Posts

Pope Francis Knew About McCarrick, Covered for his Sexual Crimes

Former papal nuncio offers written testimony incriminating Holy Father, says pope must resign

VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – In spite of knowing about former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual assaults, Pope Francis lifted sanctions from him that had been imposed by Pope Benedict.

LifeSiteNews is reporting that Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, has written an 11-page statement testifying that Pope Francis was aware of McCarrick’s homosexual predation but “continued to cover him,” even making him “his trusted counselor” in naming bishops for appointment, including Cdl. Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey (McCarrick’s former diocese) and Cdl. Blase Cupich of Chicago, Illinois.

“In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he [Pope Francis] must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them,” Viganò writes.

“The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl,” says the former papal nuncio, “united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of cover-up of abuses by the other two.”

“Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all,” he continued, “that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.”

Cdl. Viganò on Wuerl: The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.Tweet

Viganò also insists Washington, D.C. Cdl. Donald Wuerl was well aware of McCarrick’s sexual misconduct and “lies shamelessly”:

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Viganò makes clear the pope was immediately notified in 2000 of McCarrick’s crimes as soon as the nunciature became aware.

“I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests,” he said.

He says Richard Sipe’s public letter to Pope Benedict in 2008 (published on Sipe’s website) “had had the desired result”:

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

When McCarrick was summoned to the nunciature and told the news of his sanctions, “a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour” ensued, and “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

A number of other cardinals and bishops are implicated in the cover-up, including Cdls. Pietro Parolin (current secretary of state), Angelo Sodano, Tarcisio Bertone, William Levada, Lorenzo Baldisseri and Francesco Coccopalmerio, among others.

Viganò accuses Coccopalmerio and Abp. Vincenzo Paglia of belonging to “the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.” He also named Cdl. Edwin O’Brien as belonging “to the same current” — whom Church Militant has revealed was a homosexual ringleader in New York and deliberately underreported homosexual priestly abuse in the military.

Viganò accuses Coccopalmerio and Abp. Vincenzo Paglia of belonging to ‘the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.’Tweet

Coccopalmerio came under scrutiny last year when his secretary, Msgr. Luigi Capozzi, was busted by Italian police during a drug-fueled gay orgy in the Vatican apartments. Coccopalmerio, head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and close adviser to the pope, had once recommended Capozzi for bishop.

Viganò also implicates Cdls. Kevin Farrell and Sean O’Malley, saying of Farrell, “Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him.”

On Fr. Marciel Maciel’s homosexual predation, he says, “If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?”

Church Militant reported last month that a former Legionary priest, J. Paul Lennon, close friend of Farrell’s brother, Bp. Brian Farrell, when all were in the Legion of Christ, contradicted Farrell’s claims that he had only met Maciel “once or twice” during his years in the Legion. Farrell had in fact been a member of Maciel’s trusted inner circle and held a position of high rank in the Legion, necessitating multiple meetings with his founder.

On O’Malley’s denials of knowledge, Viganò wrote, “I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.”

The former papal nuncio also calls out homosexualist Jesuit Fr. James Martin as “nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.”

Viganò ends with a plea to the bishops to purge the Church of the gay lobby.

The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.

I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.

Read the full letter here.

COLUMN BY 

Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.

Christine was born in Saigon, Vietnam one year before it fell to the Communists, and has lived in France and the United States. She has degrees from Notre Dame Law School and Oxford University. She is head of the News Team and editor-in-chief of St. Michael’s Media Publishing.

Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: Would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will “never” be accepted in the U.S. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term “gay marriage”) would “never” be accepted in America. Sometimes “never” lasts only a decade or two.

Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received “unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are “born that way” and have a “deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”  A film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as “the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is “normative” and those acting on it are unjustly “demonized.” Why, one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, “These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”

My, where have we heard that before?

So, modern Millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among “these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why “social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.

I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head, using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.

Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.

After all, what are “social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.

Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.

There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.

Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed “war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.

Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.

So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all “judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would “impose morality.” But what we call “social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern Millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment.

But rest assured that, one day, the moment and “never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Daytona Beach, Florida: Black homosexual babysitter rapes 11-year old boy — Caught in the act by father

There are those who believe that homosexuals are benign individuals just looking to be treated fairly. There are those who think homosexuals act responsibly when it comes to their sexual urges to engage in sex with others of the same sex. Well one 18-year old homosexual got his due from a father but not until after he raped an 11-year old who he was babysitting.

Initial reports are that the homosexual abuse has been going on since the victim was 8-years old. The little boy was bullied by the homosexual rapist to keep silent about their sexual activities. This trauma will be forever with the 11-year old.

Raymond Frolander (pictured above) is 18-years old and is a pederast, a lover of little boys. All pederasts are homosexuals. Multiple Florida news outlets are failing to properly identify the rapist as black and a homosexual.

BizPacReview reports:

Daytona Beach father beat an 18-year-old male babysitter unconscious when he returned home to find him sexually abusing his 11-year-old son.

Raymond Frolander was a trusted family friend and neighbor, Daytona News-Journal reported.

According to police, when the father caught Frolander in the bedroom molesting his son, he knocked him out and called 911. Police responded to the call at 1:07 a.m. Friday, according to News-Journal.

[ … ]

Frolander admitted to the abuse, which had allegedly been going on for three years and is being held without bond. Charged with sexual battery, he appeared in court Friday with his face badly beaten and his eyes almost swollen shut.

Video from GlobalNew24:

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama to Sign Order Barring Federal Discrimination against Gays (order contains no religious exemption)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Raymond Frolander is courtesy of The UK Daily Mail.

EXPOSED: The U.S. and British “Sex Industrial Complex”

Former KGB spy and Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) member Geoffrey Prime (left) and PIE Chairman Tom O’Carroll

The United Kingdom has been rocked by a scandal of major proportions involving government support for pedophilia & pederasty. Child rape has been going on for decades at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) offices. “The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation’s changing rooms and studios,” reports Daniel Boffey from The Guardian.

The Daily Mail reported,”A vile paedophile group with links to senior Labour politicians was funded with huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it has emerged. The Paedophile Information Exchange was allegedly given £70,000 by the Home Office between 1977 and 1980 – the equivalent today of about £400,000. The astonishing claims made by a whistleblower are now being investigated by the police and the government.”

Before It’s News reported in January 2013 how PIE became a ‘legal’ paedophile ring:

“This history must start in 1967 when the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men, both of whom had to have attained the age of 21, in England and Wales. It is important to note that  Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until 1980, and in Northern Ireland until 1982.

Following the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, homosexuals in parts of the UK other than England and Wales organised in an effort to attain equality in law. One such organisation, founded in 1969, was the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG). The SMG, which was based in Glasgow, was a self-help organisation working for the rights of homosexual men and women, and had the aims of providing counselling, working for law reform and providing meeting places for lesbians and gay men.

PIE, originally chaired by Michael Hanson,  began as a special interest group in 1974 under the SMG umbrella organisation. Note that paedophilia was no less illegal than homosexuality in Scotland at this time. PIE relocated to London in 1975 under a new chairman Keith Hose.

Read more.

Dr. Judith Reisman states, “‘The Sex Industrial Complex’ is an economic and attitudinal merger of pedophile and pederast crusaders with ‘sexology’ and its allies in other academic fields, along with commercial pornographers.  The pharmaceutical and abortion industries–both obviously profit from sexual promiscuity–are satellite players in the SIC. It was the academic pedophile/pederasty crusaders, largely employed by the pornography industry, with whom I locked horns in Wales when I presented my research on child pornography at the ‘British Psychological Association Conference on Love and Attraction’ in 1976.”

“Chasing down [Alfred] Kinsey and his closeted sexual revisionists is one of the most mesmerizing detective sagas in social history.  For, tracking the path of brazen clues left by liberal left ‘social scientists,’ we can learn a great deal about how and why our national moral philosophy was overturned,” notes Reisman.

Tom O’Carroll, the head of PIE, Pedophile Information Exchange, a pedophile supported by radical British political leaders, explained in his child molester’s handbook, Paedophilia, The Radical Case: “erotica had a powerful influence on my own attitudes, an influence almost as powerful and revolutionary as the impact on me of Ford and Beach and Kinsey.”  O’Carroll, the pioneering organizer of the English and European academic pedophile movement, nicely links together for us three key agents of “The Sex Industrial Complex” (SIC) discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of Reisman’s book Kinseyan Anthropology as relying upon three-key bodies of change agents:

a)  The pedophile/pederasty crusaders, (heterosexual and homosexual child molesters)
b)  Kinsey’s disciples in sexology and allied disciplines and
c)   The pornography industry.

We are seeing the same thing happen in the United States. Peter Bella in an August 2011 Washington Times article stated, “The modern age has been hailed as post-gender and post-racial. Meaning that we’ve grown as a society beyond petty discrimination against people on the basis of race or gender identity, and such discrimination is met with the entire wrath our legal and social institutions can muster. If some people have their way, this modern age will soon be post-pedophilia.   And playgrounds will be empty.”

According to Bella, “B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them ‘pedophiles,’ ‘fiends,’ ‘deviants,’ ‘freaks,’ ‘perverts,’ ‘degenerates,’ ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles,’ they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons.” (Daily Caller)

The target of pedophiles and pederasts remain our children. Call it what you may, it is wrong in so very many ways.

RELATED STORIES:

1977 Guardian article with Reisman quotes
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
Pensioner backed Paedophile Information Exchange and may hold key to links with left wing groups
Home Office ‘gave Paedophile Information Exchange £70,000′: Group allegedly given taxpayers’ money between 1977 and 1980