By Tim Rohr
For anyone still sweating over having to go to Mass this past Sunday Dec. 24 and Christmas Dec. 25 (two days in a row!) you can breath easy now that the Archdiocese of Agana has issued a statement "abrogating" Jan. 1 as a Holy Day of Obligation. CONTINUED
By Tim Rohr
And since this pertains primarily to Catholic stuff, this post shall be continued on my Catholic blog. See you there if you want to follow.
But that’s the whole point. If a Christian leader said, “We are now blessing couples living in adultery,” there would be outrage.
By Tim Rohr
A few weeks ago, Pope Francis gave Bishop Joseph Strickland a "Texas boot" out of Tyler Texas. No reason was given, and maybe since Tyler, Texas, isn't a major diocese, maybe the pope figured he didn't need one.
However, Archbishop Charles Chaput is another matter. Chaput is the former archbishop of both Denver and Philadelphia and is currently archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia, and he has just taken clear aim at the pope:
"Whether the hearer is delighted or angered by the latest Vatican text, the practical fallout is a wave of confusion in the bloodstream of the Church at Christmas—a season meant for joy, but now tangled up with frustration, doubt, and conflict."
By Tim Rohr
In his Apostolic Administrator’s statement of Dec. 22, 2023 regarding Fiducia Supplicans ("FS"), Apostolic Administrator for Agana, Fr. Romeo Convocar, urges us to “carefully read the actual document, instead of relying on presentations or interpretations by media and other sources.”
I did.
And it doesn’t say what Fr. Convocar tells us it says.
Fr. Convocar says that FS “refers to…the blessing of persons and not unions of persons or couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.”
Fr. Convocar’s “interpretation” absolutely contradicts the heading of Section III which is clearly titled: “Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex.”
If Pope Francis wanted to make it clear that FS was only about “the blessing of persons and not unions,” as Fr. Convocar wants us to believe, then the title could have easily and clearly been: “Blessing of Persons in Irregular Situations and Persons in Same-Sex Unions.”
But it isn't.
In fact, FS uses the word “individual” only once, and not even in the singular: “the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace…” The blessing is clearly directed towards a “couple,” thus the Vatican’s clear use of the plural.
FS uses the word "person" seven times, however, in the most critical part of the document, when the pope might have stuck with the singular to avoid confusion, he opts for the plural ("persons") and emphasizes that the blessing is for a couple and not a person by further using the word "themselves" instead of him or herself:
"...the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy..." (Par. 30)
When will these people stop lying to us?
At least Fr. James Martin is honest about what Pope Francis really wants:
 |
| Fr. James Martin, SJ, blessing a same-sex couple the day after FS was promulgated |
Forwarded to JungleWatch from David Sablan, President of Concerned Catholics of Guam, with a request to publish:
The crucial part of this document is: It expects the Blessed to be on the same understanding of the Blessing as the priest or deacon.
Here's a scenario of what I mean: Before the priest bestows the Blessing on a same-sex couple, he explains what his Blessing is, why he is doing it, and what he expects the couple to take away from that Blessing, an enlightenment to live a celibate layman's life devoted to God. But the devil tells the couple take the Blessing and flaunt it as an acceptance of the Church of your sinful lifestyle. So the same-sex couple interprets the Blessing however way they want. Scandals and confusion occurs in the family, the community, and before you know it, the Blessing's intent and purpose is distorted. Devil wins. Pope Francis needs to raise a high fence on the purpose of Blessings, and not just draw a border line on how to give a Blessing to same-sex couples. Oy Vey.🕊️🙏🏻
Further. . .One must first repent (the Sacrament of Penance in confession) and give up living with a same-sex partner, then the Blessing can be bestowed to strengthen one's resolve. And continue to go to confession and Mass, and receive the Holy Eucharist to avail oneself of the great gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Mr. Sablan also provided the link to this video:
By Tim Rohr
I smiled when I first read this because I recall similar questions in my Catholic high school religion classes in the early 1970's. (I am probably near the same age as the author).
I recall that our audacity to ask such questions was encouraged by both the "fresh air" of a recently concluded Vatican II and religion teachers (usually still nuns or priests) who were "hip" and "with it," or who wanted to be.
"Enjoy" Mr. Lawler's column:
At my all-boys Catholic high school, one day’s religion class during senior year devolved into a discussion of an issue that was apparently on the mind of at least one student: “How many buttons can I undo on my girlfriend’s blouse before it’s a mortal sin?”
Readers can make their own judgments about the prudence of the adult teacher who let that conversation take place in a classroom full of teenagers. For now I want to focus on the attitude behind the young man’s question—an attitude which is unfortunately widespread. What is the minimum that I have to do in order to avoid damnation? How much can I get away with? How far can I indulge myself without risking my immortal soul? CONTINUED
By Tim Rohr
By Tim Rohr
Text of a talk given to the Latin Mass Society in London on November 24th, 2023. Mr. Sire’s audio of this talk can be heard here.
MY NOTE: The following is a copy of the text from the original article. However, I have segmented it into paragraphs for easier reading. Added links and emphases are mine. I share my final comment at the end.
+++++
Over the past eleven years we have all seen Pope Francis’ pontificate in a trajectory of accelerating descent into more and more overt betrayal of Catholic doctrine, but I must say I did not foresee the Gadarene rush we have seen just within the last three months.
If we want to assess the very grave events that are happening around us, we need to try and understand the man we now have sitting on the throne of Peter.
So before I comment on recent developments I would like to add some details to the picture of Pope Francis which I gave in my book The Dictator Pope, which was first published six years ago.
To give you some background on this book, I should explain that I arrived to work in Rome in April 2013, less than a month after the election of Pope Francis, and I lived there for the next four years. I was working for the Order of Malta, an organisation which has close links to the Holy See, and I quickly began to hear the reports that were privately coming out of the Vatican.
They showed a very different Francis from the genial, liberal figure, who was being presented by the world’s media. Insiders were saying that, as soon as the publicity cameras were off him, Francis became a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, given to foul language, and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which were known even to the Vatican chauffeurs.
Over the next couple of years I continued to hear inside information, for example from the late Cardinal Pell about the internal politics involved in the two Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015. Let us bear in mind that in his first years Pope Francis had barely shown his hand and that people assumed he was the liberal reformer that the Church supposedly needed.
By Tim Rohr
The following was printed in the Guam Daily Post on Dec. 14, 2023.
Each year, as soon as we get into the “ber” months, there begins the usual tug-of-war over when to begin Christmas.
Retail establishments, anxious to make it or break it for another year, typically begin decorations and promotions as soon as the “ber” months begin or at least immediately after Halloween – since Halloween is a retail event in itself.
(Posted by Frenchie)
.jpg)
By Tim Rohr
The bishop of the Diocese of Sacramento, California, announced on Saturday that “after careful consideration and consultation,” the diocese will be filing for bankruptcy amid a slate of over 250 clergy abuse lawsuits.- CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY
Per the website for the Diocese of Sacramento there are "over One Million Catholics in the Diocese of Sacramento."
NOTE: Since its website has suddenly stopped functioning, here is a screenshot of a google search:
By Tim Rohr
Today is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. In 2012, I wrote a column for the local archdiocesan newspaper titled RETURN OF THE DEVOURER to commemorate this Feast. Thanks for reading.
By Tim Rohr
Pursuant to a 2018 Superior Court of Guam case, a father's parental rights to three of his biological children were permanently terminated. On Nov. 29, 2023, after the father appealed, the Supreme Court of Guam affirmed the lower courts decision terminating the father's parental rights.
Things look pretty bad for the dad (A.H.), and for the mother too. In fact both of their parental rights were permanently terminated due to a multitude of problems including neglect, sexual abuse of the children, and both parents having criminal records.
It is clear from the Supreme Court's opinion that both parents have lots of problems. It is also clear that both appear to be indigent (they were living in an abandoned house with the children), and neither parent speaks english.
Yet, for someone with apparently little to no money, in prison at the time of his appeal, and unable to speak english, A.H. ends up before the Supreme Court in a sophisticated and probably very expensive case, wherein, as the Court opines, A.H. fails in his appeal because "A.H. has “fail[ed] to provide this [c]ourt with any cogent legal or constitutional analysis to support this argument.”
And this is the part that caught my attention. A.H. had counsel (a lawyer), and it was his lawyer's job to provide the "cogent legal or constitutional analysis to support this argument." It's what the lawyer was being paid to do (by who, I don't know). And it is quite clear that A.H. probably had no idea what was going on - as most of us, even if we speak english, would have no idea either which is why we hire lawyers.
In issuing decisions, orders, and opinions, the Court always addresses the party and not counsel. And if counsel is negligent or even engaged in intentional malpractice, in the Court's eyes, that's the party's business and not the Court's.
When a party is injured by his or her own counsel, the injured party can file a complaint for ineffective assistance of counsel, but good luck finding an attorney to represent you against another attorney. You're about out of luck as your bank account is out of money.
After four years, four lawyers, tens of thousands of dollars, an empty bank account, and the loss of custody of my children, I decided I had no option but to go it alone. So I bought a book from NOLO titled REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT and began to study.
I also began to watch hours and hours of YouTube videos on how to do this, particularly videos put out by the channel titled THE PROPER PERSON. These videos were particularly helpful because in addition to much needed knowledge, I needed encouragement, and the guy behind THE PROPER PERSON had represented himself for eight years before finally getting permanent custody of his son - and this was against his ex who always had counsel.
I also subscribed to a course titled HOW TO WIN IN COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER. To be clear, it's not that I did not want a lawyer, I had four (and would ultimately have five), but what do you do when you're out of money and you've lost your children?
Lastly, I listened closely to certain close friends who I trusted, and without whom I'm not sure any of the knowledge from the books, videos, and courses would have mattered.
In short, and as the resources I accessed maintain, everyone should have enough legal education to at least know how to find the right lawyer and how the judicial process works so you can keep your case moving forward even if you have counsel. Not knowing this in the beginning, and depending on my lawyers to do what I was paying them to do, cost me, not just money, but years with my children I can never replace.
The matter before the Georgia Court was whether or not a 2019 law which regulates abortion procedures was "void ab initio," meaning null from the beginning, because the 2019 law was enacted while Roe was still in effect.
This was the exact same question put forth by Gov. Lou Leon Guerrero for declaratory judgment by the Supreme Court of Guam:
Petitioner Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, I Maga’hågan Guåhan (“the Governor”), filed a Request for Declaratory Judgment under 7 GCA § 4104 requesting that this court declare P.L. 20-134 void ab initio...
- In Re: Request of Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, I Maga'Hagan Guahan, Relative to the Validity and Enforceability of Public Law No. 20-134, 2023 Guam 11, CRQ23-001, October 31, 2023, Pg. 3
The majority opinion (Justices Torres and Manglona) opted to declare P.L. 20-134 of "no effect" on the basis that it was "impliedly repealed" by subsequent abortion legislation, and declined to address the Ultra Vires question.
We Decline to Address the Ultra Vires Question
- In Re: Request of Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, I Maga'Hagan Guahan, Relative to the Validity and Enforceability of Public Law No. 20-134, 2023 Guam 11, CRQ23-001, October 31, 2023, Pg. 27
(Ultra Vires meaning that in 1990, and under Roe, the legislature did not have the authority to pass the subject law and was void ab initio - null from the beginning.)
The third Justice, Justice Carbullido, while concurring with the majority, opted to "address the Ultra Vires Question," holding that the law was void ab initio and spent twelve pages doing it, one page more than the majority spent (beginning on Pg. 19) arguing that the law was impliedly repealed:
I agree with the majority on its jurisdictional analysis and its conclusion that Public Law 20-134 was impliedly repealed. I further agree that 7 GCA § 4104 confers upon this court discretion to decline to provide relief even when its jurisdictional test is met. Where I part ways, is the decision to use that discretion in this case. In her ultra vires Question, the Governor properly asked this court to answer an important question about the scope of the power and authority of the Guam Legislature. This question merits an answer. I agree with the Governor that because Roe v. Wade was the law of the land in 1990, P.L. 20-134 was void ab initio, and the Legislature acted ultra vires in passing it. (Emphases added)
Back to the Supreme Court of Georgia and copying directly from Pg. 21 of its Opinion issued on Oct. 24, 2023, just a week before the Supreme Court of Guam (per Justice Carbullido's Concurrence) issued its very different Opinion on Oct. 31, 2023.- In Re: Request of Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, I Maga'Hagan Guahan, Relative to the Validity and Enforceability of Public Law No. 20-134, 2023 Guam 11, CRQ23-001, October 31, 2023, Pg. 30
It is clear from these well-established principles of Georgia law that a Georgia court must look to Dobbs — not Roe — in determining whether the LIFE Act was void ab initio when enacted in 2019. In Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Roe, declaring that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Dobbs, 142 SCt at 2242-2243, and Georgia courts are “not permit[ted] . . . to persist in an error of federal constitutional law” when that error is clear under controlling United States Supreme Court precedent, Lejeune v. McLaughlin, 296 Ga. 291, 297-298 (2) (766 SE2d 803) (2014) (emphasis in original) (holding that we could not adhere to our precedent interpreting the United States Constitution, even though our interpretation had been based on a decision of the United States Supreme Court, because a subsequent Supreme Court decision clarified that our precedent was “simply wrong”). Accordingly, the trial court erred in analyzing whether the LIFE Act was void ab initio under now-overruled Roe-era precedent that controlled before Dobbs issued, rather than under the now- controlling Dobbs decision.
The foregoing needs no interpretation. It's quite clear that the Georgia court, instead of finding the 2019 law void ab initio, in effect, found Roe itself (pursuant to Dobbs) void ab initio.
The questions before the Supreme Court of Guam were for declaratory judgment only and it is unclear to what effect this judgment will have as the matter over the constitutionality of P.L. 20-134 goes forward to the Ninth Circuit - which will have the Georgia court's opinion before it.
Meanwhile, it would behoove the self-declared pro-lifers in the Guam legislature to grab a hold of "Belle's Law, get rid of the "speech" provisions, and reintroduce it.
(Posted by Frenchie)
St Porphyrius Church in Gaza
As we are now in our Theological New Year, and we have entered the Advent period, which is supposed to be a period of penance and reflection before we can celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; it is appropriate that we reflect in the momentus events we have gone through over the last three years, as well as the earth shattering conflicts we are faced with right now.
Today December 8th 2023, Catholics of the Island of Guam celebrate the Immaculate Conception of our Lady. This mystery that we share with the Orthodox Church and all what we loosely term the Eastern rites of the Christian Church, is one of the deepest divide that we have with our reformed brothers and sisters, who do not recognised the Virgin Birth of our Lord, and often refer to our deference to the mother of Christ as idolatry and corruption.
On this Holy day, again I have witnessed several of these disrespectful statements here on Guam, but also,in the USA and around the world. In itself it is just another of the many persecutions we Catholics have been subjected to in a sea of Protestant, Masonic and Atheist majority where our beliefs are threatening to the manipulators, and false prophets of all kind. I am old enough to remember the bitter discourse preceding the election of John F Kennedy, the first Catholic US President. Nothing much has changed below the surface, except that the 2nd Catholic President, is what could be best described as a CINO, and our current Pontiff is more worried about climate change, that he is about saving souls, or defending his Church against renewed persecutions.
Of course not a single of these things happens in a vacuum.
During the last quarter of a century, ( a lifetime for most of our children) we have witnessed an intensification of the attacks on the freedom granted to us under the US constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. This led to a massive spying of US citizens by our own government. All this was done under the guise of better protecting us from "Muslim extremists" . Our representatives in DC were almost all on it from "the get go". Later we were sold two major wars (Afghanistan and Irak) under fabricated evidences and false narratives. These wars lasted for at least 20 years and costed the country blood, and treasure, but most of all moral rectitude, when we chose to ignore the 100s of thousands of innocent victims, classified under the gross euphemism of "collateral damage". Curiously, our Church leaders except for a few rare and courageous voices in the desert, were silent on these inequities, which we will be asked about on judgement day.
This is bringing us to our current issue, which is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I shall not dwell on the alleged atrocities, that are used to justify the current onslaught on the innocent civilian population of Gaza.
Two wrongs never justify a right. They never did, never do, and never will. St Thomas Aquinas is very clear in his analysis of justification for war. Our silence, acquiescence, and in some cases embrace of the eradication of a foe that is being described as less than human, or barbaric, not civilised cannot hide the ugly, putrid side of this issue. How can one pretend to be pro-life and endorse the wonton eradication of tens of thousands of innocents. Perhaps we forgot the warning: Matthew 25.40 "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me"
As of today, 1.9 million out of 2.2 million have been "displaced" over 17 000 have been killed over 38000 wounded. more than 7000 children have lost their lives. All this in the name of Justice.
Meanwhile most of the oldest Christian denominations have disappeared from the Middle East, except in Egypt. The same protestant Christian Zionist who are pushing for war, to bring their narrow and blasphemous interpretation of the Bible, and support mass slaughters, are disparaging the Catholic Church here on Guam, and across the world.
We have a duty to save souls, we will not do that by endorsing murder and persecution, and certainly by remaining silent when confronted by full lies and half truths. The saying that Evil prevailed because good people remained silent, should not apply to us. I shall make sure it won't apply to me. Pray that you won't
By Tim Rohr
By Tim Rohr
I don't know enough yet to comment much about this, but the more I study and understand, the more I am convinced that the heresy of Christian Zionism is "the elephant in the room" in everything relative to Israel vs its neighbors since 1948.
I previously posted a short course on the matter here.
Meanwhile, though, I have begun to question whether Kiko and his clan are Zionists.
Per Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Kiko's "religion" is a "Jewish-Protestant heresy," but is Kiko-ism Zionist?
In 2012, a certain Rabbi David Rosen gave an address at one of Kiko's seminaries in Boston. In his talk, Rosen extolled Zionism and went on to say:
It is here that the role of educational and formation structures is so important and where the work of the movements, in particular the Neocatechumenal Way, has become so critical. As one of the most powerful Catholic movements...
Rosen bolsters his argument for the Catholic support of Jewish Zionism with several references to the words and actions of recent popes.
However, probably due to his audience at the time (Kiko's), Rosen conveniently leaves out a devastating commentary by then-Pope Benedict XVI.
I'll probably come back to this - given its prominence on the world stage. But for now, feel free to educate yourselves...as I educate my own self.
Note: While preparing to publish this post, I received a message from a knowledgeable confrere re Kiko's history. It was this:
Kiko is from a converted Jewish family, that never abandoned their original beliefs. Conversos.
That could explain a lot.
By Tim Rohr
I lived in the V.I. in the early 80's for four years. And they were four years of "high adventure!" Stories I may tell another time. And, because I "married" into the Virgin Islands, I have remain connected to the goings-on there for many years thereafter.
As you may know, Epstein ran his "Fantasy Sex Island" on his own private island, located just a swim away from the main island of St. Thomas.
The U.S Territory of the Virgin Islands consists of three main islands, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. And there are many smaller islands within the territory. "Little St. James," Epstein's island, is one of them.
Over the more than three decades I have either lived in or been in one way or another connected to the U.S. Virgin Islands (particularly St. Croix), I have made and retained some of my most treasured friendships, but also saw first hand a corruption that would make similar "corrupters" in the government of the sister territory of Guam blanch.
So when the Epstein thing first broke, and long before "someone" killed him, my first thought was "how long will it be before the government of the VI is called out?" It was just too obvious. How could such a blatant, high-profile sex trafficking operation operate for years just a swim away from Government House?
On Nov. 22, 2023 - the 60th anniversary of the assassination of JFK by the way - a suit against some of the biggest names in the USVI government, including current Congresswoman, Stacey Plaskett, was filed.
And it's "juicy." Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts:
Government officials, including but not limited to Defendants First Lady Cecile de Jhong, Governor Kenneth Mapp, Senator Celestino White, Attorney General Vincent Frazer, Governor John de Jhong, Stacey Plaskett, and Senator Carlton Dowe facilitated Epstein in his ongoing sex trafficking operation by ensuring that Epstein received preferential treatment and unfettered, unmonitored freedom while in the USVI, and by providing Epstein and/or his companies instruments which further enabled his sex-trafficking ring and related crimes.
the USVI government leaders, staff, and officials benefitted by receiving generous financial donations, financial advice, support, loans, access to lines of credit from Epstein and his entities, and that crucial financial support allowed Epstein to successfully rape, sexually assault, coercively sex traffic Plaintiffs and numerous other women freely and openly, access to underage and other women, and a haven to act without government scrutiny -- by customs, police, or airport personnel -- or public knowledge.
I don't know if this will do it, but I have always longed for the Virgin Islands to be "cleaned up." It is such a magnificently beautiful place, but because of the corruption at every level (despite good people at every level) it is one of the most dangerous places in the world. The island of St. Croix, alone, ranks 7th in the world, per capita, for the most murders - most of which occur within a two mile radius of where I lived.
For decades, the crime and the danger has encouraged a real "brain drain" - the exodus of some of the VI's best people, many of whom are my former students. And I, myself, had to make a fast "exodus" from the VI "back in the day" for "disturbing" a drug ring operating in a local Catholic high school, and whereafter my life was on the line. But that's a story for another day.
By Tim Rohr
The Vatican had to do this because the usual offenders were almost always priests and they were dealt with by their bishops.
But who deals with an offending bishop? At the time, no one - which is probably why Apuron became infamous for whispering "no one can get me" to people he thought were his confidants.
As we know, it was only due to pounding public pressure (more than a year of pickets, almost daily news stories, the millions of visits to this blog, and ultimately the enactment of a law which enabled victims to sue the archdiocese) which brought the Vatican to Guam in the person of Cardinal Raymond Burke in February 2017.
A year later, March 2018, Pope Francis removed Apuron as Archbishop of Agana and prohibited him from physically returning to Guam.
It can be assumed that before the Pope forcibly removed Apuron that he most likely asked or even begged Apuron to resign.
Francis - at the advice of his legal counselors - most likely hoped Apuron would resign because by forcibly removing him, Francis (i.e. "the Vatican), in effect, would be acting in the capacity of an employer and thus opening the door for institutional liability to the Vatican.
Prior to the Apuron affair, popes removed problem bishops from their dioceses but it appears to have always been via a request to resign (and probably promises of a cushy Rome pad and other perks).
In Apuron's case, we can assume that he refused to resign due to the support of the second most powerful person in the Vatican at the time, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, who was the Neocats' inside guy.
The Neocats had a lot to lose if Apuron fell. So they propped him up and created conspiracy stories. (One such conspiracy was reportedly led by "Tim Rohr and Associates," and it's still "a thing.")
Given the pressure from Filoni and the legal realities of liability, the pope most likely did not want to forcibly remove Apuron. And, the fact that he did anyway, is a sort of silent witness to just how serious Apuron's crimes were, especially after the pope himself denied Apuron's later appeal.
Nevertheless, removing Apuron opened the door for lawyers to paint the Vatican as an employer, and we've seen several lawsuits here in Guam naming The Holy See (the Vatican) as a Defendant.
But probably because Guam is a distant and small diocese, and because Apuron's crimes were so heinous, there is little support to sue the Vatican. Most people are quite thankful that the pope stepped in.
However, the same is not true in Tyler, Texas where the pope has forcibly removed a bishop from his diocese and named no crime. And according to Catholic writer John Zmirak, the pope has really stepped in it this time.
During the clerical sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, the Holy See deftly escaped direct criminal liability in US courts — for potentially hundreds of billions — by arguing, amongst other things, that a pope doesn’t have the power to remove a bishop against his will.
This was necessary to demonstrate that bishops aren’t employees of the Vatican. Many years later and [Francis ] has just done precisely that by sacking the holy Bishop Strickland.
Read more at: Pope Francis May Have Just Accidentally Saved My Church … by Bankrupting it.
NOTE: Speaking of Filoni, I came across this JW post from 2017 about Filoni himself exposing the Vatican to liability due to his micromanaging of RMS - which was exposed after the Laity Forward Movement banged on the RMS front door.
“Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I take away his apartment and his salary,” the pope had said at the Nov. 20 meeting, according to Bussola’s undisclosed Vatican source.
The facts surrounding Pope Francis' removal of Bishop Strickland as Bishop of Tyler, Texas reminds me of Apuron's removal of Msgr. James Benavente as Rector of the Cathedral in 2014.
---Bishop Strickland Not Given a Copy of the "Charges" Despite His Multiple Requests---
"I was read a list of the reasons I was being removed. I would make these reasons available to you if possible; however, I was not given a copy of this list at that time, and I have not been able as of yet to obtain a copy despite my requests."
In similar fashion, Msgr. James, in July 2014, was hauled in before Apuron, David the Tall, and The Adrian, read a list of charges, and told to get out of the Cathedral. Like Bishop Strickland, Msgr. James asked for a copy of the charges that were read to him but was denied. (For more on that story, see APURON V BENAVENTE.)
What is it with these guys (including, now, the pope)? Don't they know that secrecy around something so public breeds scandal? And that breeding scandal is a sin? And possibly a mortal sin? If they have real charges against a cleric then go ahead and nail the list to the door of every church.
Ultimately, while Apuron would not give Msgr. James a copy of the charges, he would later give a copy to the media. In my opinion, that was Apuron's fatal mistake, and here's why.
Apuron's removal of Msgr. James happened well before the allegations of Apuron's sex abuse of minors. Apuron's public attack on Msgr. James awoke a guy living in San Francisco named John Toves. And that's when all hell broke loose. It's pretty much all documented in the series titled ORCHESTRATED and later rehashed in HIGH DRAMA IN THE AOA.
Following is a copy of Bishop Strickland's letter dated Nov. 27, 2023:
An Open Letter to the Faithful from Bishop Joseph E. Strickland:
As I am sure you have heard by now, I have been removed as Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler. I was asked to meet with the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, and in that meeting I was read a list of the reasons I was being removed. I would make these reasons available to you if possible; however, I was not given a copy of this list at that time, and I have not been able as of yet to obtain a copy despite my requests.
In the reasons that were read to me, no mention was made of administrative problems or mismanagement of the diocese as the reasons for my removal. The reasons given seemed to be related, for the most part, to my speaking the Truth of our Catholic faith, and to my warnings against anything that threatened that Truth (including things that were being brought up at the Synod on Synodality). Also, mention was made of my not walking alongside my brother bishops as I defended the Church and her unchangeable teachings, and of my not implementing the motu propoio Traditionis custodes, which were I to have implemented, would have required me to leave part of my flock unfed and untended. As a shepherd and protector of my Diocese, I could not take actions which I knew with certainty would injure part of my flock and deprive them of the spiritual goods which Christ entrusted to His Church. I stand by my actions as they were necessary to protect my flock and to defend the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
This is the time for everything now covered to be uncovered, and everything now hidden to be made clear. In fact, it was in a time when things were being hidden regarding disgraced now-former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Church sex abuse scandal that it seems I first entered the Vatican’s radar. My main crime, then as now, seems to always have been about bringing to light that which others wanted to remain hidden. Sadly, it now seems that it is Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ, that many desire to be hidden.
Although I am now without a diocese, I am still a bishop of the Church and therefore a successor of the apostles, and I must continue to speak Truth even if it requires my very life. I want to say this to all of you today – DO NOT ever, ever leave the Church! She is the Bride of Christ! She is now undergoing her Passion, and you must resolve to stand resolutely at the cross! It is important to attend Mass every Sunday and as often as possible, to spend time in adoration, to pray the Rosary daily, to go to confession regularly, and to call always upon the saints for assistance! I urge you to persevere that you might say in the end, “I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith.”
May Almighty God bless you, and may our Holy and Blessed Mother intercede for you and point you always to her Divine Son Jesus as we enter this Advent season.
I remain your humble father and servant,
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland
By Tim Rohr
“Origin of Species” is publishedOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, a groundbreaking scientific work by British naturalist Charles Darwin, is published in England on November 24, 1859. Darwin’s theory argued that organisms gradually evolve through a process he called “natural selection.” In natural selection, organisms with genetic variations that suit their environment tend to propagate more descendants than organisms of the same species that lack the variation, thus influencing the overall genetic makeup of the species. CONTINUED
The post brought to mind a column I had written for our local Catholic paper 23 years ago. It was titled HOW HENRY VIII GAVE US RU-486, which, despite, its weird title, was centered on the common Genesis v Evolution debate.
I had never had a problem with the theory of evolution, and from what I knew then, my Catholic Church - at least per John Paul II - was okay with it. However, in the year 2000, and when I wrote the aforesaid column, I had come across a book titled Did Darwin Get It Right-Catholics and the Theory of Evolution by George Sim Johnston.
Johnston's questions blew my mind and led to my writing of the column HOW HENRY VIII GAVE US RU-486.
Even though I was a weekly columnist for the local Catholic paper, the then-editor refused to run the column. I remember arguing with him on my cell phone sitting in a parking lot at Kings Restaurant.
I don't remember what the objection was, and within a few months both him and I were fired by "the chancery" (another story I may tell someday), but I uploaded my story to my blog and forgot about it...until now.
It's worth a read, but much more, a better read is "Did Darwin Get It Right?
By Tim Rohr
I'm not even going to get into the transgender thing here, nor the reported words and actions of the ever elusive pope. Instead, the more important thing is this (emphases added);
“Carla Segovia, a 46-year-old Argentine sex worker, said for transgender women like herself, being a godparent is the closest thing she will ever get to having a child of her own. She said that the new norms made her feel more comfortable about maybe one day returning fully to the faith that she was baptized in but fell away from after coming out as trans...This norm from Pope Francis brings me closer to finding that absolute serenity,’ she said, which she feels is necessary to be fully reconciled with the faith..."
That Ms. Segovia believes she has to feel "comfortable" and find "absolute serenity" before she can feel "fully reconciled with the faith," is not the fault of Ms. Segovia. It is the fault of decades (post-Vatican 2) of Catholic pastors elevating the idea of a "welcoming church" above The Cross of Jesus Christ because it is easier for them to do and ultimately makes them happy with themselves.
And all of which is in absolute contradiction with Jesus himself who told us: The World will hate you." (Jn. 15: 18-25)
.JPG)
By Tim Rohr
Anonymous on November 22, 2023 at 1:36 PM asks:
Michael Voris of Church Militant has fallen. Thoughts?
Following is my reply:
I was an early supporter and premium subscriber of Voris and what was initially called RealCatholicTV (later Church Militant).
On local radio and press, I was essentially doing the same thing as Voris - pointing out the unbelievable that was happening in our Church, though in my case, it was mostly about our local Church.
However, after awhile, I noticed that Voris’ best people appeared to be leaving, so I sensed something was wrong. More so though, I was growing tired of the constant negative - even though I was doing some of that myself.
Plus, I didn’t like what appeared to be a rather ridiculous looking toupee that seemed to be purposely unkempt to hide that it was a toupee. (I don't know if it was or not, but if it wasn't, he should have at least combed his hair.)
So after a few years, I dropped my premium membership but still listened to him from time to time, though as time went on, I sort of felt that he was growing ever more radical to keep an audience.
Then at one point, he did a whole segment on his homosexuality and past homosexual relations. It was well done actually. Voris' "coming out" was noted in a recent AP story:
In 2016, Voris acknowledged that when he was younger, he had for years been involved in “live-in relationships with homosexual men” and multiple other sexual relationships with men and women, actions he later abhorred as “extremely sinful.” In the same AP story, Voris is reported to have said: “I need to conquer these demons,” he said, adding that they are “like spiritual terror” to him.
Given Voris' present resignation from Church Militant and the other stuff he's involved in, I can only assume that his homosexual past and passions have come back to haunt him.
Homosexual or heterosexual, whichever: unless one is married to a person of the opposite sex and the nuptial act is absolutely open to new life (a baby), then sexual acts of any kind are mortally sinful. That’s the Catholic teaching anyway, though you won’t hear it much.
So I don’t know about Voris. And per the AP story, he’s not talking. My guess is that like Fr. Corapi, Fr. Frank Pavonne, and so many others - including a number of EWTN personalities, pride and fame is an open door for demons.
By Tim Rohr
This past September, I authored a post titled: THE MOST POPULAR MAN IN ARGENTINA COMMENTS ON ABORTION AND THE POPE.
It's worth a read (or a re-read) now that Javier Milei is the new President of Argentina.
As a side note, just about every story you can google about him turns up the words "right wing," "far-right," or something of the sort.
It's sort of funny. This dude, a TV personality, looks more like a leftover hippie straight out of 1966 than anyone from the stereotyped "Right."
Meanwhile, on a serious note. If Argentina is willing to elect a man who is willing to stand up to Pope Francis and the Far-Lefts of the world and speak so clearly against abortion, then there's a message there.
