Tuesday, September 18, 2018


(posted by Frenchie)

Since the beginning of the summer, and the shocking revelations of the shenanigans of former Cardinal and Archbishop emeritus of Washington DC Mc Carrick, we have been bombarded by an avalanche of information, all very disturbing, most of them contradictory, at best very confusing for the lambda citizens, and most faithful.

Adding to this, former Nuncio and high ranking Vatican official during the reign of Benedict the XVI, Archbishop Vigano revealed in an 11 pages statement a mother lode of accusations against high ranking members of the American Catholic Church and the Vatican. This release was well documented and precise and implicates Pope Francis directly in a coverup of Mc Carrick's misdeeds.
Read here

These revelations are capital, because they implicate cardinals, who elected Pope Francis, and could again elect his successor.
Which begs to ask, why we should trust cardinals who have abdicated their moral leadership, for the sake of political gains.
Here lies the challenge facing us, at this critical time in the life of our Church. It is an existential threat, not seen since the reformation movement of the 16th century.

Many of you have asked, that we refer to the different sources bringing us this news. Therefore, I shall attempt to give you a chronological approach to this still-developing story, with different references, as they were made available to us.

In order to do so, I will break the events down in different categories.

  1. Attacks on Vigano's revelations
  2. Defenders of Vigano
  3. USCCB and Vatican addressing the problem
  4. Newest developments

When Pope Francis was first confronted by journalists, regarding Vigano's allegations, which came on top of the roaring fire lit by the Mc Carrick scandal, Pope Francis refused to address the first one, and kicked out of bounds on the second one. This was followed a few days later by suggesting that silence and prayers were the best approach to handle these accusations.

See here.

1) Attacks on Vigano's revelations
While Pope Francis was appealing for silence and prayers, his secular allies, and the SJW of the USCCB did not wait long before they unleashed a torrent of attacks on the accusations and started to question the moral character of the Archbishop.

read here

One of the most virulent and vicious (totally in character with his previous history) attackers of Vigano was the Bishop of San Diego, another USCCB SJW: Robert W Mc Elroy, who is seen by many as a shoe-in to replace Cardinal Wuerl in Washington DC. read here

Soon more of the left wing prelates of the USCCB (most of them accused in the report) joined Mc Elroy in attacking Vigano. read here

These are just a few examples of the many articles written in the American Catholic and secular press, which mirrors the Vatican and European press in its general lines.

2) Defenders of Vigano
Despite these vicious attacks, it became very clear early on, that a large number of the faithful were growing more and more irate with what they perceived justly as a shooting of the messenger, at the expense of really trying to resolve the issue of coverup of sexual abuse.

Some of the leading conservative Catholics in the USA took the lead on this. Cardinal Burke, of course, never being one to keep his tongue in his pocket, reacted immediately  see here . He was soon joined by the Bishop of  Phoenix Thomas Olmsted, who replaced his predecessor Bishop O'Brien, who was sued in criminal court for covering up such scandals, and is particularly involved into the defense of the victims of sexual abuse. ( he is one of the major actors in bringing Walter Denton's letter about Apuron to the fore)  see here

Bishop Morlino of Wisconsin was also quite vocal in the defense of Archbishop Vigano, as well as in demanding clarification about the allegations against Pope Francis. see here

Overall it was evident that the Bishops of the USCCB were quite divided, many remaining silent.
Bishops demanding more clarity continue to come to the front. Bishop David Konderla of Oklahoma, Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield IL.... all came forward

What was more surprising was the position of the President of the USCCB Cardinal  Di Nardo who demanded an audience from Pope Francis to answer the questions raised by Archbishop Vigano.
read here 

3) USCCB and Vatican addressing the problem

Last week, following the example of the divisive Cardinal Cupich, Pope Francis chose to parallel, the whistleblowers with Satan. An odd timing, just before meeting with the representatives of the USCCB in the Vatican. see here.

While this was disconcerting to many, it is not new for this Pope, he did almost the same thing a few years back see here

This is a common tactic from Jorge Bergoglio since he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

The secular media caught up on this issue immediately and drew on the consequences. read here 

In the meantime the Vatican announced some measures to protect minors in the future. Here  
This in itself is nice and dandy, but it does not address the issue of malfeasance by bishops. 

Some openly question if the Pope want the truth. read here
The questions are valid when you see the half measures taken by the Vatican, and the padding of the Francis friendly prelates to the new synod.   read here

4)Newest developments

While Archbishop Vigano is in hiding and fearing for his life, the Pope and Cardinal Parolin have instructed  Domenico Giani, the head of the Vatican Gendarmes to do his out most to find Vigano and bring him back to the Vatican for trial. read here

This is highly unusual, and reminds us the of the darkest days of the inquisition.

Last Thursday, the Pope finally received the delegation from the USA, which had patiently waited since the revelations on Mc Carrick in June. So far we do not know much,except for the usual platitudes uttered after such a meeting.

A Synod has been announced, but it looks like it will be filled with the same people accused of cover up in the first place, and most likely they will not address the real issues at hand.

By the end of September the Pope has told us, that he should rule on the Case of Apuron, here on Guam. This should give us a narrow window, on what to expect from this Pope, more Chilean style coverup? or real meaningful measures to nip in the bud the evil done by some of our leaders?

Lets pray that the Holy spirit guides Pope Francis to do the right and the necessary things.
Anything short of this would create one of the most dangerous challenges we have seen in centuries.  


  1. it is time to elect women cardinals. It was done in the past..

    1. Lol, the problem is that with guys like Mc Carrick and Apuron, all over the Vatican, they have a tendency to see women as a direct threat...or at least direct competition

  2. Brothers and Sisters, while the Church is preoccupied with dealing with the sex abuse scandals, we must not forget that we still have the NCW problem (a cancer that has infected our Church). If not for the sex abuse scandals, the Church would be investigating the heretical NCW practices and teachings. But with the current sex abuse scandal, the problems with the NCW are of much lower priority. Let us not forget this scourge that has entered our beloved Church and continue in our efforts to protect our Church from the NCW.

    1. Heretical practices, heteropraxis, like bamboozling people, bullying people (ever so "nicely" like a family I know that has had a "real working over"), and heterodoxy namely actually teaching people this is a good way for them to let themselves be treated by their cherry-picked "superiors".

      It's genuinely hard work to keep up with doctrine and canon law, but the bad dynamics and bad boundaries should give the game away before everything as well as after everything.

      I started to doubt, when one of the archdioceses the operatives purported to come from, didn't seem to be maintaining its relationship with us.

      In my own case, there was a period of approx. 23 years (before I moved to another town) when some people I had hung around with before the "way" were in it with me, and most of them were nice enough to me, and we had a feeling of patiently waiting for the "way" to get on the rails, and some are still in it, for whatever reasons of their own. I suspect the latter would have been relatively at ease with me reducing my attendance (unlike those in my present town).

      None of what I am writing helps you in your extremely serious situation or the church generally in its extremely serious situation. Operatives of the "way" have obviously meddled in so many grave crises in the church as a whole, it is essential to ask penetrating questions about what they really are about.

      Bible studies rather than none, any relationships rather than none - these are semi-plausible alibis ("fruits") viewed out of context. (I still thank God for the Bible studies on those occasions we didn't have itinerants breathing down our necks.)

    2. Well anon at 9.57, your observation is absolutely correct. We are watching and will keep you posted.

  3. LOL You idiots are the ones that destroy that church

    1. Ah! the fruits!
      A neo accusing others of destroying the Church is like a termite accusing ants of eating wood.
      Guessing that anon at 9.57 statement was too close for comfort?

  4. The NCW is not Roman Catholic and neither is its liturgy. In normal times it would never have been allowed, but these are not normal times.

    It's only a matter of time before the truth of what the NCW is will bring it crashing down. Heresies can only conceal their half truths for a limited time, and then all is revealed.

  5. Individuals crash, one at a time, all the time (and not only me). The situation around the NCW differs in each locality and even from one member to the next. They made play of recruiting outsiders like me but mostly they tend to rely largely on those "pillars of the parish" who already have had conformity to what one has been last told (and in most countries the NCW came into a complete vacuum), intensity, and similar values, inculcated into them. I hung around them for several decades hoping to be "inserted into the church" or to somehow catch their mindset, while the non-neos around me at the time didn't seem to have any way of appealing to me, and my aim deep down, was eventually to drop out of the "way" and anything not unambiguously severed from it, quietly.

    With all sides trumpeting loudly that we have to be concerned about and stick up for what is supposed to be right in the church, I have ended up confused about what or who I am supposed to save and what or who I am supposed to rescue. I hope it isn't too hard for you excellent folks to kindly post this comment. The higher up among operatives of the "way" the more tendency there is for them to make meddlesome connections between our affairs and those of other regions of the country or other countries. My diocese for example doesn't appear to have a history of patterns of cover-up, we (like quite a lot of dioceses) were just a "target of opportunity".

    A continuing but kindly NCW member in my former town has given me the excellent advice to "get a life" which fortunately I have been cultivating for some years already, in several fields, and meantime I am keeping up my practice of the faith in my own chosen ways and at my own discretion, which surely was what the true church really taught from the beginning? There certainly was a tendency in the "way" as I have seen it, to mind other people's business a bit too much, and let them mind mine too much (the chapters of faults and such like).

    My Mum made my Dad leave the nuisance movement that was prevalent in his young day, the moment they married. I must have followed in "family footsteps" (but I am lacking the "live-in secretary").

    I must admit the ambrosia eating was a high point. And, joking apart, the whole church ought now to be rolling out those Bible studies. And I think the habitual superficial level in typical "thinking" among Protestants and Catholics alike, in some parts of my country and apparently in other countries, is conducive to passivity and panic.

  6. Frenchie, what is the meaning of your abbreviation SJW?

  7. Hello anon at 11.30 pm.
    SJW is not my abbreviation, but rather an internet age denomination.
    It means: Social Justice Warrior.
    It is meant to encompass all individual who promotes the revisionist ideas pushed as social justice perceived inequalities, such as (but not limited to) gender choice, gay marriage, women's rights, the no borders movement, black lives matter, unconscious biases, social intersection, identity politics, white privilege, anti racist and anti fascist movements...the list is exhaustive and usually mirrors closely the old marxist canards of the 50s and 60s that have been repackaged for the 21st century.
    It is very prevalent in the University twilight zone, and some in the Church have bought in lock and barrel into the charade. The leading prelate in the US for that type of revised doctrine being Cardinal Cupich of Chicago.