Showing posts with label False accusations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False accusations. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2019

Why Did Cardinal Donald Wuerl Lie?


Last summer, when Theodore McCarrick's dirty secret life was publicly revealed, Cardinal Donald Wuerl said that he had never been told that McCarrick was abusing seminarians or minors. 

From a July 29, 2018 article from WTOP:
Wuerl said he has never been approached with allegations of abuse by McCarrick and was unaware of the rumors that have been associated with his predecessor.
We know now that is not true. 

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Archbishop Vigano Defies The Holy Spirit


Most of the coverage concerning Archbishop Vigano's allegations against Pope Francis and his call for the Pope's resignation have centered around the veracity of the allegations themselves.  I have written several posts in which I seriously question Vigano's credibility.

But there is another issue that we, as Christians, need to consider that is actually far more serious with much graver consequences than the truth or lack thereof of Vigano's accusations.

Did Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano have the right and authority to publicly accuse Pope Francis of corruption and insist that he resign as Pope?

Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga said calling for the resignation of the Pope is a sin against the Holy Spirit. 

Is the Cardinal correct?

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Ed Pentin Changes His Story AGAIN and Then Proves Vigano's Allegations are False


A few days ago I did a post about the ever-changing reporting of The National Catholic Register's Ed Pentin regarding the Vigano allegations against Pope Francis.  I showed how Pentin keeps changing and revising his story as Vigano's allegations are slowly debunked.

When Pentin first broke the story about the Vigano testimony, he stated that the Register had confirmed that Pope Benedict knew about McCarrick and that the Pope Emeritus had taken "measures" against McCarrick, but he couldn't remember what those measures were.  Pentin gave us no details at that time as to how he got this information or when.

When Pope Benedict's personal secretary flatly stated that Pope Benedict had never at any time confirmed Vigano's allegations and that this was "Fake News!"  Pentin responded by saying that he had never reported that Benedict had said this.

Pentin tried to get around his initial reporting by stating for the first time that he got this information from an inside source.

Of course, that made no sense because the inside source would have had to talk to Pope Benedict, contradicting Pope Benedict's statement that he never talked to anyone about Vigano's allegations. Either the "inside source" was lying or Benedict was lying.

I know who I believe.

Since then, Vigano's allegation of strict sanctions imposed by Benedict against McCarrick has been basically debunked through overwhelming evidence that McCarrick never curtailed his public life in any way whatsoever.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Why I Continue To Support Father James Martin


There seem to be two great burning issues on the Catholic blogosphere these days, and they both involve showing mercy and compassion to sinners.  One issue is how to deal with divorced and remarried couples in the Church, and the other involves the Church's outreach towards the gay community.  The Catholic blogosphere has personified these issues in two people:  Pope Francis and Father James Martin.  Those who self identify as the only true Catholics in the world today have relentlessly attacked and vilified Pope Francis and Father Martin, accusing them of heresy and basically saying they are agents of the devil.

I have recently written a couple of posts regarding Pope Francis.  Today I am focusing on Father Martin.  An article from Catholic World Report by Janet Smith encapsulates this issue very well.  She starts her article by claiming that Father Martin's approach is "full of ambiguity."  She pointed to a talk at Villanova University in which she pulled exactly one small quote from an hour long conversation Father Martin had with Brandon Ambrosino, a gay Catholic man.

Monday, August 15, 2016

How Catholic Bloggers and Their Followers Put Themselves in Eternal Peril

Source
I, for the most part, no longer read "catholic" blogs and websites.  Far too many "catholic" blogs are filled with self-righteous hatred, anger, vitriol and condemnation of anyone who does not agree with them.  The main target of these blogs is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church - the Church they claim to love and support.  The biggest target of all is the earthly head of the Catholic Church - Pope Francis.  I have written many times on this blog about the horrific attacks and hate directed at Pope Francis by self-identifying "catholic" bloggers.  

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Neither A Conservative Nor A Liberal Be

I heard someone recently say that fear is one of the main motivating factors of conservatism.  After giving that some thought, I would have to agree.  Conservatives want things to always stay the same, they don't want to be challenged with anything new.  Any new belief or practice or world view can't be trusted because it takes us out of our comfort zone, and not only make us feel ill at ease and not in control, it is downright scary.  Conservatives must be in control of themselves and their environment at all times.


Conservatives also see everything in black and white. A thing or a person is either all good or all bad, completely right or completely wrong, fully moral or fully immoral. There is no such thing in a conservative's mind as someone or something that is a mixture of good and bad. It's all or nothing. And the conservative is always, without question, on the side of what is good and right and moral.

Credit
As a result of always being on the side of goodness and justice, the conservative's answers and viewpoints are always correct and to be trusted.   The conservative is actually obligated, for the sake of all that is right and good, to reject anyone who doesn't agree with him as either evil or ignorant or both.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Part 2: Fear Is A Tool Of The Devil

Credit:  beautyandsparkle.com
In Part 1 of this blog post [HERE], I discussed Pope Francis' recently homily he gave regarding the dangers of living in fear. I showed that the motivation of true followers of Christ is love. God does not deal in fear. Fear comes from the devil. As II Timothy 1:7 says, "For God has not given us a spirit of fearfulness, but one of power, love, and sound judgment."

I also said in this post that much of the Catholic Internet is motivated by fear: fear of the world, fear of changes in the church, fear of church authority, fear of one another. In my opinion the poster boy for all of this fear mongering is Michael Voris. His entire "apostolate" (which his bishop forbids him to label as "Catholic") is based upon instilling fear into his followers. A recent Vortex episode illustrates this in magnificent Voris form. This Vortex is entitled, "It's In the Eyes".



Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Father Zuhlsdorf, You Might Want to Rethink This One

 
Father Z, you recently did a post on your blog entitled, "'Pause' for a moment to see Michael Voris’ new project." The subject of this post was a new project in which Michael Voris will choose four young men between the ages of 18 and 25 to live in a house behind his studio for a year and basically learn at his feet. Anyone who reads my blog doesn't have to guess at how I feel about that.

However, you, Father Z, are rather excited about the idea, as you wrote:
Like Michael Voris. Hate Michael Voris. Whatever. Voris is a man with convictions and he acts on them. That’s admirable.

Like his projects. Hate his projects. He is doing something concrete with the time, talent and treasure at his disposal.
Would that more Catholics had his energy and determination!
Really, Father Z? Do you know exactly what "convictions" Michael Voris holds?

Michael Voris has made his living by telling Catholics that their No. 1 enemy is the Catholic hierarchy.  He instills paranoia in his listeners by telling them there is a snake under every rock in the Catholic Church.  He tells his listeners to completely reject those in authority and to separate from the establishment Church which he calls the "Church of Nice".

Here are a few excerpts from just one Vortex episode:
If you make your way around the Catholic world today, one thing is blinding. It’s inescapable – there is an apostate Church operating within the power structure of the establishment Church. It is a wicked evil thing. Parish after parish, diocese after diocese has abandoned the true faith.
* * *
Huge swaths, large giant portions of the Church are simply in apostasy – populated with practical heretics – it is in short – the triumph of the Protestant heresy on the ground, even as Protestantism itself crumbles into a million pieces and rejects teaching after teaching of Christ.
* * *
Yes, there is an apostate Church – which encompasses a huge portion of Catholics these days – whose God is not Our Blessed Lord, but man.
* * *
Time is running out .. repent and let go of the apostate Church – the one that teaches you nothing in preparation for standing before Almighty God. Not for nothing did St. Paul himself say – work out your salvation in Fear and Trembling. 
Get away from those in the Church who hide this truth from you. Run from them as you would from the fires of Hell.

Monday, March 30, 2015

A Lesson From Holy Week: The Danger of Mob Mentality


Credit:  www.quotesdump.com
One of the saddest and most infamous chapters in New York City history is that of the "Central Park Five", in which one Hispanic and four black teenagers were falsely charged and convicted of a horrific crime. The story involved the brutal rape and beating of a young white woman in Central Park in 1989. The police, in their haste to solve this crime, arrested five teenagers. None of these teenagers up to this time had any kind of police record.

The police coerced false confessions from these young men, who were then charged and convicted, and served anywhere from 7 to 13 years in prison for a crime in which none of them were involved. Their lives were destroyed in many ways, and although 25 years later the City awarded them $40 million for this miscarriage of justice, their lives can never be made fully right.

Credit:  trailers.apple.com
At the time of their trials, New Yorkers viewed these teenagers as the personification of evil, which was fueled by the press coverage they received.  From a June 2011 article concerning the press coverage of this case:
Re-reading the coverage, it’s easy to see that frenzy and fear quickly began to strain editorial reason. The boys, all between 14 and 17 years old, were described by reporters and columnists alike as “bloodthirsty,” “animals,” “savages” and “human mutations.”
On April 23, Post columnist Pete Hamill wrote that the boys in custody had come “from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference and ignorance…a land with no fathers…to smash, hurt, rob, stomp, rape. The enemies were rich. The enemies were white.”
The media has often been guilty of stirring up hatred against "bad guys".  One example is the very sad story of Richard Jewell, who was a police officer in Atlanta during the 1986 Olympics. There was a bombing at that time, and Jewell, who was 100% innocent, was "convicted" of this crime by the press even though he was never officially charged.  In later years he successfully sued several different press organizations for libel. However, the damage done to him had taken its toll and he died at the age of 44 in 2007.

Credit:  www.lbible.org
Of course, the worst injustice in the history of mankind is that of the conviction and execution of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's only real "crime" was loving mankind far more than our limited minds can ever comprehend. Mob mentality greatly contributed to the false conviction and crucifixion of this most innocent of all men.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Michael Voris Contradicts Michael Voris


I have looked again at the two Vortex videos concerning Voris's press incident at the St. Patrick's Day parade, and I feel compelled to comment on the discrepancies in these videos.  

As I reported on my prior post [HERE], a couple of days after the parade, Voris did a video in which he reported suddenly finding footage after his failed questioning of Cardinal Dolan which shows the Cardinal, as he was walking away, saying something to Joseph Zwilling, his communications director, who then speaks to another man, who in turn expelled Voris from the press area. Somehow Voris failled to see this video footage on the day of the parade.

Here is the Vortex episode containing the second report:


According to the newly discovered video footage, Voris tells us that it was 1 minute 29 seconds after he approached the Cardinal that he and his camera man were "shoved out":
1:29 seconds AFTER the interview a man who did not identify himself came up to us abruptly and said we had to leave and began shoving both me and Matt Pearson, who was running one of our cameras, out of the barricaded area.
This is how Voris reports it:
First – back to the immediate aftermath of our question. Cardinal Dolan gives a political nonsensical response and turns away to walk towards a gathering press scrum. Notice who helps lead him away – the man in the green baseball hat. That man is Joseph Zwilling – the communications director for the archdiocese of New York.

Zwilling knows me. He has seen various Vortex reports over the years. He and I have communicated with each other – although it is usually a very short communication. Point is – he knows me and Church Militant.

In one very brief interlude, the Cardinal says something to Zwilling and carries on glad handing.

A few moments later, as the Cardinal approaches the media scrum, Zwilling turns around to look back to see where we are, to keep track of us.

That alone is curious. There were dozens of reporters and cameras bearing down on the Cardinal and Zwilling’s attention is focused on us.
We swung around to the south side of the media horde and when we did that, we happened to capture footage of Zwilling giving instructions to the unnamed guy who a few seconds later came and physically shoved us out of the barricaded area. 
It is beyond dispute therefore, plain video evidence, that the guy who manhandled us, got his orders to do so directly from Cardinal Dolan’s top aide – the communications director.

They were both looking directly at us as you can clearly see. Zwilling is doing the talking and then his guy comes over and does his thing.
The footage shown by Voris does seem to support his narrative. However, it also seems to be spliced somewhat, and there is one scene that definitely does not belong with it showing the Cardinal surrounded by the press.

Notice that Voris reports here that after he attempted to question the Cardinal, "We swung around to the south side of the media horde." According to this report, no one touched Voris at all immediately after the interview. In fact, he had time to walk away from the area where he had originally approached Cardinal Dolan and thus was able to get a different view of Zwilling and the "unnamed guy who a few seconds later came and physically shoved us out of the barricaded area" which is shown on the video.

There is a problem, however, The narrative from the first report released on the day of the parade flatly contradicts this "newly discovered video". Here is that Vortex episode made shortly after the incident:


Saturday, May 24, 2014

Deception in Catholic Websites: Caveat Emptor

I have found it very disconcerting and disheartening to see the way in which many Catholic blogs and websites report on news concerning the Catholic Church. I expect secular sites to report on events regarding the Catholic Church in a way that will suit their own agenda. However, I would think that a truly Catholic blog or website would report and comment on anything Catholic with integrity. But to believe that, unfortunately, is to live in a fantasy world.

Following is one very concrete example of the skewing that can be found on "Catholic" websites. Pewsitters.com is a Catholic news website that tends to support an ultaconservative, traditionalist Catholic viewpoint. It is modeled after Drudge Report in that it links to various websites and blogs to report on news affecting Catholics. They seem to love to link to anything that shows Catholic hierarchy, including Pope Francis, in a bad light. The latest concerns Bishop Leonardo Steiner of Brazil. This was the link, the last headline at the bottom of this screen shot, "Brazilian Catholic Bishop backs legal gay unions":


Clicking on the link leads you to a Filipino website, GMA News [HERE]. Here we are given a few quotes from an unlinked to interview with the bishop. And it doesn't sound good:
There needs to be a dialog on the rights attached to shared life between people of the same sex who decide to live together. They need legal support from society," Leonardo Steiner, the secretary general of the National Confederation of Brazilian Bishops, said in an interview with O Globo newspaper published on its website Thursday.
The Church isn't the same through the ages. It seeks answers for the present time, using the Gospel as the illuminating force of its action," the bishop said.
The Church is always seeking to read the signs of the times, to see what must or must not change. The truths of faith don't change.
I did a little internet research and found Lisa Graas, who entitles her post "False reports that the Catholic Church in Brazil supports homosexual unions".  Lisa writes:
There is some reporting (AFP via Yahoo) that the Catholic Church in Brazil now supports same-sex unions. The reports are false. They are based on remarks made by Bishop Leonardo Steiner in an interview with O Globo. Bishop Steiner refers to supporting the basic human rights of homosexual persons, such as the right to employment and the right not to be physically assaulted. He did not say that the Church supports their unions. As Pope Francis has done, he refers everyone back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the basic teaching we must all hold to.
Lisa then quotes directly from the original interview:
GLOBE: Recently, Pope Francis said: “Who am I to judge a homosexual who seeks God?”. Today, the Catholic Church is open to accept his homosexual believers?

Bishop Leonardo Steiner: You could say that the Pope echoes the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the gay people: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Avoid it-will [ill will] towards them [and] every sign of unjust discrimination. ” We welcome with respect, compassion and sensitivity means walking and living with the homosexual person and help her understand, deepen and manage their condition. [That each is a] son and daughter of God is understood.

[...]

GLOBE: The Pope also wants to study homosexual unions to understand why some countries have chosen to legalization. This represents the beginning of a dialogue on marriage between persons of the same sex?

Bishop Leonardo Steiner: It is important to understand the unions of persons of the same sex. Is not a concern when it comes to any people. It is necessary to talk about the rights of ordinary life between persons of the same sex, who decided to live together. They need a legal support in society.
The reason this reads in such a clumsy way is because it is Google translated from the original interview, which is in Portuguese. You can find that interview link in Lisa's post and HERE.

Lisa summarizes the interview:
In other words, though the union itself cannot be supported, we must support the “rights of ordinary life” (basic rights that are natural to all human beings) that each of these two persons have a right to. They need a legal support in society in terms of their basic rights. This is not an approval of their union, but only of their individual rights even though they live together in an illegitimate union. For instance, I cannot assault a person just because I object to his being in a same-sex union. I cannot, however, show approval for that union.
Bishop Steiner is a member of the Order of Friars Minor.
As Lisa has pointed out, His Excellency is not in any way supporting same sex unions. He is pointing out that homosexuals should be protected from those who wish to do violence against them and other discriminatory practices, and reminding us that we need to treat homosexuals and all people with dignity and respect. With regard to changing Catholic doctrine, as Lisa points out, Bishop Steiner points to the the Catechism, which in no uncertain terms denounces homosexuality activity.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Notice that the Church separates the person from the acts. We can never accept homosexual acts, but we must always accept those with homosexual tendencies. As can be seen, Bishop Steiner was quoting exactly what we find in the Catholic Catechism. To accuse him of wanting to change church doctrine is truly disingenuous. I expect this from secular websites, but from a website that purports to be Catholic?
 
Is there any chance that Pewsitter will link to Lisa Graas? Yes, and that will be when pigs fly.

Please do not accept everything you read on the Internet on face value, no matter where you find it. Always do a little more checking. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes, there have been and will continue to be rogue elements among the hierarchy of the Church, but be very careful when you see this kind of reporting. The Church is founded on a solid Rock, and He will always make sure that we stay on that Foundation.


Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Time To Turn In My Traditionalist Card?


In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis entitled one section, "No To Spiritual Worldliness."  The Holy Father defined "spiritual worldliness" as follows (paragraph 93):
Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for: “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). It is a subtle way of seeking one’s “own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It takes on many forms, depending on the kinds of persons and groups into which it seeps. Since it is based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep into the Church, “IT WOULD BE INFINITELY MORE DISASTROUS THAN ANY OTHER WORLDLINESS WHICH IS SIMPLY MORAL.”.  [emphasis mine]
Pope Francis is telling us that spiritual worldliness is counterfeit spirituality. It looks like it is from God, but it is actually from the world, which means it is from Satan. This is pretty heavy stuff. This paragraph is actually summarized in one verse of the Bible: II Corinthians 11:14 - "Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."

So how can we tell the difference? When do we know whether spirituality is from God or from Satan? As Pope Francis tells us, spiritual worldliness can look like the real thing because it is "based on carefully cultivated appearances." So we know we can't go by appearances. Something may look divine but in actuality it could be diabolical.

In the next paragraph (paragraph #94), Pope Francis writes:
This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.
Prometheus stealing fire from the gods
What in the world is "self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism"? Taking it apart: self-absorbed, of course, is someone whose main interest is himself, who is basically looking inward and not outward towards God or his fellow man. "Promethean", according to the dictionary, means "creative; boldly original." In mythology, Prometheus defied the gods and stole fire from heaven and gave it to humans. Therefore, to be "promethean" in the sense that Pope Francis uses it, means to take for ourselves what belongs to God. "Pelagianism" was the heresy of denial of original sin and man's ability. apart from God, to choose good or evil. When the Holy Father talks about "neopelagianism", he means someone who believes they can choose good or evil without the guidance of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church and, by extension, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Father ends this sentence with "those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past." Instead of listening to the Church, they listen only to what they want to hear, only to those things that please them, and block everything else out.

Therefore, "self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism" is basically a Catholic who has made himself his own Magesterium, deciding for himself what is right or wrong in the church, and what is important and not important, completely disregarding the teachings of the Church's Magesterium. Pope Francis is warning us that this can actually take on the appearance of true spirituality because it is using the forms of spirituality without the substance, and therefore can be very deceptive.  This spiritual wordliness, as the Holy Father warns us, is self absorbed and not really concerned about Jesus Christ or others.

Another phrase used by the Pope which needs definition is "anthropocentric immanentism." Anthropocentric means "Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience." Again, as being used by the Pope, this means interpreting things according to our own reasoning and excluding the teachings of the Magesterium. Immanentism means "being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge." In other words, immanentism means that we don't need the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who works through the Catholic Church, to lead us into truth. I would interpret this to mean that those who are guilty of anthropocentric immanentism are those who believe that they have the capability, apart from the Magesterium of the Church, to decide what is of spiritual value and what should be rejected.

Pope Francis, in the next paragraph, not only speaks of those with an "ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy" but he also warns of another attitude which appears to be the exact opposite but is actually just the other side of the same coin.  It is those whose "spiritual worldliness lurks behind a fascination with social and political gain, or pride in their ability to manage practical affairs, or an obsession with programmes of self-help and self-realization."

From paragraph #95:
This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. In others, this spiritual worldliness lurks behind a fascination with social and political gain, or pride in their ability to manage practical affairs, or an obsession with programmes of self-help and self-realization. It can also translate into a concern to be seen, into a social life full of appearances, meetings, dinners and receptions. It can also lead to a business mentality, caught up with management, statistics, plans and evaluations whose principal beneficiary is not God’s people but the Church as an institution. The mark of Christ, incarnate, crucified and risen, is not present; closed and elite groups are formed, and no effort is made to go forth and seek out those who are distant or the immense multitudes who thirst for Christ. Evangelical fervour is replaced by the empty pleasure of complacency and self-indulgence.
Christianity is not about feeling good, it is not about self esteem, it is not about validating our own personal beliefs and desires. It is about being brutally honest with ourselves and allowing the Holy Spirit to purge us of our sinfulness, which is anything we put before God, including and most especially our pride.  It is about emptying ourselves of ourselves and making room for God to work in and through our lives.  And certainly it means listening to those in the hierarchy of God's Church who have been placed there by the Holy Spirit.  

Pope Francis is strongly cautioning us that too many in the church are putting their own form of spirituality - as good as it may look on the outside - ahead of true spirituality.  St. Paul stated it well in II Timothy 3:5 - "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

In the next two paragraphs of his apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis describes what results from those who pursue spiritual worldliness:
96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight. How often we dream up vast apostolic projects, meticulously planned, just like defeated generals! But this is to deny our history as a Church, which is glorious precisely because it is a history of sacrifice, of hopes and daily struggles, of lives spent in service and fidelity to work, tiring as it may be, for all work is “the sweat of our brow”. Instead, we waste time talking about “what needs to be done” – in Spanish we call this the sin of “habriaqueísmo” – like spiritual masters and pastoral experts who give instructions from on high. We indulge in endless fantasies and we lose contact with the real lives and difficulties of our people.
97. Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances. Their hearts are open only to the limited horizon of their own immanence and interests, and as a consequence they neither learn from their sins nor are they genuinely open to forgiveness. This is a tremendous corruption disguised as a good. We need to avoid it by making the Church constantly go out from herself, keeping her mission focused on Jesus Christ, and her commitment to the poor. God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings! This stifling worldliness can only be healed by breathing in the pure air of the Holy Spirit who frees us from self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the Gospel!
As a "recovering traditionalist" of sorts, I have been confronted and castigated by more than one fellow traditionalist whom I have confided my doubts to.  If I raise questions and express concerns about some of the leaders of the traditionalist movement, I am basically told that I don't care about the Church and that I support all those who are trying to destroy the Church.  I have learned the hard way that in the eyes of many traditionalists, it is anathema to give open and public support to the Pope and/or the bishops.  Many traditionalists feel it is not only their right but their duty to openly and harshly criticize the hierarchy, all the while claiming they are loyal sons of the Church who pray for the pope.

Instead of humbly reading Evangelii Gaudium and asking themselves if it could possibly apply to them and/or if there is something they could learn from the Holy Father, many have instead jumped all over this document and mocked it. Their reactions have sadly validated the statements of the Holy Father.

 A prime example of this is from Christopher Ferrara, a self-proclaimed traditionalist who completely rejects all things post-conciliar in the Church.  It is his opinion that the years since Vatican II have been, without equivocation, a complete disaster for the Church and we should turn back the clocks to the pre-conciliar time.  Ferrara wrote an article for the Remnant Newspaper, a far right traditionalist newspaper, in which he excoriates Evangelii Gaudium and its author, Pope Francis, referring to the document as "A Progressivist Dream on Paper". If you would like, you can read his entire article HERE, although I warn you that you may feel the need to take a shower afterwards. His description of the apostolic exhortation is as follows:
For all its talk of a more open-minded conception of the Church’s mission, EG is a narrow-minded document, rooted in parochial, seventies era Latin American prejudices against the Church universal. Francis writes from the blinkered perspective of a reformist mentality that refuses to concede the indispensability of what the post-Vatican II “reforms” insanely suppressed: the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition, her intrinsically militant opposition to error as a sign of contradiction in the world, her essentially monarchical constitution as a reflection of the kingship of her divine Founder, and her very existence as a fortress against the Adversary.
Instead of leaving his prejudices behind in Buenos Aires along with his Pinocchio Mass and his lighting of the Menorah—a symbol of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem—Francis would like to impose his outmoded parochial progressivism on the entire Church.
In reading the above statement from Chris Ferrara, the words of Pope Francis come to mind: "those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past."

Ferrara continues in this vein when he writes the following in regard to Pope Francis' warning, refusing to seriously consider the statements made by His Holiness and instead, mocking the Pope's words:
With the laughably wordy prejorative “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism,” Francis likewise accuses others of what he is guilty of. Prometheus is the Greek deity whose intellectual pride leads to his theft of fire, which he gives to man, and his eternal punishment by Zeus, while Pelagius is the heretic who taught that men are saved not by grace but by their own efforts. Nothing examples “promethean neopelagianism” better than Francis’s “dream” about “transforming everything,” or the hubristic, brutally imposed post-conciliar program of man-made “renewal” in a vainglorious attempt to please a hostile “modern world,” including a fabricated liturgy whose fruits are declining Mass attendance, widespread boredom, growing apostasy, sacrilege and banality. Traditionalists, on the other hand, trusting the Church rather than men, simply hold fast to precious traditions preserved for centuries by the Holy Ghost, which the promethean neopelagians of “renewal”—including Francis—insist on substituting with their clumsy and vulgar human contrivances.
Tellingly, Francis has nothing to say about the plague of neo-modernism that has spread throughout the Church since the Council, undermining Church teaching, making a mockery of the liturgy, and animating radical dissent in every nation. Rather, he continues to condemn as cold and faithless ideologues traditional Catholics who, in the midst of the ruins, have taken refuge in the few edifices still standing after fifty years of a “renewal” even he admits has never happened. This is unheard-of behavior for a Pope. And Francis behaves this way knowing full well that the various traditional societies and orders are practically the only places where the Church is experiencing robust health.
Ferrara displays the victim mentality of too many traditionalists.  He makes the following statement, "As we can see, it is Francis who “analyzes and classifies others,” deriding traditionalists—but only them—as neopelagian, self-absorbed, superior to others, intransigent, insidiously worldly, ostentatious, elitist, narcissistic and authoritarian."  As I have shown above, Pope Francis is discussing liberals as well as ultra conservatives, and says they are both guilty of spiritual worldliness. But Ferrara, displaying the self absorption warned of by Pope Francis, sees everything only in terms of himself and how it affects him.

Instead of carefully and humbly reading the words of the Holy Father, Ferrara engages in mockery and insults against the Holy Father and all who support him:
From our perspective, however, the most serious problem with EG lies in what we suspected was coming: a cocksure presentation of an outmoded ecclesial progressivism, long since shown to be a total failure, as a bold new prescription for the Church.
* * *
Like the liberal media, both modernists and their neo-Catholic enablers are over the moon about EG. Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter exults: “At times, the text is lyrical, like an aria. At other times, it has all the accessibility of a recitative. Either way, it is a song.” Say it loud and there’s music playing. Say it soft and it’s almost like praying. Comments like these are a sure indication that EG has little to do with concrete Catholic teaching and very much to do with a new papal personality cult.
Francis sings his progressive song with voluptuous abandon: “I dream of a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.” Haven’t we already been there and done that? It was called something like “the renewal of Vatican II.” Does the Pope seriously propose a massive do-over of this disaster?
* * *
The lyrics of the Song of Francis resonate with the platitudinous cant of the reformist avant-garde of forty years ago. Francis’s dream is precisely what—in EG—he criticizes in the thought of others: “empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real (EG 231)…”
* * * 
If Francis were to succeed in implementing his “dream,” it would be the final triumph of the ruinous novelty of “collegiality.” And if it happens, we can be certain that the neo-Catholic papalators will continue to perform their paradoxical role of undermining the papacy by “blindly and indiscriminately defend[ing] every decision of the Supreme Pontiff,” to quote Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent. They will defend even the Pope’s decision to attack his own authority. Catholics of this mentality, to quote Cano, “are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” (Quoted in Weigel, Witness to Hope, p. 15). 
In this entire article, Ferrara makes only one positive statement about Evangelii Guadium, and even that is made in a snarky, insulting manner:
In a document of 50,000 words spanning 223 typeset pages—straining the hortatory genre beyond all reasonable limits—one would naturally expect to find a good deal of orthodox Catholicism; and that is there. Francis is, after all, the Pope, even if he doesn’t like to call himself that and refuses to add the traditional pontifical “P.P.” to his signature on this or any other document.
Ferrara does not make one positive comment about the Pope in any way.  There is nothing uplifting, nothing beneficial, nothing to aid in spiritual growth to be found in this article by Chris Ferrara.  Once again, his bombastic writing literally demonstrates and proves the truth of the Pope's words:  "those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying."

Ferrara paints a picture of Pope Francis as one who hates everything that is traditional Catholic, most especially the Traditional Latin Mass.  And yet, it was reported in the same newspaper in which Ferrara is writing, The Remnant, that His Eminence Dario, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos celebrated a Pontifical High Mass in St Peter’s Basilica on October 26, 2013 during the pilgrimage of the people of Summorum Pontificum to Rome. You can read this article HERE.  In fact, the editor of The Remnant, Michael Matt, made a video with Dr. John Rao praising the pope for this Mass, which you can watch HERE.  I talked to a priest here in New York who was at that Mass, and he praised the Mass as well. Since this Mass was celebrated at the chair of St. Peter, it could not have been done without the express permission of Pope Francis, who seemed to have no problem with it.  So is it the Mass that the Pope takes exception to, or is it the attitude of far too many of the people, such as Chris Ferrara, who take part in these Masses?

Too many who are attached to the Traditional Mass seem to be at war with the rest of the Church, and Pope Francis is warning them that they are putting their souls in peril.  It is no coincidence that all sedevacantist groups have been formed by "traditional" Catholics.  These groups are the ones described by the Pope as those "who would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight".  Just recently, Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, confirmed that the Society of St. Pius X, supported by many Traditionalists, is in formal schism, meaning that their sacraments are invalid. It is very dangerous for a Catholic to set himself in opposition to the Vicar of Christ because you are putting yourself on a potential path to separation from the Church, and that, unfortunately, is true for many of those who call themselves traditional.  

Traditionalists need to stop attacking the Church.  They need to calm down.  Yes, we have problems in the church, just as there have always been problems.  The answer has never been to attack the hierarchy of the Church, and most especially never to attack the Pope.  He needs our prayers, not our constant criticisms and belittling as Chris Ferrara does in this article.

Ferrara ends his article as follows:
Our readers know how hard The Remnant has tried to put the best face on Francis’s seemingly endless torrent of crowd-pleasing utterances. The Editor has even counseled against “piling on” the Pope. But this circus has gone far enough. I hereby exercise my God-given right to protest the Pope’s abuse of his office, which reopens wounds that were slowly healing—thanks to Pope Benedict—reignites the very divisions Francis professes to deplore (cf. EG 98), and degrades the Church’s image, to the world’s delight, with the spectacle of a Pope publicly hectoring and humiliating his own sheep for nothing more than their fidelity to Tradition.
Chris Ferrara never, at any point in this article, tries to understand what the Pope is saying. He gives no clarification whatsoever to the Pope's words. The whole thrust of the article is to belittle and demean His Holiness and the document he wrote, basically telling his readers to ignore Pope Francis. Ferrara's words do nothing to unite the Church but on the contrary, his words cause great division among Catholics and engender animosity towards the Holy Father.

The section following "No To Spiritual Worldliness" in the pope's document is entitled, "No to warring among ourselves!" This is actually a continuation of the Pope's thoughts in which he discusses the end results of spiritual worldliness.

From Pope Francis:
98. How many wars take place within the people of God and in our different communities! In our neighbourhoods and in the workplace, how many wars are caused by envy and jealousy, even among Christians! Spiritual worldliness leads some Christians to war with other Christians who stand in the way of their quest for power, prestige, pleasure and economic security. Some are even no longer content to live as part of the greater Church community but stoke a spirit of exclusivity, creating an “inner circle”. Instead of belonging to the whole Church in all its rich variety, they belong to this or that group which thinks itself different or special.
Someone recently sent me an article entitled, "Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock."  You can read the entire article HERE. St. Athanasius was a great warrior against the Arian heresy in the fourth century. This terrible heresy had taken over a vast majority of the Church at that time. Traditionalists, according to this article, now see themselves as modern day Athanasius, fighting against the terrible heresies in the Church, including and maybe especially those coming from the Pope. These traditionalists see Magesterium of the Catholic Church as their enemy.  As this article says,
Another point the Arian crisis brings out is that Catholics true to the traditional faith may have to worship outside the official Churches, their parish churches and even to avoid them as schools of impiety. It proves that Catholics may even have to suffer false denunciation and excommunication for their beliefs as St. Athanasius suffered:
This is exactly what Pope Francis is warning against.  This is the work of the devil to separate brethren, leading some to believe that they are special and that they will be the ones to save the Church from herself.  They believe they may have to do this by actually physically separating from Mother Church, which they feel has fallen into apostasy.  Every statement uttered by the Pope or the bishops, every event, every document published, is filtered through this distorted belief, as can be seen in the article by Chris Ferrara.

Pope Francis reaches out to them with love and concern:
100. Those wounded by historical divisions find it difficult to accept our invitation to forgiveness and reconciliation, since they think that we are ignoring their pain or are asking them to give up their memory and ideals. But if they see the witness of authentically fraternal and reconciled communities, they will find that witness luminous and attractive. It always pains me greatly to discover how some Christian communities, and even consecrated persons, can tolerate different forms of enmity, division, calumny, defamation, vendetta, jealousy and the desire to impose certain ideas at all costs, even to persecutions which appear as veritable witch hunts. Whom are we going to evangelize if this is the way we act?
Could anyone point to Chris Ferrara's screed as a tool of evangelization?  Or could the article about St. Athanasius be used to evangelize?  Again, these examples point to the truth of Pope Francis' words, "It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity."

As long as people turn away from the Pope and listen to the poisonous venom coming from "traditionalists" like Chris Ferrara, we will continue to see more and more division in the Church, and I truly fear a great schism may happen with traditionalists at the center of it.  I think Pope Francis has this same fear.  In fact, it has actually already started to happen, as can be seen with the numerous groups already in schism.

Pope Francis exhorts us to turn away from our differences with one another and to allow the love of the Holy Spirit fill our hearts:
101. Let us ask the Lord to help us understand the law of love. How good it is to have this law! How much good it does us to love one another, in spite of everything. Yes, in spite of everything! Saint Paul’s exhortation is directed to each of us: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). And again: “Let us not grow weary in doing what is right” (Gal 6:9). We all have our likes and dislikes, and perhaps at this very moment we are angry with someone. At least let us say to the Lord: “Lord, I am angry with this person, with that person. I pray to you for him and for her”. To pray for a person with whom I am irritated is a beautiful step forward in love, and an act of evangelization. Let us do it today! Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the ideal of fraternal love!
Coffee cup sold by Father
John Zuhlsdorf, which he earnestly
needs to rethink
The Traditional Latin Mass is beautiful and can be a source of great grace and holiness. But too many in the Church have used it as a weapon to turn others against the Magesterium of the Church and to cut them off from the Church itself. This most certainly is not true of all who are devotees of the Latin Mass. However, just speaking from personal experience, I have met only a handful of self-proclaimed traditionalists who do not harbor some level of suspicion and wariness concerning the Magesterium of the Church. The spirituality of many who call themselves traditionalists, as Pope Francis warns us, "hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church." but, in the words of Pope Francis, as good as it may look, this spirituality is not seeking the Lord’s glory but human glory.

Pope Francis is not just "another guy" with an opinion. He is the Vicar of Christ, Christ's representative on earth. Notwithstanding the calumnious statements of many, Pope Francis is not an enemy of the Church who wishes to destroy us. He has been chosen and led by the Holy Spirit to guide the people of God. Our Lord tells us that the Pope has the authority to loose and to bind. That means we need to listen to him, not just looking to put down everything he says and does, but to listen with humble and sincere hearts, because not to listen to Christ's Vicar is to put our eternal lives in peril.

Where Peter is, there is the church... he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope.
Sister Lucia of Fatima

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Accuser of The Brethren

I have done several posts about Michael Voris and how I feel he has crossed the line. I find him to be more and more dangerous to the Catholic faithful. I know that is a very heavy accusation, but I feel it needs to be said. And Christine, please don't bother posting any comments because I won't publish them. You would defend Michael Voris no matter what, and you shed absolutely no light on anything.

Michael Voris recently did a Vortex episode entitled, "Pendulum Swinging Back."  You can watch the entire episode here.  Voris quoted from a Washington Post article which cites Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida.  The quote from Bishop Lynch used in the Post article and cited by Voris is:  “The pendulum has begun to shift back and how long it will continue to do so, well that is up to the Holy Spirit. For the moment, I find all this absolutely amazing..”

Voris mentions that Bishop Lynch wrote this comment on his blog.  However, Voris does not provide a link to the blog so that we can read the quote in context.  Unlike Voris, I will give you the link to the blog post, which is here.  The only links given by Voris are two very biased blog posts which denounce the Bishop.


Even though Bishop Lynch's blog post gives the full explanation of this quote, Voris still asks:
What an odd thing for His Excellency to say. Shift back to WHERE, exactly? Shift back FROM where, exactly? And whatever accounts for the “shifting”, can we really attribute it to the Holy Spirit as Bishop Lynch seems so enthused to do? 
I can only assume Voris does not give the link to Bishop Lynch's blog because if anyone actually read the words of His Excellency, he or she would know how underhanded Voris is in his treatment of the Bishop. Voris defends excoriating the Bishop with these words: "When a bishop talks like that, it’s fair game to try and understand exactly what he means. After all, in this age of murky comments and massive lack of clarity, it seems only fair the faithful should understand what is trying to be conveyed." In other words, let's not hear what the Bishop has to say. Let's just put words in his mouth.

Bishop Lynch wrote his blog post in response to the two interviews given by Pope Francis which caused a tremendous amount of controversy. Bishop Lynch made a statement that is directly in line with the statements of Pope Francis: "Quite frankly we are losing membership not because of the presence of the truth but because of the absence of mercy." He then quotes Pope Francis' statement describing the Church as a field hospital after battle.

Bishop Lynch laments in his post that the Church has largely abandoned the vision set forth in the documents from Vatican II, specifically “Lumen Gentium” and “Gaudium et Spes”.  His Excellency feels that we have only paid lip service to these documents.  Bishop Lynch summarizes this sentiment by saying that we now have "a Church that seems to have lost the notion that Jesus spent more of his time with sinners, the poor, blind, and the lame and with outcasts than with those who might have had the influence to help him spread his message the most."

Bishop Lynch goes on to use a phrase that has become a hot button for Traditionalists: "seamless garment." Many traditionalists react violently when they hear these words, which originated with the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, a frequent target of traditionalists, because they interpret the term "seamless garment" to mean that the Church places no more importance on such issues as abortion than on poverty. My argument is that one often leads to the other and, therefore, they are both of great importance. But that is for another time.

From Bishop Lynch:
I served a church when its episcopal leadership were pastors, before their ordination as bishops and after as well. They envisioned the Church as sharing common ground with many others, advocating a seamless garment in promoting the life issues, ardent advocates for social justice for all people, prophets for peace, worshipping in our common language and with a greater simplicity and passionate but not strident. Somewhere along the line, we lost this vision. Now, in this amazing interview, Pope Francis is once again raising the specter of hope that what has begun fifty years ago this month will continue over time. The pendulum has begun to shift back and how long it will continue to do so, well that is up to the Holy Spirit. For the moment, I find all this absolutely amazing. 
Bishop Lynch is telling us he feels the Church has lost the vision of Vatican II, going far astray from what was proposed at the Council, but he now feels that Pope Francis has given us a "specter of hope" that the true meaning and intention of Vatican II can be regained by the Church.  And that is what he finds "absolutely amazing."

This most likely will not satisfy many traditionalists because they for the most part reject Vatican II. However, Cardinal Kurt Koch wrote an interesting essay in which he talked about those who view Vatican II as a "hermeneutic of rupture."  From catholicculture.org:
In an essay published in L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Kurt Koch, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity wrote that “two extreme tendencies” – the progressive and the traditionalist – see the Second Vatican Council as a rupture rather than as “part of the living tradition” of the Church.
Far left liberals feel the Catholic Church was essentially a sham before Vatican II, that it was a time when the Church hierarchy oppressed the laity, especially women who were basically just a step above slaves. Extreme right traditionalists feel that the Church has more or less ceased to exist after Vatican II, and that the Church is now run by a sham hierarchy that wants to blend in with all other world religions by throwing away everything that is authentically Catholic. (Michael Voris and this Vortex episode are prime examples of this.) Both views are just two sides of the same coin, and as Cardinal Koch wrote, these are extremist views which must be rejected because, as His Eminence explained, they see Vatican II "as a rupture rather than as part of the living tradition of the Church." Below is a Google translation of the essay by Cardinal Koch, which can be found here:
It is therefore no coincidence that these two extreme tendencies, already on a linguistic level, agree on making a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church, as if the Church was no longer the same before and after the council. The difference between the two trends is that while the progressive emphatically supports a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture, the traditionalist favors hermeneutic of simple, ahistorical continuity, but in reference to the Second Vatican Council, is revealed also a hermeneutic of rupture. From both perspectives, the Vatican is no longer considered as part of the living tradition of the Church, existed until then, but as its end.
Therefore, according to Cardinal Koch, Pope Francis and the Magesterium of the Church, if you see Vatican II as a rupture, you are rejecting the Church because, as Cardinal Koch explains, it is "part of the living tradition of the Church."

Back to Voris, who now begins a litany of accusations against Bishop Robert Lynch.  In what I feel is a truly despicable act, Voris spends the entire Vortex episode airing what he considers to be the dirty laundry of Bishop Lynch, all unproven, unverified and false, as I will show.

The first accusation against the Bishop:
Bishop Lynch is the same bishop who the pro-life movement accused of abandoning Terri Schiavo during the long drawn out court battle back in 2005 as her husband denied her family’s wishes and was eventually able to have her legally starved to death. This after the husband, Michael, was already living with another woman with whom he had two children.
Voris couches his words by saying "the pro life movement accused" Bishop Lynch.  Voris knows better than to make a direct accusation because he knows it isn't true.  From an August 24, 2003 article (almost 2 years before Terri Schiavo was killed) in the National Catholic Register entitled, "Terri Schiavo’s Bishop Warns Against Removing Feeding Tube":
A day after the bishop of St. Petersburg, stated that removal of a feeding tube from a 39-year-old Florida woman who suffered severe brain damage in 1990 cannot be justified at this time by Church teaching, the woman, Terri Schiavo, was moved from a nursing home to a hospital under emergency medical circumstances.
To be fair, the article goes on to state:
Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, the diocese in which Terri Schiavo has been residing, in a long-awaited statement Aug. 12 called the situation “tragic,” noting that medical experts disagree about Schiavo's condition and chance of improvement.
Stating that Catholic teaching advises “presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burden involved to the patient,” the bishop “strongly recommend[ed]” that both Schiavo's husband and her parents seek “a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition.”
Her parents should be allowed to pursue medical therapy that may improve her condition, he said. The statement leaves open the possibility of licitly removing the tube after further study.
Bishop Lynch added that it is “a much harder case” than many imagine and warned against “excessive rhetoric” such as using the word “murder” or calling the trial judges “murderers.”
Although Bishop Lynch did not come out as strongly against the forced removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube as many of us would have liked, this is hardly equal to "abandoning" Terri Schiavo.  As the article goes on to further state:
In his statement Bishop Lynch said Catholic teaching does allow a feeding tube to be “withheld or withdrawn where that treatment itself is causing harm to the patient or is useless because the patient's death is imminent, as long as the patient is made comfortable.”
In Schiavo's case, he said, “it is not clear whether [the feeding tube] is delaying her dying process to no avail, is unreasonably burdensome for her and contrary to what she would wish if she could tell us.” If the feeding is not helping her “or it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers,” it “could be seen as permissible” to remove the tube, he wrote.
Yet, he added, if the tube is removed “simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.”
I personally think Bishop Lynch should have come out much stronger in his statement that it is wrong to withdraw food and water from anyone, as Pope John Paul II did in 2005 shortly before he died. But Michael Voris is going beyond the pale when he makes this statement:
That Bishop Lynch, in whose diocese the drama played out, would have so clearly sided with the husband was beyond shocking to not just pro-lifers in general, but also to Terri’s parents and brother Bobby Schindler as well.
In my opinion, Terri Schiavo was murdered by the state. It was unconscionable that her feeding tube was removed and that she was slowly starved to death. Although it could be argued that Bishop Lynch was trying to play the impartial middle ground, he most definitely did not "clearly side with the husband" as Voris states.

Voris then accuses the bishop of the following:
Following the starvation death of Terri and supporting it [a totally false and slanderous statement on the part of Voris], Bishop Lynch then sanctioned the marriage of Michael Schiavo and his former concubine.
This statement makes it seem that Bishop Lynch was right there cheering on Michael Schiavo, both in the killing of Terri Schiavo and in Michael Schiavo's marriage after the death of his wife. Michael Schiavo had every right to marry after the death of Terry Schiavo. It could most definitely be morally argued that he caused the death of his wife, but Michael Schiavo went through the courts and did everything legally. The entire situation makes my skin crawl, but since Terri Schiavo had died, Michael Schiavo was free to remarry and provide a home for his two children. There was nothing the bishop could do to stop Michael Schiavo from marrying.

The next accusation from Voris:
But even prior to this infamous set of circumstances, Bishop Lynch was making a name for himself among faithful and concerned Catholics in his local diocese. He issued a declaration against perpetual exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in his parishes, allowing only worship of the Eucharist reserved in tabernacles [another untrue statement].

For parishes that wish to inaugurate adoration of the Blessed Sacrament the Bishop said they should quote - “reflect on… their commitment of time and money to social services.” Among reflections he offered to the faithful - they should ask, “Does the eucharistic bread look like bread?”
This is way off the charts.  You can read the Bishop's entire document on this subject here.  Review of the bishops's document shows just how false Voris's statements are.

Bishop Lynch, contrary to the innuendo expressed by Voris, explains that prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is very important:
Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament has long been encouraged by the Church. The Church teaches that prayer is essential for Christian spirituality and calls us to set aside time for private prayer. Therefore, the Church asserts that prayer in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is a privileged time, a time when we speak to and respond to the prompting of the eucharistic Lord in our hearts. Just as our Lord needed time to be alone in prayer, so too, do we. Pope Paul VI emphasized this by saying, “visiting the eucharistic Lord is a proof of gratitude, a pledge of love, a service of adoration owed to the Lord present there” (Mysterium Fidei, no. 66). 
Bishop Lynch explains what Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is:
Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, in contrast to adoration, refers to the public display of the Blessed Sacrament in either a monstrance or a ciborium. It is part of a liturgical rite, therefore, the directives for exposition are explicit and outlined in Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (HCWEOM, nos. 82-100), in liturgical directives, and in instructions from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The clear intention of these documents is that exposition has a beginning and an end. By its very nature, it is not perpetual. According to HCWEOM, no.95, exposition should involve music, reading(s) from sacred Scripture, preaching, intercessory prayer, time for private prayer/adoration, and conclude with a special blessing of the faithful.
The Bishop goes on to explain that there can be annual solemn exposition which can last for for an extended period (one or more days), or there can be brief periods of exposition, contrary to Voris's accusation that the Bishop did not allow this:
The Church gives allowance for briefer periods of exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, perhaps monthly or weekly for a fixed period of time. Because the Eucharist is being exposed in a monstrance or ciborium, it is a ritual of the Church and the directives of HCWEOM (nos. 93-100) and the liturgical norms established by the Church are to be strictly followed.
Bishop's Lynch concern was about perpetual adoration, which can only be done under special circumstances, and he felt that these circumstances did not exist in his diocese. I have personally experienced this in that there have been more times than I can count when I have gone into an adoration chapel or a church where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, and no one else is there. It is wrong to expose the Blessed Sacrament and then just walk away without regard to proper reverence. Bishop Lynch rightfully did not want this happening in his diocese.
The issue of “perpetual” exposition (i.e., 365 days, 24 hours a day) of the Eucharist is being advocated by some within the Church. Because perpetual exposition is a devotional practice of a religious community or a pious association that observes this according to their constitution, it should normally take place in a chapel of that religious community or association (Congregation for Divine Worship, July 1995). Neither of these exist in the Diocese of St. Petersburg. The general understanding of the Church is that this type of exposition is not to be the normal and continuous pattern in the parish. Parishes seeking dispensation from this rule must petition the Bishop and show good reason for its need. They also will need to show that they have attended to the primary form of Eucharistic activity—Sunday Eucharist.
Following is the full quote from Bishop Lynch from which Voris masterfully extracted a few comments, making it seem that Bishop Lynch was more concerned about money and the physical appearance of the Eucharist than adoration.  Bishop Lynch's real concern is that the faithful are reverent and respectful in the celebration of Mass and also in their stewardship as Christians towards the community:
Although exposition of the Blessed Sacrament may help foster devotion to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, a parish’s first priority is well-planned and well-celebrated Masses. Parishes seeking to inaugurate or restore eucharistic devotions should reflect on their practices during the communion rite and their commitment of time and money (stewardship) to social services. Are they as respectful and reverent toward Christ’s presence in the gathered Body, the Church, as they are to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament? Is the fuller expression of the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine being offered to the faithful at all Masses? Does the eucharistic bread look like bread? Does the parish carefully prepare enough communion for the gathered assembly instead of routinely going to the tabernacle? Does the eucharistic procession take its own time or is the focus to try to get through the communion rite as efficiently and expediently as possible? Do the eucharistic ministers reflect the parish, i.e., inclusive of age, ethnicity, and gender? Have the eucharistic ministers been properly trained and is their formation ongoing? Is the Eucharist being brought to members of the parish who cannot gather on Sunday because of sickness or advanced age? When these issues have been addressed, then the deeper understanding of communion that Christ intended in the Eucharist will be achieved.
It should be noted that there is exposition and adoration throughout the diocese of St. Petersburg.  One glowing example of this is at St. Mark the Evangelist Church in Tampa: Monday - Thursday: 9:00 AM - 7:00 PM (except for Holidays); Friday: 9:00 AM -5:00 PM (1st Fridays of the month).  You can go to their website here where they ask people to sign up for a time slot.  This is only one of many churches in the diocese that has exposition.  Michael Voris is clearly being disingenuous in his accusation.

But Voris is not done:
But he also had to fend off accusations and pay off a former diocesan employee, a man noted by the local press for his “muscular frame” when the man came forward and accused bishop lynch of sexually harassing him by making him stay in the same hotel rooms when they were traveling and at one point grabbing his inner thigh on a car ride. Bishop Lynch, in eventually paying off William Urbanski $100,000, said it was all a misunderstanding .. that they had been friends for a while and nothing was meant by it.
Voris tells us nothing of the circumstances and who William Urbanski is.  You can go here to an article by the St. Petersburg Times which gives background information on this terrible accusation.  According to the article, when people who knew Urbanski heard about his allegations against the bishop, it was nothing new to them:
Urbanski, who had spoken so fondly of his job as top spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg, was on TV accusing his former boss and close friend, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, of sexual harassment.
Among Urbanski's friends and coworkers, the unfolding drama had a ring of familiarity. There he was again, embroiled in the sort of controversies that had muddled his life before: an on-the-job harassment issue; an unhappy departure that involved a financial settlement; issues of machismo and virility.
The article goes on to explain that Urbanski, who came from a wealthy, influential family, had threatened a previous employer, the Tampa Coliseum, with lawsuits and allegations when his job was on the line:
By 1992, funds were tight at Tampa Coliseum. Executives made it known they would have to cut a few positions. When Urbanski asked [Marc] Ganis [Urbanski's boss] if his job was secure, Ganis gave him no guarantee.
Shortly afterward, Ganis said, Urbanski came to his office with a demand for money. As Ganis remembers it, Urbanski told him he had learned that executives had spent the down payments people had paid for arena seats. Ganis acknowledges spending some of the money, but only on appropriate expenses.
According to Ganis, Urbanski threatened to take his influential father to the Tampa Sports Authority and urge them to "kill the deal" unless Ganis agreed to pay him six months' severance, about $10,000. In an interview in the Tampa Tribune, Urbanski flatly denied this.
Ganis had no intention of paying Urbanski the "blood money," he said, and considered reporting Urbanski to the state attorney for extortion. But Ganis said he dropped the idea after another partner in the project spoke with Urbanski's father.
Urbanski then got married and began his own company. According to the article:
Urbanski let his partners know he came from money. He would drop names of people he knew and spoke of dining at the yacht club. "He used to mention the bishop all the time," Rita Von Pusch said.
He pouted when he didn't get his way, she said. "He's a spoiled little rich kid."
Urbanski's partners eventually bailed out of the company and lost about $80,000.

The article states that Urbanski went on to become spokesman for the Diocese of St. Petersburg:
When Urbanski became spokesman for the Diocese of St. Petersburg 4-1/2 years ago, it was the best job he had ever had. He earned $60,000 a year. The job was a highly visible one that included speaking on the bishop's behalf, traveling with him, creating a new format for the diocesan radio station, Spirit FM, and supervising two other employees.
He beat out Mary Jo Murphy for the position, a woman 20 years his senior who had worked in the diocese's communications department since 1990.
Murphy said she quickly got over the disappointment of not getting the job, but her relationship with Urbanski was tense for a year or so for other reasons.
Urbanski, she said, often told sexually explicit jokes to her.
"I'm just not used to that," said Murphy, 62. "I'm a lady, and I'm not used to it."
Murphy perused the diocese's harassment policy and found that sexual jokes apply. She confronted Urbanski, echoing the words of the Apostle Paul, who cautioned Christians to keep their minds on things holy.
"Go to the Bible and see what Paul says about things you should think on," Murphy told him.
Urbanski told her he was sorry. The jokes stopped, and their relationship improved. From then on, "he was pleasant enough to work with," she said. "He always let me do what I needed to do."
The article describes the allegations of William Urbanski against Bishop Lynch and the fact that the Diocese paid $100,000 to Urbanski in settlement without going to court.

From a March 23, 2002 article by the St. Petersburg Times reporting on a press conference with Bishop Lynch:
Lynch appeared at a news conference Friday to calmly deny that he had ever made improper advances toward former diocesan spokesman Bill Urbanski. Lynch and his lawyer also insisted that the payment to Urbanski represented severance as Urbanski left his job -- not a settlement or admission of the harassment claims.
Seated at a small table in the diocese's Pastoral Center, Lynch read from a prepared statement in a strong, clear voice.
"I have always denied the substance of the harassment allegation and I continue to do so this afternoon, strenuously," Lynch told a room filled with cameras, 18 priests and reporters.
The denial was followed by an outpouring of support from priests, from throughout the five-county diocese, who insist they could not envision the 60-year-old Lynch making improper advances. It comes as the Catholic Church nationally is swept by scandals involving priests molesting young men and boys.
Lynch's accuser, the 42-year-old Urbanski, was a friend and colleague until he complained about the bishop's conduct last August. It was the first time, Lynch said, that Urbanski had mentioned feeling uncomfortable in his presence.
Diocesan attorney Joe DiVito convened a panel to investigate the claims, and he and the other members interviewed Urbanski and witnesses, whose names Urbanski provided, between August and November.
DiVito said they also notified Archbishop John Favalora of Miami, who oversees the St. Petersburg diocese, home to 371,714 practicing Catholics in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando and Citrus counties.
"We spoke with all of those individuals (named by Urbanski), none of whom substantiated the allegations," DiVito said. "We concluded . . . that there was nothing to substantiate those allegations. We spoke with his attorney and attempted to restructure his position so that he would not be reporting directly under Bishop Lynch. He refused that restructuring and said that he would be leaving. We then entered into a negotiation for a severance with his attorney."
Urbanski, who agreed not to sue Lynch or the diocese as a condition of accepting the money, said Friday that he stands by his complaint and his belief that Lynch harassed him.
I work in law offices and know that companies will often pay out settlements for what they call "nuisance" cases because it is easier and less expensive than trying it through the courts. This is obviously what happened in the case with Bishop Lynch. Urbanski had a history of trying to extort money from employers. He had a history of inappropriate conduct.  If he had been truly wronged, would he really have accepted this money with the condition to not sue the Diocese?  But Michael Voris doesn't tell us any of this. He just throws out the allegations with no background whatsoever, putting the bishop in the worst possible light, and a false light at that.

But Voris is still not done:
Which if it [the Urbanski incident] was a singular type incident .. would be one thing. But in the midst of all this, other news came out that another very handsome muscular man was also a close associate of the bishop – traveling with him to such places as Key West and San Francisco. This man, David Herman, was the recipient of close to 30-million dollars in construction projects awarded specifically by the diocese and the bishop especially without any other bids being sought.

Voris is making a vicious accusation with no real basis in anything.  Neither David Herman nor anyone else have ever intimated that there is or was an inappropriate relationship between them.  This is truly libelous, in my opinion, for Voris to make such statements with no proof whatsoever.

So what is Voris's point in making these terrible unfounded and false accusations against Bishop Lynch:
So when we look at all these in total, the banning of perpetual exposition in parishes, the near omni-presence of handsome muscular men (each were tri-athletes) with whom he traveled frequently, the Terri Schiavo debacle, the blessing of the marriage of Terri’s husband and a spate of comments and blog postings about the need for social justice and so forth – a buzz word for many modernist activities in the Church .. now we can step back and ask the question – What does Bishop Lynch mean when he says he sees the pendulum swinging back. Back to what? These – what the media terms – bimbo eruptions – and the Terri Schiavo case all happened back in the late 90s and early 2000’s – before Pope Benedict was elected.

Is this the era to which Bishop Lynch sees the pendulum swinging back, God forbid?
If Michael Voris were ever to bring a case like this to court, it would be immediately thrown out as circumstantial and a frivolous prosecution with no basis for an action. So why does Voris engage in this kind of slander against the ones anointed to guide and protect the people of God? At the beginning of this post, I made a very harsh statement that Michael Voris is dangerous to the Catholic faithful. Programs like this Vortex episode, which seems to have no other point than to destroy a Catholic bishop, are a prime example of just how dangerous Michael Voris truly is and why he is shunned by many in the Catholic establishment.

Take a look at this very moving video made on the Eucharist made in 2009, and then tell me that Bishop Lynch deserves the disrespectful and deceitful treatment he received from Michael Voris.


Related Posts  0