Cardinal Burke addresses the clergy scandal
by Thomas McKenna
August 16, 2018
SAN DIEGO- Thomas McKenna, the president of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, interviewed Cardinal Raymond Burke this week on the clergy abuse scandal.
Your Eminence, a new wave of clergy sexual abuse has surfaced and is indicating a widespread practice of homosexuality among clergy in dioceses and seminaries across the country. What would you say is the root cause of this corruption?
It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men. There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered.
I think it has been considerably aggravated by the anti-life culture in which we live, namely the contraceptive culture that separates the sexual act from the conjugal union. The sexual act has no meaning whatsoever except between a man and a woman in marriage since the conjugal act is by its very nature for procreation.
I believe that there needs to be an open recognition that we have a very grave problem of a homosexual culture in the Church, especially among the clergy and the hierarchy, that needs to be addressed honestly and efficaciously.
Your Eminence, many are saying what needs to be done to address this problem is to determine better procedures and structures to deal with it and that this then would be a solution to resolve the situation. Do you agree with that proposal? Or what do you see needs to be done to resolve this crisis in a thorough manner?
There is no need to develop new procedures. All of the procedures exist in the Church’s discipline, and they have existed throughout the centuries. What is needed is an honest investigation into the alleged situations of grave immorality followed by effective action to sanction those responsible and to be vigilant to prevent that similar situations arise again.
This idea that the conference of bishops should be responsible for addressing this is misguided because
the bishops’ conference does not have surveillance over the bishops within the conference. It is the Roman Pontiff, the Holy Father, who has the responsibility to discipline these situations, and it is he who needs to take action following the procedures that are given in the Church’s discipline. This is what will address the situation effectively.
The faith of many in the Church, as a holy rather than corrupt institution, has been shaken. People don’t know what to think about their bishops and their priests. How should the faithful respond to this crisis, especially taking into consideration that many are feeling discouraged and ashamed of their Church?
I understand fully the anger, the profound sense of betrayal that many of the faithful are feeling, even as I experience it myself. The faithful should insist that the situation be addressed honestly and with determination.
What we must never permit is that these gravely immoral acts, which have sullied so much the face of the Church, permit us to lose trust in Our Lord, who is the Head and Shepherd of the flock. The Church is His Mystical Body, and we must never lose sight of that truth.
We should be profoundly ashamed of what certain shepherds, certain bishops, have done, but we should never be ashamed of the Church because we know that it is pure and that it is Christ Himself, alive for us in the Church, Who alone is our way to salvation.
There is a great temptation that our justified anger over these gravely immoral acts will lead us to lose faith in the Church or to be angry with the Church, instead of angry with those who, even though they held the highest authority in the Church, have betrayed that authority and have acted in an immoral way.
There existed in the Roman Pontifical (the Latin Catholic liturgical book that contains the rites performed by bishops) for centuries the rites for the degradation of clerics and also of hierarchy who had failed gravely in their office. I believe it would be helpful to read over again those rites to understand deeply what the Church has always understood, which is that shepherds can go astray, even in a grave way, and then must be appropriately disciplined and even dismissed from the clerical state.
Kudos, of course, to Father Z, who had anticipated this last proposal in two posts on July 29 and on August 17 with, respectively, The Rite of Degradation of a Bishop, and The Rite of Degradation of a Priest, as follows:
The Rite of Degradation of a Bishop
July 29, 2018
Something has been nagging me from the back of my mind today. I finally, late in the evening just as I was about to turn in, dredged it up.
One of my favorite Popes, Papa Lambertini, Pope Benedict XIV, was a great canonist and scholar. Among his many contributions, he established the process for canonization that is still in its major aspects in effect today.
He also issued a rite of
Degradatio ab ordine pontificali(Degradation from the order of bishop).
If you thought the movie excommunication in
Becket was spiffy, get a load of this. In the
Pontificale romanum sanctissimi D.N. Benedicti Papae XIV, jussu editum et auctum of 25 March 1752 find the rite of degradation of all the grades of order, major and minor.
In the presence of secular officials. The praenotanda says that the scraping was to be without the drawing of blood. I suspect that there were slips. Even the tonsure was to be scraped. Eventually all clerical clothes are stripped and he puts on lay clothes. However, if later the sentence was found to be unjust, he is to be given back everything publicly, at the altar.
The Degrader is to be vested in amice, alb, cincture, stole and red cope, simple miter, holding his crozier in the left hand. The rite is at the faldstool, versus populum, with the secular judge standing nearby and the rest of the clergy surrounding in their grades. They are to announce to the people in the vernacular what was going on. They then read a Latin decree with pretty stern language
“… propter ipsius confessionem, vel legitimas probationes, evidenter invenimus eum ipsum crimen commisisse; quod cum non solum grande, sed etiam damnabile, et damnorum fit, et adeo enorme, quod exinde non tantum divina maiestas offensa….”
The is a stripping of the men of symbols for each and every order, major and minor.
Here is the rite for a bishop or archbishop:
Si degrandandus sit Archiepiscopus, Pontifex degradator aufert ab eo pallium, sic dicendo:
Praerogativa Pontificalis dignitatis, quae in pallio designatur, te exuimus, quia male usus es ea.
If the man to be degraded (Degradandus) is an Archbishop, the Bishop Degrader removes the pallium from him, saying in this way:
We strip you of all pontifical prerogative, which is symbolized in the pallium, because you have used it badly.
Deinde, vel si degradandus sit Episcopus tantum, Pontifex degradator amovet ei mitram, dicendo:
Mitra Pontificalis dignitatis videlicet ornatu, quia eam male praesidendo foedasti, tuum caput denudamus.
Then, if the Degradandus is only a bishop, the Bishop Degrader takes the miter from him, saying:
The miter being the symbolic ornament of pontifical dignity, because you besmirched it badly in presiding, we denude your head.
Deinde unus ex Ministris tradit degradando librum Evangeliorum, quem Pontifex degradator aufert de manibus degradandi, dicens:
Redde Evangelium, quia praedicandi officio, quo spreta Dei gratia te indignum fescisti, te juste privamus.
Then one of the ministers gives to the Degradandus a book of the Gospels, which the Bishop Degrader snatches away from the hands of the Degradandus, saying:
Give back the Gospel, because in the office of preaching, having despised the grace of God you made yourself unworthy and we properly deprive you of it.
Deinde Pontifex degradator amovet annulum de digito degradandi, sic dicens:
Annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, tibi digne subtrahimus, quia ipsam sponsam Dei Ecclesiam temere violasti.
Then the Degrader Bishop takes away the ring from the finger of the Degradandus, saying thusly:
The ring, namely the sign of fidelity, we worthily withdraw from you, because you thoughtlessly violated your very Spouse, the Church of God.
Tum unus ex Ministris tradit degradando in manus baculum pastoralem, quem mox Pontifex degradator tollit de manibus degradandi, dicens:
Auferimus a te baculum pastoralem, ut inde correctionis officium, quod turbasti, non valeas exercere.
Then one of the ministers gives a crozier into the hands of the the Degradandus, which right away the Bishop Degrader takes from the hands of the Degradandus, saying:
We take from you the pastoral staff, that hence you cannot exercise the office of correction, which you have thrown into confusion.
Deinde extractis sibi per Ministros chirothecis, Pontifex degradator abradit degradando pollices et manus leviter cum cultello, aut vitro, dicens:
Sic spiritualis benedictionis, et delibutionis mysticae gratia, quantum in nobis est, te privamus, ut sanctificandi et benedicendi perdas officium, et effectum.
Then the gloves having been removed by ministers, the Bishop Degrader scrapes the thumbs and hands of the Degradandus lightly with a knife or shard of glass, saying:
Insofar as it is in us, thusly we deprive you of the grace of spiritual blessing (ability to bless), and mystical anointing (ability to anoint), so that you lose the office and effectum of sanctifying and blessing.
Post haec Pontifex cum eodem cultello et vitro abradit leviter caput degradandi, dicens:
Consecrationem, et benedictionem, atque unctionem tibi traditam radendo delemus, et te ab ordine Pontificali, quo inhabilis redditus, abdicamus.
After this the Bishop lightly scrapes the head of the Degradandus with the same knife or shard, saying:
By this scraping, we terminate the consecration and blessing and the anointing given to you, and we reject you from the pontifical order, for you are rendered unfit.
Tum degradando per ministros extrabuntur sandalia.
Then the shoes are taken off of the Degradandus by the ministers.
The Rite of Degradation
from The Order of Priesthood
August 16, 2018
A while back I posted about the old Rite of Degradation of a Bishop... The rites are provided for degrading an archbishop, bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon, all the minor orders backwards, even in rather modern editions of the traditional Pontificale Romanum.
They start to work on you by stripping you of all the symbols of your office, and even scrape your hands with a glass shard or knife to get the chrism off. They do the same for a priest, like a reverse ordination, taking away the chalice, vestment, scraping the fingers again. From deacons they take the dalmatic and book. You get the drift… all the way through the orders you would have received back to tonsure, which of course is when the clerical state began (today, it is with diaconate).
The tonsure part is truly harrowing.
When it is over, the Degrading Bishop is even instructed not even to touch the degraded man. He stands there, head shaved and in secular clothes, now called in the rite
“miserrimus ille derelictus… the most wretched outcast” to be turned over to civil authority for his crimes and sentencing. However, the bishop addresses the Judge, who is standing by, and begs the Judge not to kill or mutilate him, for the love of God.
Hence, the Church recognized even in this rite, the right of the State to apply capital punishment, but the Church also begged for mercy. Remember that our liturgical rites – and this is a liturgical rite – are also
loci theologici.
NB: These rites were reserved for the worst sort of guy who had committed serious crimes. In Latin: “If the cleric, once deposed by sentence according to the first form [a special formula given previously], seems to be incorrigible, he ought to be excommunicated. And if, after getting into the depth of wicked acts he will still show contempt, then, since the Church has no other option for what do to, the Bishop should degrade him and leave him to the secular authorities: which degradation is done in this way:…”.
In the book, the layout is quite dramatic: There is an inset subtitle:
Nunc degradationem subjicimus.
Here is the rite for degrading a priest. I’ll continue to use “Degradandus” as a parallel to “Ordinandus”.
Degradatio ab ordine Presbyteratus
Ministri tradunt in manus degradandi Calicem cum vino, et aqua, ac Patena, et Hostia, quem Pontifex degradator aufert de manibus degradandi, dicens:
Amovemus a te, quin potius amotam esse ostendimus, potestatem offerendi Deo sacrificium, Missamque celebrandi tam pro vivis, quam pro defunctis.
The ministers put a Chalice with wine, water, and a Paten and Host into the hands of the Degradandus [the priest to be degraded], which the Bishop Degrader wihdraws from the hands of the Degradandus, saying:
We take away from you, nay rather we show that it was already removed, the power of offering sacrifice to God, and of celebrating Mass either for the living or for the dead.
Deinde Pontifex degradator abradit leviter cum cultello vel vitro, pollices, et indices utriusque manus degradandi, dicens:
Potestatem sacrificandi, consecrandi, et benedicendi, quam in unctione manuum et pollicum recepisti, tibi tollimus hac rasura.
Then the Bishop Degrader lightly scrapes with a knife or shard of glass, the thumbs and index fingers of both the hands of the Degrandandus, saying:
By this scraping we remove from you the power of sacrificing, consecrating and blessing which you received in the anointing of your hands and thumbs.
Quo dicto, Pontifex degradator accipit casulam sive planetam per posteriorem partem caputii, et degradandum exuit, dicens:
Veste Sacerdotali charitatem signante te merito expoliamus, quia ipsam, et omnem innocentiam exuisti.
Once said, the Bishop Degrader takes a chasuble or pianeta by the head-opening and strips it off the Degradandus, saying:
We rightly despoil you of the priestly garment signifying charity, because you already cast it off along with all innocence.
Tum Pontifex degradator aufert a degrandando stolam, dicens:
Signum Domini per hanc stolam turpiter abjecisti, ideoque ipsam a te amovemus, quem inhabilem reddimus ad omne Sacerdotale officium exercendum.
Then the Bishop Degrader removes the stole from the Degradandus, saying:
You basely threw aside the sign of the Lord in this stole, and therefore we remove it from you, whom we render unfit to exercise every priestly office.
If you were looking for the maniple, the Degradandus loses that when he is unsubdiaconated.
As mentioned, above, the degrading rites continue for diaconate and all through the minor orders to tonsure itself and turning the wretch over to civil authority.
Keep in mind that this rite, in all its medieval and solemn horror is in the Pontifical Romanum of Leo XIII, which is pretty modern. I haven’t checked a newer 1962 Pontificale.
Before I was ordained, I used the Rite of Ordination as a point of meditation every day for quite some time before the date. I did that for diaconate and priesthood.
It seems to me that this Rite of Degradation should be taught in seminaries.
It could be also a serious day of reflection for priests, to show the old rite of ordination side by side with the rite of degradation for all the stages.
I can say this: The careful reading I made to translate it, made my blood drop several degrees, which is really something given that it already runs cold through my chilly heart and icy veins.
There is a bright note, however. There is a Rite of Degradation. The notes talk about reconciliation after penance of those who committed crimina minora… lesser crimes. There are also Rites of Restitution to Orders after suspension.
Degradation is for the worst of the worst. I would say it would have been applied to clerics who promoted homosexuality and/or indulged in it themselves, especially with minors whom they groomed. It would apply to bishops who covered up the abuse of minors and, probably who promoted the homosexual grip on the reins of power in seminaries and chanceries.
The Church applies censures medicinally and also vindictively. The later is never preferred.
BTW… Benedict XIV was one of the Popes who revised the Pontificale Romanum.
The Vatican’s pathetic statement
on the Pennsylvania report
by John Nolte
August 17, 2018
The Vatican released a statement expressing “shame and sorrow” Thursday about the hundreds of predator priests uncovered in Pennsylvania.
This statement comes after two days of silence and offers no quote from Pope Francis.
“There are two words that can express the feelings faced with these horrible crimes: shame and sorrow,” the statement reads. “The Holy See treats with great seriousness the work of the Investigating Grand Jury of Pennsylvania… The Holy See condemns unequivocally the sexual abuse of minors.”
“Victims should know that the Pope is on their side. Those who have suffered are his priority, and the Church wants to listen to them to root out this tragic horror that destroys the lives of the innocent.”
In the middle of these platitudes, comes this:
“By finding almost no cases after 2002, the Grand Jury’s conclusions are consistent with previous studies showing that Catholic Church reforms in the United States drastically reduced the incidence of clergy child abuse.”
This is what stood out to me… “Almost no cases after 2002.”
We are talking about the kind of sexual abuse against children that would make Harvey Weinstein blush and the Church is using the words “almost no” in its defense.
Let’s read that another way…
Ford Motor: “Almost no Ford Pintos exploded and killed their occupants after 2002.”
The FBI: “Almost no FBI agents were involved in manipulating presidential elections after 2002.”
The local mosque: “Almost none of our Imams sought to radicalize terrorists after 2002.”
CNN: “Almost none of our reporters spread fake news after 2002.”
The Catholic Church: “Almost no children were raped by our priests after 2002.”
And then there is the whole “fool me once” aspect of all this.
These are the kinds of statements we heard 15 years ago when the first child abuse scandal exploded on the Church, and I am afraid empty words are just not good enough anymore.
I joined the Church in 2008 in large part because I was assured this was behind us, assured an unforgivable blot on the 2,000-year-old institution had been eradicated, assured this would not and could not happen ever again. And yet here we are in 2018 with the discovery that the coverup has been ongoing and that the standard when it comes to predatory priests raping children is “almost no[ne].”
Just as unacceptable is this sentence in the Vatican’s statement,
“The Holy See also wants to underscore the need to comply with the civil law, including mandatory child abuse reporting requirements.”
You have child rapists in your own home and a gangster mentality protecting those child rapists…
- How can you not be proactive?
- How can you not be calling on every attorney general in all 50 states to launch investigations — with the FULL cooperation of the church — in all 50 states?
- How can you not be demanding these “secret archives” (incredibly, that was the Pennsylvania Church’s term for the secret files detailing the abuse and cover-ups) be released to the public in very diocese, not only here in America but throughout the world?
As a practicing Catholic, someone who loved the Church, who joined the Church as a 42-year-old adult, who was proud to call himself a Roman Catholic, I am horrified, not only by this report (which I intend to read in full), but by a powerful institution’s passive response to an unspeakable evil breeding within its own home.
And how are we to define this passiveness as something other than its own kind of evil?
From a Facebook page that I am too inept to identify but to which I inadvertently linked because of my anomalous forever-postless Facebook access, a comment from George Neumayr, author of THE POLITICAL POPE:
The sulfur fumes from
the reigning pope's 'open windows'
Out of the supposedly opened windows of the Church of Pope Francis has come not fresh air but sulfur.
For over five years I have been telling people that he was elected not in spite of the Gay Mafia but because of it. "Gay Mafia," by the way, is a generous phrase. It is actually more like a diabolical gay sex cult. Mobsters, at least the ones I have met in New York, would never do anything as unspeakably depraved as the acts described in the Grand Jury report.
You know who was chosen as the first director of the McCarrick-launched, Wuerl-sustained Papal Foundation (which raises funds to support papal projects that come under the heading of humanitarian or social)? Monsignor Thomas Benestad, a pathological prelate who comes from a banking family -exactly the kind of cufflinked charlatan Wuerl and McCarrick have long cultivated.
According to the Grand Jury report, Benestad - several years before he was tapped for the Papal Foundation - subjected a nine-year-old boy to an act of oral sex, then demanded that the child rinse his mouth out with "holy water."
I have a serious question: Why aren't parents marching on Wuerl's chancery (or Embassy Row penthouse, as it is closer than Hyattsville)? The enraging evil of it all would justify such protests until he quits.
"If I were the man I was five years ago, I'd take a FLAMETHROWER to this place," says Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. That line sticks in my mind as the surreal cruelty of Wuerlchurch comes more and more into focus.
One reader, John Ingram, posted this red-rage comment:
What kills me is these talking heads - thinking they are being "balanced" - who state that they are still waiting for Francis to do what he was allegedly elected to do: "reform the Curia."
Hogwash. He was elected to promulgate, directly or indirectly, the UN agenda in the Church: homosexuality, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, open borders, pagan environmentalism, "redistribution of wealth," etc. "Reform the Curia" was just the responsible-sounding veneer to get him elected.
And does anyone seriously think that Francis will clean out the filth, when it was the same filth who got him elected, the same filth with whom he surrounds himself, the same filth whom he repeatedly promotes? I pray that this sleazy demonic house become divided against itself, and that these Satanic perverts start ratting each other out...including the Judas at the top.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/08/2018 03:45]