Father also appears to have interpreted the events surrounding McCarrick’s disgrace as confirmation of the veracity of McCarrick’s account of the American episcopate.

Rome seems to have little sense of how demoralizing it is for Catholics who, already twice-betrayed by their own bishops, are told that growing impatience with the pope’s silence is taken by Rome to be further evidence of ideological agitation against the Holy Father. The whole thing has more than a whiff of paranoia about it.

Meanwhile, the hits keep coming for the American flock. As of this writing,
- Cardinal Donald Wuerl, though the lamest of ducks, is still Archbishop of Washington.
- Bishop Richard Malone in Buffalo is facing increasing pressure to resign in light of reports that he buried allegations of abuse against his priests.
- Bishop Michael Hoeppner in Minnesota is accused of strong-arming an abuse victim into silence.
Forthcoming government investigations in Illinois, Missouri, and New York all but guarantee the drum-beat of bad news will continue for the foreseeable future.

The American bishops, absent the help needed from Rome to police their own ranks, are left dangling in the wind. Rome seems willing to leave them there, at least for now.

If Rome won’t assist the American bishops, they’ll have to make do with the resources they have at the conference level. Last week’s letter from USCCB president, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, indicates what that might look like.

The USCCB can’t remove bishops from ministry – nor force them to resign – but what they can do is worth doing. Plans include the establishment of a third-party reporting system for complaints against bishops and a full-as-can-be-under-the-circumstances investigation, with meaningful lay involvement, into the McCarrick affair.

Again, without the backing of Rome, these efforts will lack the teeth they might otherwise have, but the fact that our American bishops are moving on these issues now, rather than waiting on Rome, is a good sign.

Americans are accustomed to making demands, a trait that does not always endear us to Rome, or anyone else. Still, the hope is that the American bishops’ reform efforts will ultimately find backing from the Vatican. And that may yet happen if American churlishness and Roman intransigence don’t prevent it.

Asked why the help sought for from Rome hasn’t been forthcoming, Cardinal Dolan spoke for millions of American Catholics: “I tend to get as impatient as you obviously are, so I don’t know the answer to that.”

For now, our bishops aren’t waiting on Peter.

German paper 'exposes' Coccopalmerio,
says Pope is ditching bishops' abuse tribunal
by Marco Tosatti
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino for

September 28, 2018

After the important investigation of Der Spiegel on the pope entitled “Thou Shalt Not Lie,” now another German daily, Herder Korrespondenz, which certainly not even the most frenzied Bergogliac could condemn as conservative, is examining the authority of the Church, its questionable characters, and its ambiguities.

Benjamin Leven, a well-known German theologian and editor, explains in an essay that, according to his Vatican sources, it was Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of the closest counselors of Pope Bergoglio, who promoted an attitude of indulgence at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith toward priests who were responsible for sexual abuse.

Thanks to the English translation of Maike Hickson, we are able to offer this report to our readers, which is definitely of interest, given both the source and the means of communication. According to several sources, Coccopalmerio interceded with the pope in favor of Don Mauro Inzoli, the Comunione e Liberazione priest whom the Benedict CDF laicized for his sexual abuses but was subsequently reinstated by Bergoglio in his priestly ministry. [Only to laicize him again after a civilian court in Italy sentenced Inzoli to prison time for a number of sex crimes.]

Coccopalmerio was president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts until April 2018. In 2010, he was named as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). In 2015, Pope Francis named him as a member of a new arm of the CDF that was commissioned to examine the appeals of priests accused of abuse. According to the testimony of Archbishop Viganò, Coccopalmerio is a part of the pro-gay “current” in the Vatican.

The author of the essay in Herder Korrespondenz, Benjamin Leven, lives in Rome and has close contacts in the Vatican. His essay entitled “Francis and Abuse: The Papal Secret” discusses the problem of abuse and the role of the pope.

Leven writes about the drug-fueled homosexual party that took place in the apartment of the palace of the CDF occupied by Msgr. Luigi Capozzi, Coccopalmerio’s secretary. Leven confirms the story that Capozzi obtained this apartment, “which was destined for another person,” thanks to the personal intervention of the pope. Leven adds that “the warnings which had been given were ignored” by the pope, since “the elevation of Capozzi to the role of bishop was being planned.”

Leven recalls that Coccopalmerio “generally spoke against using laicization as a punishment for a priest” because it would mean being treated like “someone condemned to death.” This is a position the cardinal consistently maintained, and, in fact, writes Leven, “he regularly proposed light penalties” to the CDF for abusers.

Leven says that it may well have been Coccopalmerio who opposed Cardinal Müller’s hard line against sexual abuse, when the former CDF prefect revealed that there were “persons close to the pope” who thought Müller had a “lack of mercy” in dealing with those responsible for abuse. Only 20% of those found guilty were laicized, “but even this was too much for some of those holding influence with the pope [Papsteinflüsterer].”

Leven relates how, through the personal intervention of the pope, several priests who were working in the disciplinary section responsible for handling cases of abuse were dismissed from the CDF. “These positions still have not been filled.”

And, in passing, we recall that these arbitrary dismissals, which Müller protested, gave the pope the occasion to publicly tell a lie in front of journalists: “He (one of the dismissed officials) did a great job but he was a little tired and he went back to his homeland to do the same work for his bishops.”

The ambiguous role of the pope on abuse does not stop here. Leven reveals that it was Pope Francis himself who intervened to stop the plan “to establish a permanent criminal tribunal for bishops” implicated in cases of sexual abuse.

The CDF does not have jurisdiction over bishops: “here, the pope in person is the judge”, but according to Leven, the pope abandoned the plan of having a tribunal for bishops. [Obviously true, because after the hullaballoo of announcing its creation, nothing more has been heard about it - i.e., it was never constituted.]

Leven concludes that “thus, there seems to be here an ambivalent image: the pope addresses the problem, has the power to intervene, and he meets with victims of abuse. But at the same time he turns a blind eye to individual cases and shows himself impermeable to the advice being given to him.”

In another part of the essay, Leven writes that his Vatican sources have told him that the testimony of Viganò is true but that also “in reality things are even worse.”

There are many people in the Vatican who do not like its current state of vice, and if somebody decided to speak, “not a stone upon a stone would remain standing.” [What on earth are they waiting for before they do anything????] The essay concluded with a dramatic question: “Will the Catholic hierarchy have the strength to purify itself?”

[More importantly, will the man at the top - he who was elected to lead the Church of Christ but has been more occupied with building the church of Bergoglio - be able to rid himself of Lucifer? Purification will be impossible while he allows Lucifer to have the upper hand - in his pontificate (if he is not alrady in possession of it). It was like a sick joke to read about Bergoglio asking "all the faithful to pray for the Church attacked by the devil" - an ultimate manifestation of his denial of reality that he does not realize the devil is in himself, if it has not already taken him over and his accursed church (that has nothing to do with the indefectible but nonetheless martyred Catholic Church).]

So it seems things are going from bad to worse for 'know-nothing' Cardinal Wuerl (and this is without mentioning his apparent flagrant misdeeds at the Papal Foundation of which he is the current chairman)...

Wuerl was part of an abuse
settlement with McCarrick in 2005
Yet he has repeatedly claimed he knew nothing of McCarrick's
sexual misconduct until it became public knowledge last June
By Michelle Boorstein and Julie Zauzmer

September 29, 2018

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who has said repeatedly that he didn’t know about years of sexual misconduct complaints involving his predecessor in the District, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, was named in a 2005 settlement agreement that included allegations against McCarrick, according to the accuser in the case and documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Two of the three alleged abusers, including McCarrick, were not mentioned by name in the settlement.

Robert Ciolek, who left the priesthood and later became an attorney, spoke for the first time publicly this summer about the $80,000 settlement he reached in June 2005 with three New Jersey dioceses over his allegations against McCarrick and a teacher at his Catholic high school. McCarrick led the church in Newark and Metuchen before coming to the District in 2001; Ciolek’s high school was in New Jersey as well.

In an interview with The Post this month, Ciolek said for the first time publicly that the settlement included allegations against a third person, a Pittsburgh priest Ciolek says made unwanted sexual contact with him in seminary, where the priest was a professor.

The first page of the settlement agreement lists the Diocese of Pittsburgh and Wuerl, who supervised the priest as bishop of Pittsburgh at the time, among the numerous parties to the settlement. The agreement was signed by Ciolek and the three New Jersey dioceses. The Pittsburgh priest was also not mentioned by name in the document.

Ciolek shared a copy of the settlement with The Post.

The presence of Wuerl’s name on Ciolek’s settlement agreement raises questions about the cardinal’s assertion that he did not know about any allegations against McCarrick before they became a topic of public discussion this summer.

Wuerl’s D.C. spokesman, Ed McFadden, said this week that Wuerl had been unaware of the legal agreement. “As he has stated consistently ... Cardinal Wuerl had no knowledge of the settlements until the existence of the settlements was made public” this summer, McFadden said.

Pope Francis in June suspended McCarrick, a hugely popular cleric known as a prolific fundraiser for the church, after he was accused of groping an altar boy. Since his suspension, another alleged young victim has emerged, as have years of rumors about McCarrick’s alleged inappropriate treatment of seminarians and young priests.

McCarrick has made no comment about the various allegations against him since the first allegation. At the time, he said he had no memory of the incident and maintained his innocence but accepted the pope’s decision.

An increasingly vocal segment of Catholics in the District has expressed skepticism about Wuerl’s claim that he didn’t know about either the rumors about McCarrick’s alleged behavior or the settlements, and they have demanded more transparency.

A bombshell letter in August from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, a former Vatican ambassador, alleging Wuerl knew about sexual misconduct accusations against McCarrick has intensified the skepticism. The letter, which offered no proof, came shortly after a detailed grand jury report by Pennsylvania prosecutors described a rampant coverup in the Catholic church of clergy sex abuse — including mishandling of cases by Wuerl, when he was bishop for the Diocese of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006.

Wuerl issued a statement right after the letter from Vigano, denying the allegations in the letter — including that Vigano himself had communicated about McCarrick’s misconduct to Wuerl. The statement suggested the Vatican investigate Vigano, along with McCarrick.

Ciolek said he waited to publicly discuss the Pittsburgh connection in his settlement until after he sought legal permission from the Diocese of Pittsburgh to speak about it. He spoke to various media earlier this summer about the other two alleged abusers — McCarrick and his high school teacher — after his name spread and the New Jersey dioceses released him from the document’s confidentiality clause.

He spoke to The Post about the Pittsburgh priest on the condition the priest not be named because Ciolek said he considers the details of that encounter too personal. He said “there was inappropriate sexual contact toward me" in the 1980s by the priest, who was a faculty member at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, in Emmitsburg, Md., when Ciolek was a student there. The priest was not mentioned in the recent grand jury report.

The settlement document does not mention McCarrick by name, nor does it specify Ciolek’s allegations beyond saying Ciolek was making “numerous claims of sexual misconduct by various priests” in the various dioceses. The signatories to the agreement were Ciolek, and officials of the three New Jersey dioceses – Newark, Trenton and Metuchen – who paid into his settlement.

Pittsburgh and Wuerl are mentioned along with the Archdiocese of Baltimore and its then-archbishop, Cardinal William Keeler, because Mt. St. Mary’s is under Baltimore’s purview.

They are all listed with the New Jersey dioceses as “released” parties, meaning Ciolek promised to release them from future liability. They did not pay into the settlement and did not sign it.

Asked what Pittsburgh knew about the Ciolek settlement, the diocese initially put out a statement saying it was unaware that it was mentioned on the document.

“The Diocese of Pittsburgh was surprised to learn in early July 2018 that it was named as a release in the settlement agreement with Mr. Ciolek. The Diocese of Pittsburgh was not a party to this agreement and was not a signatory,” the diocese said in a statement. “This summer, when Mr. Ciolek asked the Diocese of Pittsburgh to be released from a confidentiality provision, the diocese responded that since we hadn’t signed the agreement we had no authority to release him.”

The Post also asked whether anyone on the Pittsburgh staff was told about Ciolek’s allegations against his alleged abusers, which included McCarrick. Ann Rodgers, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh diocese, answered that the staff did not know, then or now “about the settlement until early July 2018.”

But Rodgers’s statement appears to conflict with the contents of a 2004 letter between officials with the dioceses of Metuchen and Pittsburgh.

On Aug. 11, 2004, letter to Metuchen officials, Ciolek laid out all of his allegations, and Metuchen soon contacted Pittsburgh. In a letter dated Aug. 17, 2004, Metuchen’s then-Vicar General Monsignor William Benwell alerted then-auxiliary Pittsburgh Bishop William Winter about the Pittsburgh priest, who Ciolek says was still in ministry at the time. Ciolek shared both letters with The Post.

The letter notes that, at the time, Metuchen “is currently engaged in mediation” with Ciolek about alleged abuse by his high school teacher and that, in that process, Ciolek had told church officials in New Jersey about the Pittsburgh priest. McCarrick is not mentioned.

Asked about the 2004 letter, the diocese issued another statement that didn’t directly address the question of whether any other abuser — besides the Pittsburgh priest — came up.

“The letter did not raise the issue of the Diocese of Pittsburgh being involved in any mediation, and certainly did not mention or invite the Diocese of Pittsburgh to participate in any settlement agreement,” the statement read, in part.

Ciolek said he met in October 2004 with the Pittsburgh diocese’s review board about his allegation against the priest-professor. Ciolek said he was told by Pittsburgh officials shortly after this period — and again this summer — that the priest-professor was removed from ministry as a result.

He does not recall if in that meeting he mentioned the two other abusers — McCarrick and the high school teacher — and says when he asked recently to see the notes from that session, Pittsburgh told him that was a privileged document, Ciolek says. Pittsburgh also declined to share details of the session with The Post.

In asking this summer to be released from the confidentiality clause, Ciolek says he spoke with Charles Carella, counsel for Newark now and in 2005 when the settlement was signed. Ciolek says that Carella recalled to him that, in 2005, then-Metuchen Bishop Paul Bootkoski was going to call Wuerl in Pittsburgh about the settlement. Ciolek says Carella told him that he — Carella — was unaware if Bootkoski did so.

Carella did not return a call or email from The Post.

Asked what communications took place between the Newark and Pittsburgh dioceses regarding Ciolek’s case, and if Wuerl had been called, Newark spokesman Jim Goodness declined to comment.

“I won’t discuss particulars about any settlement agreement or conversations that might have taken place,” he wrote.

Erin Friedlander, spokeswoman for Metuchen, denied that Pittsburgh and Baltimore were part of the settlement and did not respond to a follow-up question about whether Bootkoski called Wuerl.

Bootkoski did not return request for comment.

Ciolek said he finds it “inconceivable” that none of the three dioceses in New Jersey would have mentioned to Wuerl that they’d just reached an $80,000 settlement involving both McCarrick and Wuerl’s own priest.

The release of Ciolek’s settlement follows other news that has led many Catholics to question whether Wuerl has been fully transparent about what he knew and when he knew it. Their anger led to Wuerl’s announcement earlier this month that he would ask Francis to accept his resignation.

In an unprecedented public letter released in August, former Vatican ambassador Vigano alleged, without offering evidence, that many higher-ups in the Vatican — including popes Francis and Benedict — knew about McCarrick.

Vigano alleges Benedict in fact had put a kind of secret series of restrictions on McCarrick, who had retired and was living in Washington, in Wuerl’s jurisdiction.

Vigano’s letter argued that there was no way Wuerl didn’t know, and pointed to incidents including Wuerl’s decision to cancel a public appearance by McCarrick at an event around 2010, in front of a group of seminarians. The letter also alleged that McCarrick’s housing was moved, inexplicably, out of a seminary around the same period. Putting space between McCarrick and seminarians was part of the restrictions, Vigano’s letter alleges.

“The Cardinal lies shamelessly,” Vigano wrote about Wuerl. Vigano has refused to answer questions about his controversial letter since but on Thursday published another public letter reiterating his claims.