Benedict XVI -Ratzinger: God's Rottweiler

Urbi et Orbi John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army more heinous than heresy of Mass…but Benedict XVI not issue excommunication of 6,000 bestial priests?

2009-12-31T11:17:00.008-05:00

The John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army, numbering 6,000 priests in the United States of America alone and now expanding into thousands in Ireland, is more heinous and monstrous than heresy or non-belief in the Eucharist-alchemy-magic by the pope and priests so why has Benedict XVI not issue excommunication to these bestial priests or priestly beasts? Rather Benedict XVI has issue “silence” (sort of excommunication) to Jesuits like Jon Sobrino, Roger Haight and the late Jacques Dupuis? The answer is obvious, like father like son, like John Paul II, Benedict XVI has no charity like Mother Teresa see the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-paul-ii-did-not-have-charity-of.html Benedict XVI does “not see Christ” in the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. But he will witch-hunt heretics of the Eucharist (like us). When will Catholics ever learn that “Benedict XVI does not have the power to say "Let there be God in the Eucharist" just like he has no power to say "Let there be light " in Genesis http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2009/12/benedict-xvi-has-no-power-to-say-let.html. If Benedict XVI has no power with his papal words to command-invisible-matter such as light, he has no power to command the Creator-of-the-universe to come down on Earth and be in his hands at Mass. It is that simple and clear. Benedict XVI is incapable of turning the host-into-the-flesh of God in the Mass. Benedict is like the Emperor’s Clothes, Benedict XVI is naked and powerless.

Can Benedict XVI and John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army of sodomy bestial priests say “Let there be light” and there was light? http://jp2army.blogspot.com/

Can Benedict XVI and John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army of sodomy bestial priests say “Let there be fish in the ocean, and birds in the air” and there were fish and birds…?

Can Benedict XVI and John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army sodomy bestial priests say “Let there be stars in the heavens” and stars suddenly appeared?

http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2009/12/benedict-xvi-has-no-power-to-say-let.html

It is precisely because of Catholics’ belief in the Eucharist throughout the centuries that has caused them to adulate the Holy Father Pope and then ignore the “sins of the Holy Fathers” even the most bestial pedophile priests against their own children today. The power of the Eucharist is the power of evil itself because it sees evil and do nothing about evil but rather hide it in utmost secrecy as in Crimen sollicitationis http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvi-in-google-video-sex-crimes.html.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta “saw Christ” in the HINDUS people of India dying in the streets of Calcutta, but Benedict XVI “cannot see Christ” in the CATHOLICS altar boys and girls sodomized by the John Paul II Pedophile Priests. Benedict XVI is concerned only with perpetuating the powers of papacy through the deceitful Sacrament of the Eucharist and will waste his time only in the witch-hunt of heretics-of-the-Eucharist together with his GAY private secretary http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvis-handsome-private.html

Urbi et Orbi Benedict XVI contradicts 'Jesus of Nazareth' who never spoke Latin and never wore red shoes

2009-12-29T19:27:00.003-05:00

Benedict XVI wrote the book Jesus of Nazareth and claims himself to be the ‘representative of Christ’ on Earth, but he contradicts everything that Jesus was. There is absolutely nothing that Benedict XVI has in common with Jesus of Nazareth. First of all, Benedict XVI speaks Latin and Jesus never spoke Latin. Benedict XVI imposes Latin as the Vatican ‘official language’ which makes it difficult for American lawyers to sue the Vatican regarding priest pedophiles. Second, Benedict XVI wears red shoes as the official ‘shoes of the fisherman’ but Jesus never wore red shoes. No Jews in Nazareth wear red shoes. Jesus wore sandals and fishermen don’t wear red shoes. Third, Benedict XVI wears white-robe-only and Jesus never wore white. No man in Galilee wears white. Fourth, Benedict XVI lives in the Vatican trillion$$$ Palace that rivals Herod’s Palace but Jesus lived in a modest home. Fifth, Benedict XVI is guarded and surrounded by tall handsome Swiss Guard Army but Jesus had only 12 Apostles. Sixth, Benedict XVI never dirtied his GAY hands and never worked with the poor but Jesus lived and worked among the poorest like the Jesuit Jon Sobrino, but Benedict XVI ‘silenced’ Jesuits because they speak up against the hypocrisy of John Paul II. Seventh, Benedict XVI with his magical formula of ‘transubstantiation’ turns the flour host into the ‘real flesh of Christ’ but Jesus underwent 9-months of gestation in Mary’s womb by the power of God the Holy Spirit. If Benedict XVI does not condone the wizardry of Harry Potter and Twilight, Benedict XIV and his exclusive men-priests are the epitome of wizards on the planet Earth because they can turn flour into the flesh of God, yes, God the creator of the Universe is being ‘instantly’ REINCARNATED DAILY in the MASS by sinful men, including the thousands of Mass by the bestial hands John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

See our earlier post: Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth lacks the "Parable of the Millstone"! http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

Benedict XVI (in white) and his 'private secretary' Georg (in black) dressed like a wedding couple

The papal narcissism of Benedict XVI is unfathomable, but he does follow the papal narcissism of John Paul II. And he wants the whole world to recognize the criminal John Paul II as Venerable and beautify him next year. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are both cold-blooded popes who have no compunction for victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. Tom Doyle explains well papal cold-bloodedness and narcissism that is a pathetic mental disorder in itself.

Comments by Tom Doyle

In all probability his lack of a proper and appropriate emotional response is grounded in the radical formation he has experienced in the toxic clerical sub-culture of which he has been a part for all of his adult life. The clerical sub-culture creates a significantly different value system in its members. The highest value is placed in the clerical/hierarchical culture itself. The bishops are taught to believe that they are the hierarchical system and hence the Church. This of course lacks any foundation in history or scripture but that matters not.

The hierarchical system is a breeding ground for a deadly psychological disorder known as “Acquired Situational Narcissism.” This disorder prevents the person from truly valuing anything other than himself for its own sake. In other words, if something is of value it is based on its benefit to the narcissist and in this instance to the narcissistic system. Consequently had Moriartity stated publicly that he knew that sex abuse of children by clerics was horrendous and evil and admitted that he allowed it anyway because he did not want to tarnish his image, then he would have been accurate and either a “recovering narcissist”, of which there is no such thing, or a budding convert to honesty which is almost as rare.

complete article here: http://reform-network.net/?p=2471

Benedict XVI has no power 'to heal' victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army & has no power to command God-to-become flesh in the Mass

2009-12-29T13:06:00.005-05:00

As we have boldly disclosed a few days ago before the Papal Christmas Mass at the Vatican, Benedict XVI has no power to say "Let there be God in the Eucharist" just like he has no power to say "Let there be light " in Genesis http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2009/12/benedict-xvi-has-no-power-to-say-let.html But he thinks, as do all Catholics believe, that the pope is infallible and is all-powerful in determining the salvation of 1.2 billion Catholics, and who can or cannot enter Heaven because he holds the Key of Peter, and that in the Mass, the "real flesh of Christ" comes down into the host through the magic-formula of "transubstantiation" spoken 'exclusively' by the pope and men-priests. Come to think of it, why would God "obey" such a callous cold-blooded pope who ordered the direct cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army? http://jp2army.blogspot.com/ He threatened anyone who disclosed or discussed priest-pedophilia with excommunication; see Crimen sollicitationis (Latin for crime of soliciting) in You Tube http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvi-in-google-video-sex-crimes.html . The pope is a sinner and priests are sinners, they have acknowledged themselves to be sinners. So why would Christ “obey” these sinful men DAILY when He had to wait for all that trouble 2,000 years ago, for the Immaculate Conception of Mary and then undergo 9-months of gestation in her womb?

The John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army expands from the USA into Ireland, and all that "infallible" Benedict could say and do to the victims was "I'll write you a letter soon", and then with pomp and ceremony at the Vatican, he elevates John Paul II as "Venerable" see the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-paul-ii-pedophile-priests-army.html Writing papal letters and conducting pomp and pageantry at the Vatican Palace is all that Benedict XVI is good at. He fiddles with his GAY fingers and with his GAY voice dictates to his GAY private secretary, Georg, (no it's not the Jesuit Lombardi, he is only a poor puppet, he has no choice or the pope will shut down the Jesuits http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/03/benedict-xvi-gods-rottweiler-biting.html), and together, the GAYS-rulers at the Vatican connive on what to write to fool the world http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvis-handsome-private.html

Benedict XVI, from the Chair of Peter, thinks his papal letter will heal the victims and solve the problem of clergy abuse in Ireland. The fact is, Benedict XVI’s words are powerless. NO POPE has ever healed anyone. As this picture shows,

They came sick and they left sick. There is no "Apostolic" authority or succession here, for no Pope has EVER been able to heal like Peter or Paul did.

Photo and caption from http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/articles.php?PageURL=Ratzinger.htm

Benedict XVI clone Cardinal Mahoney owns LA Times but the British openly disagrees with it

2008-10-04T09:40:00.003-04:00

As we have pointed out in detail in www.jp2m.blogpsot.com how Cardinal Mahoney is laughing at VPP Victims of Pedophile Priests for settling for peanuts the $660 millions last year and how the LA Times owned by Opus Dei was praising Mahoney as if he was a “saint” , here’s a major newspaper in England who disagrees with LA Times. The British so far have defended Sarah Palin and “laugh” at Joe Biden as in these articles below.

The British are mostly Anglicans and therefore the Opus Dei cannot buy their souls, and England’s Catholic churches are drying up with few Catholics attending Mass on Sundays.

The British major newspaper Independent explains why the British do not trust Joe Biden, the candidate of the Washington Opus Dei elite Fr. McCloskey whom we exposed also in www.jp2m.blogpsot.com .

Sarah Palin is a Pentecostal and millions of Catholics have become Pentecostals especially in Brazil, the largest Catholic country. Benedict XVI hates women and therefore hates Sarah Palin and Pentecostals who are “stealing Catholics away”. Benedict XVI in his recent visit to Brazil was lamenting the "Exodus of Catholics to the Pentecost Church" and asked the Cardinals and Bishops to do more...but these GAY clones of John Paul II are too busy being GAYs they no longer have any moral authority and moral voice. Most of all the Cardinals and Bishops were responsible in the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

The GAY culture in seminaries and the Catholic Priesthood is causing the very demise and disappearance of the Catholic Church. And the Vatican will sink deep into a hole as Pope Leo X saw in a vision and all that Opus Dei wealth trillions of Euros in the Pope's Bank will disappear like smoke like the Temple of Solomon. For as Christ said: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth … where there are moths, rust and thieves, but in heaven, because…where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

The heart of Benedict XVI is in the “treasures on earth” of the Catholic Church…that is why he is so busy putting on a ton of make-up daily and meeting dignitaries who are diplomatic-immune to deposit his annual 5 BILLION euros to the Vatican Bank…all earned from non-holy enterprises…see our coverage “Benedict XVI receives 5 BILLION Euros....”

====

The British openly disagree with the LA Times (owned by Cardinal Mahoney and Opus Dei). The British think Joe Biden is a big joke - by himself!

Why should anyone trust Joe Biden?

The Democrats' candidate for VP doesn't deserve to be called a sage

Tuesday, 30 September 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-why-should-anyone-trust-joe-biden-946127.html

Joseph Robinette Biden – known to all as "Joe" – was once the most talked about American politician in Britain. Unfortunately for the senior Delaware Senator, all the talk was accompanied by incredulous laughter. As part of his Presidential campaign 20 years ago, he lifted verbatim and without attribution Neil Kinnock's celebrated remarks: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to a University ... was it because all our predecessors were thick, those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up to play football?"

Biden told an audience at an Iowa fairground: "I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden's the first in his family ever to go to University ... is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright... who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football?"

Note the overt claim to spontaneity at the outset of the plagiarism; but it wasn't just that which left his run for the Presidency buried under an avalanche of ridicule. It rapidly emerged that Biden was not the first member of his family to go to university, and that the closest any ancestral Bidens came to working underground was a grandfather who was a mining engineer – and during the campaign Biden also told a number of gratuitous untruths about his own academic record.

It would be very difficult for a politician in this country to be taken seriously ever again, after such a humiliation; but Americans are a more forgiving people, and so Biden was able to entertain them once again during the current race for the White House. Thus last year he declared that his then rival, Barack Obama, was "not yet ready for the Presidency", which was not a post suitable for "on-the-job training", but graciously acknowledged: " I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Other African-American politicians were hardly amused by the imputation that they were not "clean", and I don't suppose Obama himself was grateful. Still, the Illinois Senator was happy to choose Biden as his vice-presidential running-mate, for several reasons. He is not married to Bill Clinton; he has a strong following among white blue-collar voters, which Obama desperately needs; above all, he is said to have the experience which Obama lacks – he has been a Senator for 36 years and is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

For all the longevity of his tenure, Biden does not deserve the description lavished on him last month by the Los Angeles Times (among others) as "an acknowledged foreign policy sage". He voted against using American military force to remove Saddam Hussein's army from occupied Kuwait, but voted for the American invasion of sovereign Iraq in 2003. Later, he voted against the "surge" which has brought a degree of stability to that benighted country, proposing instead that it be allowed to break up along ethnic lines – the now discredited "Biden Plan". Experience is a wonderful thing, of course – but only if you learn the right lessons from it.

Doubtless, however, Joe Biden will stress the immense superiority of his acquired wisdom over Sarah Palin's much briefer curriculum vitae, when their one-off vice-presidential debate takes place on Thursday in St Louis, Missouri. Indeed, the Democrats and their camp-followers in the press have been chortling in anticipation of a massacre, especially after Mrs Palin's performance when interviewed last week by CBS's Katie Couric.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate had been unable to elaborate on the way in which John McCain had attempted to enforce greater regulation on the finance industry, beyond his demand for more supervision of the biggest mortgage lenders; and she struggled to justify her claim that being Governor of Alaska gave her a special insight into the threats from Russia.

Neither of her responses was articulate. But they weren't factually incorrect. She didn't make anything up. That's Biden territory. When he faced the deceptively easy-going Ms Couric, he told the CBS anchorwoman, a propos deals to rescue Wall Street: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened'." As others, but not Ms Couric, have since observed, the US President at the time of the 1929 stock market crash was not Roosevelt, but Herbert Hoover; and Roosevelt didn't go on television, probably because no-one in America owned one at the time.

Such dedicated and inarticulate imprecision with the facts of history should not disqualify Joe Biden from being taken seriously as the next-in-line for the Presidency; he got away with his goof, as easy-going and genial men tend to do. But imagine what hysteria would have ensued if it was Mrs Palin who had constructed a fictitious account of the circumstances surrounding the great Wall Street Crash.

It is true – at least on actuarial grounds – that John McCain is more likely to die in a first term of office than a President Obama; and ahead of Thursday's debate between Biden and Palin, Democracy for America (the group started by former Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean) has run a television ad showing grotesquely enlarged photos of McCain's scarred face immediately following his most recent operation for melanoma, with the punch-line: "John McCain is 72 years old and had cancer four times. Why won't he release his medical records?"

As a tasteless way of terrifying the American public about the possibility of a President Palin, that certainly scores high on the sick-meter. But if Barack Obama does become US President, we should be very grateful that he is in such splendid physical condition.

Nothing in Joe Biden's record, long as it is, suggests that he has the attributes one would wish for in a head of state. There would be plenty of laughs, though.
d.lawson@independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/race-for-whitehouse/us-election-diary-the-great-schlep-946121.html

* As the rival vice-presidential nominees prepare for their only debate, this Thursday, anxiety is building in the Democratic Party that Joe Biden will blow it with a sexist remark directed at Sarah Palin or make one of his famous gaffes.

The Irish-Catholic son of Scranton, Pennsylvania, whose mother Catherine Finnegan told him to bloody the nose of any bully he encountered, is getting sensitivity lessons from a galaxy of Democrat women, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. But deep down many Democrats must wish this debate was between Mrs Palin and Mrs Clinton. Now that would be a blood sport worth staying up for.

The British defend Sarah Palin and dispel American doubts on her stance on abortion...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/17/do1705.xml

Sarah Palin: You Brits will never get her

By Irwin Stelzer

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 17/09/2008

The American election campaign has made life better for those of us living here and identified as non-enemies of President Bush or, even worse, one of the "neo-cons" David Cameron went all the way to Islamabad to denounce. It is not that our British friends have fallen in love with George Bush, or adopted a more tolerant attitude towards those of us who think the world might be a more dangerous place if America were to retreat into reliance on the United Nations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

No, it is that Brits with any interest in America, which means most of you, are so distracted by the campaign that they don't have time to share with us their latest reason for Bush bashing, or to tell us at dinner parties that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the Jews hadn't been so ghastly to the Arabs, or to accuse us of over-heating the globe.

In the US, Palin's supporters don't much care what she thinks about babies, guns and Jesus

Now, there is only time for, "Tell us about the elections? Is it really possible that Obama won't win?"

That's the easiest question. Yes, it is possible that Barack Obama's rhetoric will not succeed in fooling enough of the people enough of the time to gain him the keys to the White House. He claims to be a bipartisan healer, but has never voted against his Democratic leadership in the Senate. He claims to love America, but spent 20 years as a disciple of a pastor who urged his congregation to "God damn America", rather than call on God to bless it. He is a man whose list of ways young people might serve their country definitely does not include enlistment in the military.

No matter. In Britain, as in the rest of Europe, Barack Obama is seen as the second coming, at least of John F Kennedy, if not of that other fellow. Tall, articulate, handsome, with a stylish wife and engaging children (paraded on stage at the Democratic convention before 80,000 fans and tens of millions of television viewers, but, says the candidate, "off limits" to reporters). Better still, he is black but, as Charles Moore reminded us last week, borrowing from Colin Powell, "not that black". There is, we have found, no use laying out such facts before Brits who want to see Obama in the White House.

It is, however, productive to discuss Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for vice-president. The first question goes something like this: "My God, does she really believe in God, just like those jihadists we are supposed to be fighting?" Well, yes and no: yes, she is deeply religious, but no, she is not about to engage in a holy war against Islam, or even against Europe's secularists. Nor is she about to denude the nation's libraries of books with which she disagrees, or bar the teaching of Darwinism in schools, even though she thinks there should be a place to advise students that there is another point of view as to the origin of man. Should she want to do just that, our founding fathers had the sense to reserve power over education to local communities and the states.

Next question: "She shoots moose and wolves, poses with the sort of weapons favoured by Vladimir Putin and drug lords, and seems to have no objections to the proliferation of arsenals in the homes of Americans. Doesn't that worry you?"

Not very much. The second amendment to our constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms, a right affirmed only recently by the Supreme Court in a decision Obama says he supports. Also, we have long known, as Britain is now learning, that laws do not keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys; they only disarm law-abiding citizens and reduce their ability to defend themselves. Surveys in prisons show that burglars fear two things: trained guard dogs and armed potential victims. Many Americans find it encouraging that the McCain-Palin ticket includes a man willing to defend his country and a woman willing to defend her home.

Then there is abortion: "Won't she deny women the right to choose?" Well, no. Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion - witness her "hillbilly fecundity", as Mark Steyn describes liberals' reaction to her five children, her willingness to bear a Down's syndrome baby, and support for her unwed daughter's decision to carry her baby to term. But Governor Palin has shown no inclination to impose her view on others.

In the end, the Supreme Court will remain the arbiter of the battle between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" Americans. Which perhaps is unfortunate: were the electorates in several states given an opportunity to pronounce on the issue, the minority might be more willing to accept the verdict than it is when eight men and one woman in black robes opine.

What many foreigners might be missing is that Palin's supporters don't much care what she thinks about babies, guns and Jesus. They seem to care only that she is what one British friend described as "a real person". Fortunately for the American electorate, there is nothing much that the British commentariat can do to prevent its worst nightmare from becoming a reality: Sarah Palin sworn in as President of the United States, dining with the Queen at a state banquet.

So sit back and enjoy the show. It is far more entertaining, and certainly more democratic, than waiting for the defenestration of a prime minister by a cabal of his colleagues.

======

ANN COULTER

Obama: Lucifer is my homeboy

Posted: September 17, 2008
6:17 pm Eastern

It's another election season, so that means it's time for Democrats to start uttering wild malapropisms about the Bible to pretend they believe in God!

In 2000, we had Al Gore inverting a Christian parable into something nearly satanic. Defending his nutty ideas about the Earth during one of the debates, Gore said: "In my faith tradition, it's written in the book of Matthew, where your heart is, there is your treasure also." And that, he said, is why we should treasure the environment.

First of all, people who say "faith tradition" instead of "religion" are always phony-baloney, "Christmas and Easter"-type believers.

Second, Jesus was making almost the exact opposite point, saying: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth," where there are moths, rust and thieves, but in heaven, because, Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
I guess that's the kind of mix-up that can happen when your theological adviser is Naomi Wolf.

Complete article in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75543

============

Report: UK diplomat warns of Obama's inexperience

By Raphael G. Satter
October 2, 2008

Britain's ambassador to the United States described Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as intelligent but untested in a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a newspaper reported Thursday.

The Daily Telegraph said Ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald sent a letter to Brown describing the Illinois senator as someone who was still "finding his feet" when he "got diverted by his presidential ambitions."

"Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to," the Telegraph quoted Sheinwald as saying in an article posted on its Web site. His letter warned that, if elected, the 47-year-old Obama would "have less of a track record than any recent president," according to the newspaper.

The Telegraph said the seven-page letter was sent to Brown on the eve of Obama's visit to Britain in July. Britain's Foreign Office and Brown's Downing Street office both declined to comment on the article.

Sheinwald also raised a question about Obama's stance toward Iran, suggesting it could conflict with the U.N. Security Council's demands that Iran stop enriching uranium before negotiations resume.

The Telegraph quoted Sheinwald as saying that, if Obama were elected, Britain would have to talk to him about what Sheinwald delicately called "the articulation between (a) (Obama's) desire for unconditional dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the (U.N. Security Council)'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."

But Sheinwald, who previously worked as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's official on the U.K.'s mission to engage Syria and Iran, reportedly approved of Obama's policy in Iraq.

"Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in southeast Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach," he was quoted as saying.

The Telegraph said the diplomat also had praise for Obama's speaking style and intellectual gifts — it quoted Sheinwald as calling Obama "elegant," "mesmerizing," and "highly intelligent."

The British embassy in Washington, where Sheinwald took up his appointment in October of last year, declined to comment on the report.

Copyright © 2008

Benedict XVI & Opus Dei media maul Jon Sobrino

2008-09-16T16:44:00.004-04:00

Benedict XVI & Opus Dei-owned media maul Sarah Palin

While Benedict XVI and his Opus Dei entourage are in Lourdes mocking Our Lady of Lourdes and overpowering her 9-months pregnancy by cloning the flour-into-flesh-of-Christ, the Opus Dei media moguls in the USA are busy mauling and character-assassinating Sarah Palin.

The media - especially in wealthy nations as the USA - is owned and controlled by the Opus Dei as we have been expounding in detail in the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2.blogspot.com and in this Benedict XVI- God’s Rottweiler weblog.

The US media treated Benedict XVI like King Herod when he visited Washington and New York and made it appear that his few words of “apology” has wiped out his 26 years cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

Osama ben Laden led the 9-11 WTC attacks from the caves far in Afghanistan while the Vatican Trinity, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei led the priest-pedophilia-phenomenon from their Vatican Palace.

Osama ben Laden’s crime was evident with bloodshed and apparent death of 5,000 victims while the Vatican Trinity’s crime was hidden in the “death of souls” of more than 12,000 American little altar boys and girls. The victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army are more than double those of Osama ben Laden’s army (see www.jp2m.blogspot.com)

Opus Dei media universities worldwide

The Holy Cross Pontifical University in Rome and many Opus Dei universities like the John Paul II the Great University in San Diego are all communications universities which have prepared (and will continue to train) battalions of professional journalists who are now writers for Associated Press and Reuters (also owned by Opus Dei). These professional journalists carry out the Opus Dei WORLD DOMINATION Agenda!

Opus Dei media mauls Sarah Palin

When the media attacks Sarah Palin ruthlessly from Day One until the end of the presidential campaign 2008 it is not a surprise because that is the in-human modus operandi of the Opus Dei, the most cunning secret rulers and subtle pythons “Fathers of LIES” in the modern age.

Everyday, the New York Times, the US News Report, the Washington Times cruelly character-assassinate Sarah Palin…and not once have they criticized Obama. All US newspapers and television networks voraciously maul Sarah Palin as if she is not a human being…just like the way they treated those 12,000 American altar boys and girls who were sodomized and sexually abused by John Paul II Pedophile Priests.

Opus Dei media buries Sarah Palin alive

This latest CBS news on September 15 “The Sarah Palin Phenomenon is Doomed” illustrates Opus Dei’s ruthless assassination attempt on Sarah Palin -- Opus Dei wants to bury her alive…like Opus Dei has silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino for good and forbid him to preach and write in Catholic venues. Opus Dei knows how to kill you without bloodshed in the most subtle ways by using their battalions of writers and wealthy fanatic followers.

Opus Dei WORLD DOMINATION media power

This CBS news article “The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Is Doomed” proves the power of the Opus Dei media and this paragraph is their (inadvertent) proclamation of their Octopus Dei powers: The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.

2 comments hit Opus Dei media’s bull’s eye.

If the bubble is about to burst on the Sara Palin story since people will grow tired of it, how long ago did Barack Obama''s bubble burst. We have been seeing him for over two years. How many covers on Time and Newsweek do we have to see?

I think the author of this story has wishful thinking.

Posted by singfast at 04:05 AM : Sep 16, 2008

In my 40 plus years on this earth I have never witnessed such unrestrained media bias as the firestorm of criticism that has been directed at Ms. Palin. I mean, do you ever stop to read your own copy? Do you ask yourself if this is news or blatant partisan commentary? Bill Clinton used to speak of the “politics of personal destruction”. The media is now perfecting it.

Posted by hessionr at 03:57 AM : Sep 16, 2008
We’ll post here two articles of the major news networks CBS and ABC and some appropriate comments.

Hillary & Bill Clinton’s souls for 22 Million dollars! paid off her campaign debts

The ABC article features Hillary Clinton battering Sarah Palin as part of her job for the price of 22 Million dollars (or more) given by Obama to pay off her campaign debts.

Obama has raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars, more than 300 Million dollars and he can easily afford to buy the votes of the Clintons and a string of famous celebrities who will sell not only their souls for a hefty price tag – but are already so used to selling their bodies in films. So it is no surprise that Obama can also buy their body presence and celebrity affronts against Sarah Palin in his events and in their webs and TV appearances.

Yes, the Opus Dei is the new Octopus Dei beast image of Satan in the 21st century just like Benedict XVI is the ugly face of Satan today! (see the details of this weblog expounding this fact surpassing Ripley’s Believe it or not!)

NObama! NObama! NObama!

NOBiden! NOBiden! NOBiden!

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2382 NObama '08 stickers

Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73800

CBS News

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Is Doomed

MarketWatch Columnist Jon Friedman Warns The Media Live To Build You Up, Then Knock You Down

Comments 1451
NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main4448337.shtml?source=mostpop_story

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon is doomed.

But it's not because of her lack of foreign policy experience or her deer-in-the-headlights look during part of her interview last week with ABC's Charles Gibson.

The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)

It isn't a case of quixotic behavior by reporters and editors. Internet sites, blogs and cable news operations all thrive on presenting fresh headlines and updated story angles as often as possible so readers think we're on top of things. The news world moves at warp speed.

Palin's story is especially captivating because she emerged as an overnight sensation. The governor of Alaska was virtually unknown on the national scene before Sen. John McCain tapped her to be his running mate. Amid the media crush accompanying her rise, it now seems as if Palin has been around forever.

For as long as she has been in the public eye, people have been skeptical about her qualifications, but the allure of her beginner's pluck catapulted Palin to the covers of magazines ranging from Time to People.

The interview with Gibson may be remembered as the first brick being pulled out of the wall. The reviews weren't favorable from the media in the segments when Gibson asked Palin questions about foreign policy.

For instance, the New York Times called the exchange "strained." The Washington Post-owned Slate went so far as to say that "The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur."

I'll be interested to see how Palin -- not to mention McCain and the Republican campaign machine -- reacts when the media's disillusionment sets in for real. Their actions may determine the course of the 2008 race.

If they handle the media's about-face with aplomb, her chances of looking, well, vice-presidential will be enhanced. But if Palin's handlers blow it out of proportion and show a strain, their behavior will reflect negatively on her.

Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either.

Palin's supporters may be chagrined that their candidate didn't sound more self-assured or expert when she discussed Alaska's relationship to Russia. But Gibson didn't try to trip her up. He pretty much asked the kinds of questions I would have put to Palin as well.

Gibson treated her with the respect befitting a vice presidential candidate. ABC, while discussing the interview Friday on "Good Morning America" unleashed political correspondent Jake Tapper to assess the "truthiness" of Palin's remarks on the ABC show.

The television networks appear to be treating Palin carefully, trying hard not to seem sexist or liberal or come across as intellectual, big-city bullies.

When ABC noted that Tapper had found a few holes in Palin's comments (though nothing earth shattering), the network took pains to add that it, too, would be dissecting the statements of Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate.

"She sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander-in-chef," the Associated Press noted.

Since we're all clear on the nuances of the Bush Doctrine, we can move on to the Fickle Media Doctrine.

Now that we've built you up, it's about time for us to knock you down.

Can Sarah Palin withstand the body blows that are being inflicted by the national media?

The media aren't the bad guys in the Palin discussion. It's easy to accuse us of acting like sexists or big-city egomaniacs. Let's be real, though. McCain selected Palin for exactly those reasons - because she is a woman from a little-known state, who can take some of the heat off McCain and behave like an attack dog against Barack Obama. So far, the Republicans' plan has worked to perfection, as Palin has dominated the political discourse over the past few weeks. Now we'll see if she has the right stuff to go the distance.

CBS news. com

-----------------

Opus Dei Washington elite Joe Biden

Joe Biden is a Catholic and is a member of the Catholic elite in Washington controlled by the Opus Dei Father John McCloskey whom we expose in detail here

http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2007/10/john-paul-ii-squashes-voice-of-faithful.html

Sarah Palin was a baptized Catholic but is now a practising Pentecostal which proves that Catholics no longer have a monopoly of Christianity. Fr. McCloskey hates women and deals ONLY with elite men in Washington at the Catholic Information Center of Opus Dei. Therefore Sarah Palin will be anathema to Fr. McCloskey's eyes and will be forbidden to enter this Opus Dei only-male club.

Palin is a good mother with 5 children without having to be a Catholic and it is not necessary to parrot out the Pope and the Opus Dei books and their useless Catholics doctrines and irrelevant papal decrees.

Opus Dei media pack of wolves

This cartoon is the Opus Dei modus operandi with Sarah Palin, the Jesuit Jon Sobrino and the prophet Tom Doyle who predicted it would cost the Catholic Church hundreds of millions of dollars in court settlements to the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

Opus Dei want to have WORLD DOMINATION and they will destroy their critics like a pack of raging wolves like this cartoon illustrates.

The Jesuit Jon Sorbino has worked all his life for the poorest in El Salvador but he was silenced by Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei because he criticised Pope John Paul II's visit to El Salvador. Opus Dei wolves devour their enemies - very subtly - like what they did to the humble Jon Sobrino of the Crucified People of El Salvador.

Opus Dei media maul Sarah Palin

Let us always remember:

Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leaders

Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 5,478 priests - John Paul II + Benedict XVI + Opus Dei (the new Vatican Trinity, Roman Catholic Trinity!)

There are hundreds of thousands of victims… of tens of thousands pedophile priests unaccounted for because the Opus Dei will continue to suppress their existence in the media… Opus Dei owned media worldwide!

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2382 NObama '08 stickers

Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73800

ABC news batters Sarah Palin via Hillary Clinton

Read the comments (after the full article) that rebuttal this article and show Hillary’s hypocrisy.
Hillary Clinton: Sarah Palin Exciting, But Not Vote Worthy
History Is Not Enough, Says Clinton, Urging Support for Obama-Biden Ticket
Posted by MARK MOONEY on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 9:39:47 AM EDT

comments

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who came close to making history as the first female presidential nominee, concedes that Gov. Sarah Palin has created a lot of excitement as a possibly history-making first female vice president.

Sen. Hillary Clinton says that Alask Gov. Sarah Palin's nomination as Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate is exciting, but not reason enough to vote for John McCain.
(AP Photo/newscom.com)

Palin's presence on the Republican ticket has drawn Sen. John McCain into a dead heat with the Democratic ticket of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, fueled largely by a surge in support by white women.

"A lot of people are missing the boat here," Clinton told ABC News' Diane Sawyer, aboard the "Good Morning America" "Whistle-Stop Express".

Watch Wednesday's exclusive inteview with Sen. John McCain and Cindy McCain aboard "Good Morning America's" Whistle Stop Express starting at 7 a.m. ET
Palin has generated a great deal of interest, Clinton acknowledged, but added, "That's not a good enough reason to vote for that ticket. There's a lot of talk in the country about who are you for in this election, but that's not the right question. The right question is, who is for you."

Clinton suggested that the McCain-Palin team doesn't understand "the struggles you face."

"So I don't think it's inconsistent for a lot of people to say well hey, that's exciting, what an exciting pick, and still say, but that's not the ticket for me and my family," she said.

The New York senator also dismissed any suggestion that Biden hasn't been a strong running mate for Obama, particularly since Palin suggested Obama may be regretting not selecting Clinton, and Biden himself recently said that Clinton might have been a better choice.

Watch Diane Sawyer's interview with Sen. Clinton aboard the "GMA" train here:
Clinton said she has full confidence in Biden, praising his knowledge of the economy and world affairs.

"We have a great Democratic vice-presidential candidate," Clinton told "GMA."

"Joe Biden is a friend of mine. He's been a strong leader both on issues here at home when it comes to the economy and stresses on middle class working families, and he understands the strategic challenges that we face around the world. So I'm very happy going out campaigning as hard as I can for both Barack and Joe."

Palin will rejoin McCain on the stump today in Ohio, but her candidacy also hit some bumps on the campaign trail.

The National Organization for Women will snub her history making candidacy and endorse the Obama-Biden ticket on Tuesday in Washington. Palin's opposition to abortion rights is a major stumbling block for NOW and other women's rights organizations.

Palin is also at odds with an Alaskan commission that is looking into her dismissal of a former public safety commission.

Her campaign announced today that she will not speak with the commission assigned to investigate whether the dismissal was proper, saying the probe has been "tainted" by politics.

Comments

HILLARY IS A DEMS SO SHE "HAS" TO SAY WHAT SHE SAID.......I AM STILL VOTING FOR MCCAIN/PALIN.....THIS IS FROM A FORMER HILLARY SUPPORTERS......I LOOK AT JOHN MCCAIN WHO DESERVE THIS CHANCE AFTER PROTECTING AND DEFENDING FOR THIS COUNTRY AND YOURS AND MINE FREEDOM......WHILE YOU HAVE THE OTHER GUY THAT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING BUT GIVE A GOOD SPEECH.......THE THINNEST AND MOST SHALLOW CANDIDATE I HAVE SEEM IN MY LIFETIME......HE IS ALMOST THE METAPHOR OF THE CURRENT CEO'S OF AMERICA THAT ARE BANKRUPTING THIS ECONOMY........THIS GUY(OBAMA) HAS BENEFITTED, PROFITTED, ENRICHED, AND FATTEN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WHEN HE WAS ELECTED AND NOT INTRODUCE A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE BILL TO BETTER MY LIFE AND YOURS....
tintai 11:37 AM

Well anyone with half a brain, knows that Hil cannot speak her true feeling publicly, she has to remain loyal to her party, how would it look if she came out in the media, supporting Palin! Truth be told I really don’t believe that she or her husband are behind Obama at all. She struck me as insincere at the DNC.She just found herself between a rock and a hard place!
rickygee45 11:37 AM

Well, it looks like the party finally forced her to at least make a lame attempt to help the candidate she firmly said was not fit to be president. There's nothing she can say in support of Obama that doesn't ring completely void and hollow. It's pretty sad to see her have to violate her own testimony of Obama. I think democrats really ought to really step up their attacks on Palin and really try harder to force people to believe that nobody should identify with and support Palin. I think they should strive harder to make women like her seem out of mainstream, celebrate progressive women, and continue to try to convince everyone that women who support Palin, because she is like they, as radical fundamentalists. The Daily Kos site is doing a fair job of it, but they need your help to spread their lies. They can't do it alone. Remember the rules though. You can lie about republicans on the Kos, but you better not tell the truth about democrats there. They ban people for that. For example, you can lie and post that Trig is Sarah's grandchild and that's acceptable and spread, but if you post anything about Edwards and his probable love child, ooh, that's a no-no. You'll get banned for that.
TexBork004 11:36 AM

The article says: "Clinton suggested that the McCain-Palin team doesn't understand 'the struggles you face.' "Sarah Palin does understand the struggles we face as women because she is living them. She is a working mother with children still at home who face the same emotional and physical challenges many of our children face. She became involved in the community to help change problems many of us see in our own communities. She faces the same struggle we have to prepare our children for their futures and provide for their physical needs, while trying to make their schools and community a better place. What better way for the needs of the women of our country to be remembered by our leaders than to have one of us be in the Presidency.
Posted by:
genchenc 12:14 PM

What was Hillary supposed to say...."I am ticked at Pelosi, Dean, Reid and Obama and I love the idea that they are going to lose in November"!! She has to say what she has to say...nothing more...and can you blame her? The DNC, with their unethical way, treated her like the ugly stepdaughter! If anyone thinks that Hillary would abandon her "true" feelings for the DNC better think again.....women like fair play and fair play is not what the Dems are about!! This Dem for Hillary will not abandon her either...I am voting for McCain/Palin just to give Hillary the satisfaction of saying, "I told ya so"! Hillary needs that vote to SUPPORT her and validate her stance that Obama is not qualified for POTUS! She was right when she said that during the primaries and when she is vindicated Pelosi, Dean, Reid and the entire DNC can kiss her butt!
Posted by:
ethics08 11:58 AM

HILLARY: SOUR GRAPES !!!!
Posted by:
lion-at-large 12:43 PM

Benedict XVI and Obama are totalitarians: Associated Press dictates that “Nobody can every say anything bad about Benedict XVI and Barrack Obama”

2008-10-11T09:45:00.005-04:00

Benedict XVI attacks Jesuit Jon Sobrino and Opus Dei owned media attack Palin

Benedict XVI is a totalitarian and Obama is a totalitarian that even controls Kenya …already…imagine what will happen to America if he becomes President, God forbid. Obama has raised half Billion dollars for his campaign and can therefore dish out millions to buy the votes and smear campaigns of movie stars, famous rock singers, media writers who’ll sell their soul to the Devil for millions of dollars. Even Brigitte Bardot has sold her soul to Obama by smearing Sarah Palin. The sex-kitten Brigitte Bardot living with hundreds of cats versus the heroic Sarah Palin mother of 5 children with a baby with Down Syndrome: who is more Christian between these two women?

The mainstream media treats Obama as “the Messiah” like the Opus Dei treats John Paul II as “the 2nd Christ”, see article by Ann Coultier in this weblog.

Think about that for a second - let it sink in. According the the AP, NOBODY CAN EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT BARACK OBAMA – see full article below “Sarahcuda versus the Associated Press”

==========

Opus Dei media are pathological liars

Benedict XVI is dubbed the flying pope simply because his papal cape is blown like wings of this photo. Benedict XVI cannot change water into wine and therefore he cannot change flour into the flesh of God in the Mass or Eucharist. The media lies of Opus Dei to give “godly powers” to the Pope show Opus Dei’s capacities as pathological liars….Octopus Dei liars.

In the World Youth Day in Australia tons of flours and 1 million Host were turned into the Body of Christ by Benedict XVI yet he would not even dare celebrate ONE Mass with the Jesuits from around the world gathered in Rome last January to March for their 35th General Congregation. All Benedict XVI cared about was his “power over the Jesuits” and the Opus Dei’s control over the new Superior General Alfonso Nicolas.

The mainstream media treats Obama as “the Messiah” like the Opus Dei treats John Paul II as “the 2nd Christ”, see article by Ann Coultier in this weblog.

OC says:

Sarah Louise Palin
8 years at an ELECTED Executive level position
1992 to 2008 = 15+ years elected Politics

2 terms City Council
2 terms Mayor
1 (short term Oil Administrator) ok, appointed
1 term Governor

Barack Hussein Obama
0 (ZERO) years at an elected executive level position
1997 to 2008 = 10+ years elected Politics

7 years elected to Illinois Senate
3 years U.S. Senate

==========

AP: Nothing bad can be said about Obama…and Benedict XVI

Think about that for a second - let it sink in. According the the AP, NOBODY CAN EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT BARACK OBAMA – see full article below “Sarahcuda versus the Associated Press”

SarahCuda vs. The Associated Press

http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/

If anything is dropping faster than the stock market, it's the media's level of integrity. Yesterday, the Associated Press dove further into the gutter by accusing Governor Palin of racism. I'm not particularly surprised by the claim, as the Obamaphiles in press seem to be fond of using racism claims to dispute any argument that they can't legitimately refute. However, I am appalled at the reasoning behind this claim, as it seems to be the first time the media has admitted that any criticism of Obama (including legitimate, totally non-racial remarks) can and will be labeled as racism.

Here's the breakdown: The AP has declared Palin a racist for associating Senator Obama with Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant terrorist who once bombed the U.S. Capitol. Here's the problem: Ayers is white; most of his "Weather Underground" colleagues were white; and he is often referenced as an archetype of the (predominantly white) pseudo-intelligentsia of 1960s radicals masquerading as intellectuals on America's college campuses. Mr. Ayers has no connection to anything that would be considered "black", let alone "stereotypically black". In fact, associating Obama with Ayers is more of an attempt to associate him with the snobbish (and, again, mostly white) class of leftover-hippies-turned-radical-professors. So, basically, the AP has declared Palin racist because she associated Sen. Obama with a bunch of elitist Caucasians.

This bizarre feat of intellectual gymnastics was justified by the AP as follows:

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

Read that again very carefully. Essentially, they said that she did nothing racial at all, but merely that she dared to suggest that Senator Obama is anything less than a divine gift to America. If this paradigm were applied across the board, EVERY criticism of Obama would be labeled racism. Using that definition, it is literally impossible to say anything negative about the Senator from Illinois without committing a racist act.

Think about that for a second - let it sink in. According the the AP, NOBODY CAN EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT BARACK OBAMA.

Friends, that's not just unjournalistic...it's downright Orwellian.

Sarah Palin is not a racist. She never has been; She never will be; and it is an understatement to say that the AP owes her an apology. It is appalling to me that Barack Obama's association will Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, would be considered anything less than "fair game". Until such time as Sen. Obama admits that he showed bad judgement by ever associating with Mr. Ayers, this should remain an open issue, and we should regard any media attempt to bury the story as censorship.

Apologies if this sounds a little radical of me, but this is genuinely how I see it, and I challenge the AP to prove to me that I am wrong.

Posted by Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan" at 10/06/2008

======

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE

THE YEAR THE MEDIA DIED
How 2008 presidential election demolished credibility of 'mainstream' press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 02, 2008
11:31 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The mask is off. The pretense over.

After decades of pretending they're not biased leftward – even though everyone else knew it – America's "mainstream media" have finally, during 2008, dropped the façade of fairness and impartiality.

The big media openly worship Barack Obama. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, upon listening to Obama speak, says almost mystically, "I felt this thrill going up my leg." Rolling Stone magazine rhapsodizes, "There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him …

For its October cover, The Atlantic magazine hires a photographer who intentionally photographs John McCain to look ugly and threatening. ("I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she later admits, adding, "maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [the Atlantic] to hire me."

The New York Times publishes Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq policy, but refuses to run McCain's op-ed. At the same time, all three network's news anchors tag along with Obama like groupies on his overseas stump tour, while McCain receives scant media coverage.

The pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter is national news, as is the presence in the Alaska governor's mansion of a tanning bed (which Palin paid for herself). But Obama being mentored and nurtured for years by terrorists (William Ayers), communists (Frank Marshall Davis) and America-hating racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), which helped shape him into the most left-wing, America-blaming, radically pro-abortion and tyrant-appeasing presidential candidate in U.S. history, is not news.
Yes, the media have long been biased to the left. But this year it's different. This year, the mask has come off and the real face of the mainstream media – or MSM as they're popularly called – has been revealed for all to see. And it ain't pretty.

Documenting this stunning transformation of the American news media – and pointing to amazingly positive changes now occurring in the evolution of the free press – is the October edition of WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE YEAR THE MEDIA DIED."

"It doesn't matter how dangerous the reality of Obama is – a hardcore leftist whose intended tax-and-spend policies would, experts say, plunge American into a full-bore depression," said WND Managing Editor and best-selling author David Kupelian. "It doesn't matter how surreal and creepy his campaign gets – enlisting sheriffs and prosecutors to intimidate voters, exploiting children into singing 'Obama's gonna lead us' songs stunningly reminiscent of Chinese Maoist indoctrination. The mainstream press ignores it all, because, very simply, they just really want Obama to be president."

However, adds Kupelian, regardless of who wins the election, the "mainstream press" will never be the same.

"This is, as Sean Hannity has been saying for months, 'the year journalism died.' By pushing so unashamedly and openly for Obama, the Old Media are throwing away what little is left of their credibility. Maybe they sense the era when they could fool most Americans is coming to an end, and thus are going all-out to get Obama elected as their last desperate mission."

The good news, says Whistleblower, is that while the Old Media are rapidly waning (the New York Times Company is worth only half of what it was a year ago), the New Media – talk radio, Internet news, bloggers, cable news (well, some cable news) and more – are growing exponentially in readership and influence.

Highlights of "THE YEAR THE MEDIA DIED" include:

"The sad state of the media" by Joseph Farah

"Study: ABC, NBC, CBS strongly support Obama" by Bob Unruh, concluding that "mainstream" media covered has "bordered on giddy celebration of a political rock star"

"Magazine photographer shoots McCain to look like monster," documenting how a self-described 'hard-core Democrat' boasted how she tricked Republican presidential candidate into participating in horror pic

"Stunning proof of mainstream bias" by Chelsea Schilling, on how the weekly celebrity magazine "Us" smeared Sarah Palin while unabashedly praising Obama

"Gingrich verbally incinerates MSNBC reporter"

"CNN reporter falsely claims Palin posed in bikini with rifle" – just one in a string of sensational but untrue claims against Alaska governor

"McCain rumors big news, Edwards adultery no news" – a stunning contrast between media coverage of the two candidates' alleged "scandals"

"Is the press evil?" by David Kupelian, who surveys the death throes of the Old Media – and the birth pangs of the New Media

"The Old Gray Lady's mind-numbing bias" by David Limbaugh, show how the New York Times "arrogance and unprofessionalism" have hit a new low

New York Times worth half what it was last year

"New York Times vs. Helms, part 529,876" by Ann Coulter, who excoriates the Times' journalistic spitting on the grave of a great statesman

"He's one of them – she's one of us" by Patrick J. Buchanan, on what the media firestorm over Sarah Palin is really all about

… and much more.
"I've often said that no group in America is more responsible for making evil look good and good look evil than the news media," said Kupelian. "This issue of Whistleblower documents something truly astounding – the death of the Old Media before our very eyes, and the rapid growth of the New. In my view, it's the single most positive trend in America today. Without a truly free press, it's really hard to have a free country."

SPECIAL DISCOUNT OFFER! For a limited time, subscribe to Whistleblower, renew your subscription or give a gift subscription for one year for only $39.95 – a $10 discount off the normal $49.95 price! In addition, with your one-year subscription or renewal we'll send you a FREE copy of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's authorized biography, "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" by author Kaylene Johnson. Drawing on personal interviews with Palin, her family and other highly placed sources – and featuring dozens of family and political photos – "Sarah" explores Palin's family life, her upbringing in a devout Christian home, her political rise, her values and beliefs, and how she went from being a long-shot candidate to – very possibly – one of the world's most powerful women and political figures.

Or, subscribe to Whistleblower, renew your subscription or give a gift subscription for two years and you'll pay only $74.95 – that's a $10 discount off the already discounted two-year rate! Plus with your two-year subscription or renewal, you'll get a FREE copy of "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," by Brad O'Leary, just published by WND Books.

Other books, such as the No. 1 best-seller "The Obama Nation" by WND's Jerome Corsi, have focused on Obama's past; but in "The Audacity of Deceit" O'Leary looks to Obama's proposed future, detailing what America would look like if Obama were elected president and actually made good on his campaign promises.

This special discount offer may end without notice. Free book offer good in the U.S. only.

SUBSCRIBE TO WHISTLEBLOWER.

RENEW YOUR WHISTLEBLOWER SUBSCRIPTION.

GIVE A GIFT WHISTLEBLOWER SUBSCRIPTION.

If you prefer, you may order a single copy of the October issue, "THE YEAR THE MEDIA DIED."

NOTE: When shopping in WND's online store you have the option of paying with either a credit card or a check.

If you wish to order by phone, call our toll-free order line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

Benedict XVI Audacity of Hate

2008-10-12T09:39:00.009-04:00

It is becoming very evident that Benedict XVI and Obama are of the same feather in their strategies to quash their critics and opponents. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei “silenced” the Jesuits especially Jon Sobrino. Now Obama is doing the same to his critics and like Opus Dei who will not allow any criticisms on John Paul II and St. Josemaria Escriva, Obama and his half-billion dollars will not allow any media to say anything negative about him. ALL mainstream media attack McCain and Sarah Palin DAILY. Imagine McCain who gave his life for our country and was ready to die as POW in Vietnam and his wife Cindy more merciful and charitable (than Michelle Obama) and Sarah Palin the most beautiful American politician - being targeted with fresh ballistics every minute from AP et al.

----------

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77275

Obama's audacity of hate

Posted: October 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

When Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, many had high hopes that his breakthrough would move American social consciousness forward into a post-racial era. Many thought the time had come when candidates would be judged by their qualifications and dedication to our country, not by their race.

To see why it is impossible for Obama to play this transcending role, read his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance." His dreams are obsessed with race and race conflict.

This book is an extraordinary 442 pages that appear to be written by an experienced novelist who knows how to tell a compelling story laced with minute detail about everything from clothes to odors, fictional characters and invented conversations. It is complete with the colloquialisms, ungrammatical English and four-letter words the author thinks are appropriate to the people he quotes.

Obama describes how he deliberately separated himself from his multiracial heritage in order to give himself a 100 percent black persona, different and alienated from the white world around him. Obama writes that the book is "a record of a personal, interior journey" to establish himself as "a black American."

With his new all-black identity, Obama stews about injustices that he never personally experienced and feeds his warped worldview by withdrawing into a "smaller and smaller coil of rage." He lives with a "nightmare vision" of black powerlessness.

Obama says that the hate doesn't go away. "It formed a counter-narrative buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people – some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

Obama's worldview sees U.S. history as a consistent tale of oppressors and oppressed. He objects to the public schools because black kids are learning "someone else's history. Someone else's culture."

He even criticizes his white grandparents, who worked hard to give him a privileged life. Their motives are a mystery to Obama because they came from the "landlocked center" of the United States, which, he asserts, is full of "suspicion and the potential for unblinking cruelty."

Obama grew up in Hawaii, the exemplar of a melting pot of races, yet he sees it as a place of "aborted treaties and crippling diseases brought by the missionaries." Although his mixed race was not a handicap in Hawaii, he whined that "we were always playing on the white man's court ... by the white man's rules."

One day his grandmother, while waiting for a bus to take her to work, was accosted by a panhandler. She gave him a dollar, but he aggressively demanded more – and she was scared because he looked like he might hit her.

When Obama learned that the panhandler was black, he said the news hit him "like a fist in my stomach." Obama objected to the fact that his grandmother was "scared of a black man," and his resentment at her (not at the panhandler) was such a big deal that he referred to this incident repeatedly.

Obama immersed himself in the writings of radical blacks: Richard Wright, W.E.B. DuBois, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin and Langston Hughes. Obama's favorite became Malcolm X.

Obama scarcely knew his father, yet he wrote: "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

Obama described his happiness in going to Kenya: "For the first time in my life, I felt the comfort, the firmness of identity that a name might provide." He felt he "belonged" and had come home. Apparently, the only other place he felt at home was in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago.

Obama rejects racial integration because it is "a one-way street" with blacks being "assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around." Does he think America would be a better country if whites were assimilated into African culture?

There is absolutely nothing in this book that expresses pride in or love of or appreciation of America. In 442 pages of introspection extending over his life as a teen, undergraduate and law student at prestigious institutions, community organizer and working adult, he doesn't say anything positive about American government, culture, society, freedom or opportunity.

Obama's refusal to wear an American flag pin on his lapel sounded too trivial for a campaign issue. But since there is nothing in his book about respect for the flag, or the republic for which it stands, maybe the flag-pin flap does indicate his disdain for patriotism.

In his autobiography, Obama accepts the view that "black people have reason to hate." His later book is called "The Audacity of Hope," but his autobiography, which he has never disavowed, should be titled "The Audacity of Hate."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

STEAL THE VOTE
Judge labels GOP's voter challenge 'political chicanery'
Schedules hearing on Democrats' that Republican effort violates federal election law
--Billings Gazette

Obama's involvement with ACORN unearthed
Article purged from website recovered, reveals candidate's training activities
--Cleveland Leader

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST, AUG. 24
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama disguising ties to radical leftist group?
Organization convicted of voter fraud, pushes 'authoritarian socialist' agenda
--WND

WND.COMICS
ACORN in Ohio
Exclusive: Joel Barbee shows how group is registering so many voters
--WND

Related special offers:

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

"Avoid Obama Trauma" magnetic bumper sticker

"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker

"The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality"

"Obama Unmasked: Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?"

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=2393

Obama Unmasked

By Floyd Brown and Lee Troxler

Meet Obama's Worst Nightmare. The book that rips the mask off the man that hides behind sound bites and Hollywood spin. If you want to get to know the real Obama read this book.

An old right-wing attack dog has returned with a new target: Barack Obama. --CNN News

Floyd Brown is back. Brown, the former political director of Americans for Bush (meaning George H.W. Bush), was a key player in the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad, and his new group the National Campaign Fund... --ABC News

The Republican consultant who helped sink the 1988 Dukakis campaign with his infamous Willie Horton ad is using his attack dog skills against Barack Obama. --Washington Post

Product Details:

Paperback: 264 pages
Publisher: Merril Press; First edition (August 22, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0936783591
ISBN-13: 978-0936783598
Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.8 inches
Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces
NOTE: Purchasing "Obama Unmasked" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND's acclaimed monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Items

· AVOID Obama Trauma Magnetic Bumper Sticker - $5.95

· Better an imperfect Republican than a perfect socialist Magnetic Bumper Sticker - $5.95

· Jerome Corsi's RED ALERT - Monthly Subscription - $9.95

· NObama 08 Magnetic Bumper Sticker - $5.95

· None of the Above (Book) - Autographed - $16.95

· Obama's Energy Plan Magnetic Bumper Sticker - $5.95

· The Audacity of Deceit (Book) - $25.95

· The Obama Nation (Book) - Autographed - $27.95

---------

Benedict XVI's Audacity of Deceit on John Paul II the Great and his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for 26+ years papacy

BENEDICT XVI RECALLS THE FIGURE OF JOHN PAUL I

VATICAN CITY, 28 SEP 2008 (VIS) - At midday today, Benedict XVI appeared at the balcony of the Apostolic Palace at Castelgandolfo in order to pray the Angelus with faithful and pilgrims gathered below.

The Pope commented upon the Gospel reading of the two sons sent to work in their father's vineyard: one refuses but then changes his mind and goes, the other agrees to go but then fails to do so. "With this parable", the Holy Father said, "Jesus underlines His predilection for converted sinners, and teaches us that we need humility to welcome the gift of salvation".

"Humility", he went on, "may be considered the spiritual legacy" of John Paul I, who died thirty years ago and whose episcopal motto "was the same as that of St. Charles Borromeo, 'Humilitas'. A single word that encapsulates the essential core of Christian life and indicates the indispensable virtue for people who are called to a service of authority within the Church".

"Thanks to this virtue, 33 days were enough for Pope John Paul I to enter into peoples' hearts. In his discourses he used examples taken from real life, from his family memories and from popular wisdom. His simplicity was the vehicle for a solid and rich teaching which - thanks to the gift of an exceptional memory and a vast culture - he supplemented with many quotes from ecclesiastical and lay writers. He was a peerless catechist, following the footsteps of St. Pius X, his compatriot and predecessor first in the cathedra of St. Mark and then in that of St. Peter".

Remarking upon one of the four general audiences celebrated by John Paul I, Benedict XVI recalled how the Pontiff had used the phrase: "We must feel small before God", and had then added: "I am not ashamed to feel like a child before its mother: we believe our mothers, I believe in the Lord and what He revealed to me".

"These words", Pope Benedict concluded, "reveal the depth of his faith. As we thank the Lord for having given him to the Church and the world, we treasure his example, undertaking to cultivate the humility that was his and that made him capable of speaking to everyone, especially the smallest and those 'furthest away'".

V.I.S. - Vatican Information Service

"John Paul II does not deserve to be called a 'saint' by American children in this generation and all generations to come because of the 12,000 American little boys (and girls) sodomized by his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army."

Order of St. Michael the Archangel
& Our Lady of Guadalupe

Benedict XVI covered-up John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for 26 years +

2008-11-01T09:54:00.004-04:00

Someday our vision at the last WYD World Youth Day 2002 of John Paul II being dragged by St. Michael the Archangel will also be in art.

John Paul II was too busy adoring himself and publishing books written for him by Opus Dei that he totally refused to face the problem of his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. There is no excuse, the fact is he had no writings to address this most heinous sin of the Catholic church in modern days. The fact is Opus Dei is only for the elite and has no time and attention to the poor like the Jesuits do.

The John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army is the legacy of the Opus Dei who controlled the Vatican, still does control, and will control until the Vatican's imminenet demise as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima. The Third Secret of Fatima is not being revealed because it points to the Vatican as a black hole in the depths of the earth. Leo X saw this in a vision and John XXIII was sick after reading the Third Secret of Fatima.

How long can Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei think they can fool the 1.2 Billion Catholics. The priesthood and the Eucharist is the greatest lie of Satan and as St. Josemaria Escriva's body is at the altar of Our Lady of Peace church of the Opus Dei in Rome, the Eucharist is a mockery of Our Lady and an insult to her 9-months pregnancy.

There is only ONE Jesus Christ. John Paul II was not Jesus. Benedict XVI is not Jesus Christ, not even an iota close to Christ. Benedict XVI cannot walk on water. Benedict XVI cannot change water into wine…therefore ALL popes and ALL priests cannot change flour-into-flesh-of-Christ. The demise of Vatican and ALL its wealth is imminent as Our Lady predicted in the Third Secret of Fatima

________

http://reform-network.net/?p=2175#comment-7697

Cardinal Sins
2005
91 x 61
This painting captures the essence of the Clergy Abuse Scandal. The three cardinals represent hear, see and speak no evil. You will notice that each head is missing the related part. The heads are grey to reflect the cardinals being dead from the neck up regarding sexual abuse. The garments are purple representing the aristocratic behavior of the hierarchy and the pain of the passion. The garments are held up by the doves symbolizing the Holy Spirit cleansing his church and the two children are symbolic of the horrors that boys and girls have been put through and the shame that they had to live with.

The Ledge
2004
91 x 61

The painting depicts the addictions used by those who are trying to get away from the pain caused by the center piece, a crooked church. The last escape is being contemplated by the person on the ledge as he looks at his reflection while the world around him is cracking. The pool seems serene and the volcanoes are a reminder that those that take their own lives are supposed to burn in hell. The inspiration for this was a survivor who was contemplating his end.

Silent Screams
2002
46 x 61

Silent Screams was inspired by a poem of the same name. It shows the dichotomy of the life an abused person leads. One side is normal, outward appearances, and the other side is tormented. The eyes are a reflection of the soul. The left eye shows the torment this person lives in while the right eye shows the unnamed perpetrator.

Sin Weighs In
2002
91 x 61

Shows a scale with the bishop as the fulcrum. He is nailed to a cross and weighed down by the pedophile priest who has a child representing both male and female in his arms. The fires of hell and the hands of the damned are reaching up for the priest and the child whose life has become hell because of the abuse. The Eucharist on the left side represents God as being above all this with the problem being the hierarchy of the church and not God.

Living Without Trust
2006
28 x 36

Based on a poem by the same name. The drawing is divided using the grave marked “Trust” as the dividing line between a normal childhood and the abuse. After that time, nothing is normal without the ability to trust. The adults reach out to their inner children in an effort to recapture the trust that was destroyed. They are haunted by the ever present priest perpetrator who hovers over their dead trust,

Unravelling
2005
46 x 61

This painting can be read left to right or right to left, but it is about being torn apart and changing through healing. If you go right to left, you see the tightly wound person unraveling and then taking off as a butterfly. If you go left to right, you see the person coming together into a cocoon and then becoming a butterfly.

Righteous Soles
2007
28 x 36

The crepe soled shoes represent the working people in the pews. It was inspired by a conversation I overheard in a cafeteria. The two middle-aged women in creped soled shoes were discussing the Clergy Abuse Scandal and spelling out the reasons they woud not go back to church. This is the outcome, the people in the pews stepping on the priests and bishops who have violated their trust and left their churches in shambles

From the Saatchi Online Gallery, London.

Not only is Vinnie Nauheimer a wonderful writer, take a look at his talent at painting.

* * *

Video Artist Upload Here

Vinnie Nauheimer

Born in 1949 in the Bronx, NY. Stayed there until I served in the Navy during the Vietnam Nam era. Went to college after the service and spent the next thirty years in sales and marketing.

About the Artist
I started painting in my mid twenties and then stopped by thirty. I started painting again to express my feelings of outrage and anger over the clergy abuse scandal. The collection shown here was my outlet. The inspiration came from personal experiences and those of the many wonderful survivors of clergy abuse that I met in online chat groups and in person. Each of these painting has a poem that goes with it. Some were inspired by the poem and some paintings inspired the poem.

-------

Likewise, the mainstream-media that is owned by Opus Dei has also crowned Obama as president even as Obama’s memoir was written by Ayers.

Science points to Ayers authorship of Obama's 'Dreams'

Jack Cashill
Posted: October 29, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

I write this from a hotel room in Washington, D.C., to which city I have repaired in only a semi-successful attempt to bring the news to our truth-phobic national capital.

At the heart of my message is that Barack Obama is an impostor, the Milli Vanilli of politics, a man who has been lip-synching for the last 13 years to lyrics pre-recorded by, among others, Bill Ayers.

Exhibit A in my testimony is Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father." The evidence overwhelms the dispassionate observer that Bill Ayers served as chief book doctor on this fulsomely praised persona-builder.

Now, the science is coming in, from a variety of sources, and it confirms a hypothesis that is evident to anyone who cares to look: Obama had substantial help from Ayers.

Early in this investigation, I had contacted Patrick Juola, one of the nation's leading authorities on data-driven computer analysis. Juola cautioned that in his field, "the accuracy simply isn't there."

He continued, "The best-performing methods we know about can get 90-plus percent accuracy, but can also get 50 percent or less (and we don't yet understand the conditions that cause that to happen), which means that for high stakes issues (such as national politics), the repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction)."

Juola added, "A better approach is simply to do what you're already doing (as far as I can tell from the columns you were so kind as to send) – good old-fashioned literary detective work."

That much said, there was a general feeling among people interested in this story that the public would need the confirmation of science, and not just from one source.

Fortunately, five different sets of researchers have taken the challenge to test the hypothesis that Ayers was heavily involved in the writing of "Dreams." And although there are admitted limits to this emerging science, the consensus among these researchers is noteworthy.

I am aware of a fifth stylometric analysis, soon to be released, this one from a British scholar of international repute, but here are some quick summaries from the first four. The authors' contact information could be made available on deep background for serious news sources.

"Using the chi-square statistic," observes one professor, "Obama's and Ayers's books were indistinguishable, while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors."

Writes another analyst, using his own proprietary software, "There is a strong likelihood that the author of "Fugitive Days" ghost-wrote "Dreams From My Father" using recordings of dialog (either tape recorded or notes). Alternatively, another scenario could be possible: Ayers might have served as a 'book doctor.'"

One systems engineer writes, "The statistical style analysis performed by our research team suggests that the writing style of 'Dreams From My Father' is significantly more similar to the style observed in 'Fugitive Days' than to the style found in other works by Barack Obama
such as 'Audacity of Hope.'"

He continues, "Even more interesting, when we extract those sections of 'Dreams From My Father' that Dr. Cashill believes to be Ayers' writing and treat this as a unique document, the style analysis software identifies a stronger correlation between this sample and Ayers' 'Fugitive Days' than we see between this same sample and the remainder of 'Dreams From My Father'! Thus we have reason to believe that 'Dreams From My Father' had at least two authors, and one author's measured style features more closely match those of Ayers than they match those of the other author(s)."

"Under the Q-value statistic," argues one university-based analyst who tested "Dreams" against Ayers' 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," "segments of 'Dreams' consistently compared as well with 'Fugitive' segments as it did with other segments of 'Dreams' itself. In contrast, 'Dreams' compared poorly with other documents."

Writes another: "The Ayers-Obama matching shows a measurable and substantial effect. It is easily and objectively distinguishable from comparison to a third document. These results achieved through good methodology should readily stimulate scientists skilled in the particular relevant fields to construct their own tests, place objective metrics on the correlation between the Ayers-Obama documents and publish results."

He adds, and I agree, "We strongly think this bears immediate investigation by the academic community at large as the initial data presented is highly suggestive that these two documents share large portions of authorship."

Here is one of the more user-friendly of the studies in pdf format, as well as my summary of the literary detective work that has taken the project this far. Those readers who have influence the media, now is the time to use it.

Read Cashill's three-part series on Obama's "Dreams":

Part 1, "Bill Ayers' motive for penning memoir"

Part 2, "Deconstructing the text"

Part 3, "Real author of Barack book: Why it matters"

Related special offers:

"The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality"

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

Previous commentaries:

"Ayers' role in Obama's 'Dreams' poised to break out"

"Barack Obama: Ayers' alter ego"

"Test shows Ayers penned Obama's 'Dreams'"

"Nautical metaphors could sink Obama"

"Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father'"

"Roots' fraud sets standard for Obama's"

"Obama's poems show real talent level"

Benedict XVI angers Jewish groups for declaring “Venerable” Pius XII who did nothing during Holocaust… like John Paul II did nothing for clergy abuse

2009-12-28T16:20:00.005-05:00

Benedict XVI has stirred anger among Jewish groups for declaring “Venerable” Pius XII who did not help Jews during Holocaust…just like John Paul II did nothing to stop his JP2 Pedophile Priests Army in the USA, Ireland, and worldwide. See the John Paul II Millstone "...Only in the Catholic Church are criminals glorified">http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-paul-ii-pedophile-priests-army.html

December 19, 2009 will be a special historical day for cold-blooded Benedict XVI, the former Hitler Youth member, because he elevated two controversial popes as “Venerable”, Pius XII and John Paul II, two popes who did nothing to speak out and stop the most heinous crimes against Jews and children. As Ireland erupts with discoveries of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/, all Benedict XVI could say was, “I’ll write you a letter soon”.

Benedict XVI is sitting pretty in white at his ivory tower of the Vatican Palace deciding who should be named Saint, Blessed, Venerable, Cardinal, Bishop, Papal Nuncio, who is tall and handsome enough to be a Swiss Guard member, reading and rereading books of Jesuits-to-“silence” like Jon Sobrino, Jacques Dupuis, Roger Haight, and writing papal letter, encyclicals and papal bulls that will determining the salvation (or not) of 1.2 Billion Catholics. Everyday, he has the GAY movie director Zeffirelli orchestrating his papal make-up and wardrobe. Everyday he acts like a professional actor presiding meetings ONLY with royalties, heads of states, wealthy investors of the trillion$$$ Vatican Bank. No wonder Benedict XVI is out-of-touch with reality of average men and women, and most of all the victims of John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/ that is now expanding from the USA into Ireland...but these are just tip of the iceberg...Wait till South America reveals her hundreds of thousands of victims….

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Pope Benedict signs decrees for the Causes of Saints

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday morning signed a decree recognizing the heroic virtues of Pope John Paul II (died 5 years ago), an important and necessary step on the path of beatification. Pope Pius XII (died 1958, 50 years ago) was also recognized for his heroic virtues. The Pope acknowledged the martyrdom of the Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko, who was killed in 1984 because of his religious and social work with the Solidarity trade union. Mary Ward, who lived in England in the seventeenth century (400 years ago) was recognized for her heroic virtue, and a miracle was recognized due to the intercession of Blessed Mary McKillop, (15 January 1842 – 8 August 1909, 100 years ago) the Australian woman who worked in education and with immigrants. This decree clears the way to her canonization.

Rome – Pope Benedict XVI Declares Pius XII ‘venerable,’ Angering Jewish Groups

Vos Iz Neais | December 20,2009

Rome – Jewish leaders expressed disgust Saturday when Pope Benedict XVI pushed a controversial predecessor one step closer to sainthood. The pontiff declared Pius XII “venerable” even though he’s been criticized for not doing enough to help Jews during the Holocaust. Jewish groups had asked for the move – one step before beatification – to be postponed until they're allowed to review Vatican archives on Pius' World War II actions.

"Venerable" Pius XII

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called Benedict's decision "profoundly insensitive and thoughtless."

"We are left bereft in our feelings," he said from his Manhattan office Saturday.

The Vatican maintains Pius worked quietly to help the Jews during World War II.

Jewish groups say no documents supporting that have been released and they need to know more about what he did and didn't do.

"Why the rush to open up the wound again before the opening of the archives?" asked Abe Foxman, U.S. national director of the Anti-Defamation League, from Jerusalem.

Also elevated on the road to sainthood Saturday was Pope John Paul II, widely popular among both Christians and Jews during his time as pontiff from 1978 to 2005.

Cold-blooded Benedict XVI is knocked down at Vatican procession for Christmas Mass, so? he knocked down 12,000 American victims of priest-pedophilia

2009-12-27T12:11:00.007-05:00

Cold-blooded Benedict XVI is knocked down at Vatican procession of Christmas Mass, so what, he had no compunction for the sufferings of victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for over 26 years. Benedict XVI is so cold-blooded that he elevates John Paul II as "Venerable" as the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army expands from USA into Ireland. Only in the Catholic Church are criminals glorifed and elevated into sainthood. See the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-paul-ii-pedophile-priests-army.html

John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army abuses led to suicides, drug addictions, mental illnesses, divorces, depression, etc. Meanwhile those who aided and abetted the pedophile priests, like Cardinal Bernard Law, Cardinal Mahony are sitting pretty in glory in thier papal appointed posts.

Why should we be surprised that one single woman would dare knock down the pope, and label her "mental" case. No, it is Benedict XVI who is a mental case becuase he is so cold-blooded to victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

Watch the video http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/pope-knocked-down-by-woma_n_403331.html

VATICAN CITY � A woman jumped the barriers in St. Peter's Basilica and knocked down Pope Benedict XVI as he walked down the main aisle to begin Christmas Eve Mass on Thursday.

The 82-year-old pope quickly got up and was unhurt, said a Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Ciro Benedettini. Footage aired on Italy's RAI state TV showed a woman dressed in a red jumper vaulting over the wooden barriers and rushing the pope before being swarmed by bodyguards.

The commotion occurred as the pope's procession was making its way toward the main altar and shocked gasps rang out through the public that packed the basilica. The procession came to a halt and security rushed to the trouble spot.

Benedettini said the woman who pushed the pope appeared to be mentally unstable and had been arrested by Vatican police. He said she also knocked down Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who was taken to hospital for a check up.

"During the procession an unstable person jumped a barrier and knocked down the Holy Father," Benedettini told The Associated Press by telephone. "(The pope) quickly got up and continued the procession."

After the incident, Benedict, flanked by tense bodyguards, resumed his walk to the basilica's main altar to start the Mass. He did appear somewhat shaken and leaned heavily on aides and an armrest as he sat down in his chair.

Benedict made no reference to the incident as the service started. As a choir sang, he sprinkled incense on the altar before opening the Mass with the traditional wish for peace in Latin: "Pax vobis" ("Peace be with you"). The faithful responded: "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And also with you").

It was the second year in a row there was a security breach at the service. At the end of last year's Mass a woman who had jumped the barriers got close to the pope but was quickly blocked on the ground by security.

Benedettini said it was not immediately known if the same woman was behind Thursday's incident

Benedict XVI to beatify John Paul II is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul

2009-11-25T20:12:00.003-05:00

Benedict XVI declared the year of St. Paul from June 29, 2008 to June 28/29, 2009. The fact is, Benedict XVI and John Paul II are both the clashing cymbals of St. Paul

Benedict XVI's speedy beatification of John Paul II is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul. St. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthian 13:1-13: “If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.” John Paul II the great with all his papal knowledge, Theology of the Body, countless letters, encyclicals, books and homilies is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul. No American child should ever call him ‘blessed’ or ‘saint’ out of deference to the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/

It isn’t a surprise that Benedict XVI God’s Rottweiler is in a hurry to beatify John Paul II, after all he is made of the same cloth. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he ordered the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. Benedict XVI is also the clashing cymbal of St. Paul see John Paul II the Great clashing cymbal of St. Paul http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-paul-ii-great-clashing-cymbal-of.html Benedict XVI is the third member of the ‘Catholic Hall of Shame’ see John Paul II is the first member of the ‘Catholic Hall of Shame’ and Cardinal Bernard Law is the second member - in the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-paul-ii-is-first-member-of.html

St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 (quoted from the USCCB, United States Catholic Conference of Bishops New American Bible)

1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

History has spoken and the fact will always remain - that John Paul II “had no love” for the American victims of priest-pedophilia, to other victims, the Irish children that are now in the media and the hundreds of thousands in Latin America who have no recourse to justice as we have in North America. Thanks to SNAP, Abuse Tracker and Bishops-Accountability for bringing us endless details of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

May the children of America always remember the victims like they do with Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center. Someday we shall have a SNAP memorial museum in every diocese where there was a victim of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. www.jp2army.blogspot.com No American victim shall be left behind. See the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/

Happy thanksgiving to all our friends and readers.

Benedict approved a decree attesting to John Paul's heroic virtues but he is "brought to nothing" by St. Paul

2009-12-23T20:19:00.001-05:00

Benedict XVI has no power to say « Let there be God » in the Eucharist just like he has no power to say « Let there be light » in Genesis

2009-12-19T11:06:00.005-05:00

Christmas time is here once again and we celebrate the birth of the Baby Jesus in the manger. The Vatican will place the largest crèche and largest Christmas tree at St. Peter’s Square. But what Catholics and the world fail to see is that Baby Jesus took 9 months of gestation in the womb of Mary …but in the Eucharist he INSTANTLY becomes flesh and blood through the formula of “transubstantiation” pronounced only by the ordained “powerful” pope and his priests. And the pope is now propagating Latin in the Mass because it is the “sacred language”. If Africa has black magic and voodoos, the Eucharist is the worst magic of its kind on this planet because the Pope and ordained priests claim they have the EXCLUSIVE power to “turn flour into God's flesh ”! If Benedict XVI and his priests cannot say ‘”Let there be light” and there is no light, neither can they turn the flour and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ that took 9-months of gestation in Mary’s womb. Who are they to be more powerful than Mary and the Holy Spirit?

Why is it that Benedict XVI has silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino for speaking about the poor of Christ but he has not silenced one single pedophile priests among the 6,000 John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army members? Benedict XVI spent so much time reading and rereading Jon Sobrino’s books and other Jesuits whom he has silenced, but he has not spent time with the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army? Why has Benedict XVI not spend time to read SNAP, Abuse Tracker and Bishops Accountability websites so he can learn more about the reality of priest-pedophilia, a word which he refuses to use, because it will mar the reputation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

We have shown you that John Paul II, whose beatification is imminent, did not have the charity of Mother Teresa of Calcutta www.jp2m.blogspot.com and that he was nothing but a papal resounding gong of St. Paul. And Christmas time is here when Benedict XVI will also be nothing but a clashing cymbal of St. Paul and he’ll be practicing the black magic of the Eucharist, overpowering the Blessed Virgin Mary http://stella0maris.blogspot.com/ . The Eucharist was the biggest weapon of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army; because of it altars boys were sexually abused for decades and John Paul II covered-it – up for the sake of the Eucharist.

It was a vicious cycle – priests "created God" INSTANTLY in the Mass and with those same evil hands they sodomized little boys. Only in the Catholic Church can crime pay the criminal priests and then be rewarded with God’s own Body and Blood!

Last December 13, Pope Benedict XVI blessed hundreds of figures of the infant Jesus, to be placed in Christmas crèches in the homes and churches of Rome. He said, as the clashing papal cymbal, that a crèche can be “a school of life, where we can learn the secret of true joy.” But Benedict XVI ignores the true “joy” or living hell the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/ which he directly aided and abetted.

In Genesis God created the world - by his words. Now Benedict XVI, John Paul II, the popes and priests claim to be “creating God” – by their words - daily in the Eucharist. This is the best deception of the Vatican Holy See and it is the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army who are paying the price for this Catholic deception – a living hell legacy - left by John Paul II. So Venerable John Paul II was a liar and a con artist via the Eucharist and he has a big Millstone around his neck as he lay at the pit of Hell because the sins of his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army resound and stench for eternity.

Benedict XVI is the living clashing cymbals of St. Paul just like John Paul II The Great clashing cymbal of St. Paul see the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/ this Christmas “Benedict XVI will play God” even more deceiving the 1.2 Billion Catholics and the world. It is up to us to remind Benedict XVI that he is nothing but an ugly old despot clothed in white clothing who directly aided and abetted the most heinous crime against children in church history, the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.

Merry Christmas to all our friends and readers!

Geneva Study Bible

And God said, Let there be light: and there was {e} light.
(e) The light was made before either Sun or Moon was created: therefore we must not attribute that to the creatures that are God's instruments, which only belong to God.

New American Standard Bible ©

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psalm 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (NASB )

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

ROME'S HISTORIC NATIVITY SCENES INCLUDING WORLD FAMOUS VATICAN NATIVITY SCENE
Life-size Vatican creche

Benedict XVI to lead 'midnight' Christmas Mass at 10 p.m.

2009-12-16T20:23:00.000-05:00

Benedict XVI does not give a hoot about the John Paul II Irish Pedophile Priests Army because he is busy preparing for his Christmas midnight Mass spectacle at the Vatican. He is busy conferring with Zeffirelli, his GAY make-up and event director on what to wear, what to say and how to fool the millions of Catholics and people who will be watching. To Benedict XVI, the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army are nothing but “Dust in the Wind” soon to be forgotten. Look at his Hollywood production events this December. With all the pomp and money that surround him, he has no clue about the sufferings of thousands of children molested by pedophile priests. Benedict XVI should be rotting in jail instead of acting-in-glory in Rome.

But his physical demise is beginning to wear him down. No midnight mass this year, instead it will be at 10 pm. His death is imminent just like his predecessor when he couldn’t make it at midnight. “But as he aged and began suffering from Parkinson's disease, John Paul dropped the Dec. 25 Mass for the public while keeping to the "Urbi et Orbi" traditional and giving holiday greetings in dozens of languages.” Perhaps with the John Paul II Millstone also hanging around his neck, next year, Benedict XVI will also skip midnight mass altogether.

-----------

Pope to lead 'midnight' Christmas Mass at 10 p.m.

AP Mon., Dec . 7, 2009

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI will break with tradition this year and celebrate Christmas Eve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica at 10 p.m. instead of midnight, the Vatican said Monday.

Papal spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi told The Associated Press the decision to change the schedule was made two months ago to "ease the (pope's) fatigue at a time when there are many ceremonies and commitments" during Christmas holidays.

"There's no cause for worry about the health" of the 82-year-old Benedict, Lombardi said. Vatican aides decided to "stretch out" his strength and the pontiff agreed, the spokesman added.

On noon Christmas Day Benedict will read a traditional holiday message from the central balcony of the basilica as crowds gather in the square. The message "Urbi et Orbi" (Latin for to the City and to the World) usually contemplates the religious significance of Christmas and reflects on wars, disasters and other world events.

Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, celebrated Christmas Eve Mass at midnight in the basilica and then led a midmorning Mass for the faithful on Christmas Day at the start of his papacy in 1978. But as he aged and began suffering from Parkinson's disease, John Paul dropped the Dec. 25 Mass for the public while keeping to the "Urbi et Orbi" traditional and giving holiday greetings in dozens of languages.

Benedict will make has first main holiday appearance Tuesday in central Rome when he goes to the Spanish Steps to pray before a towering statue of the Virgin Mary on the Catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception.

The pontiff will mark the year's end with a solemn Vespers service of thanksgiving at 6 p.m. Dec. 31 in the basilica. On New Year's Day he will return to the basilica to celebrate Mass at 10 a.m. He will lead a Mass at the same hour in St. Peter's on Jan. 6, the feast day of the Epiphany.

Despot Benedict XVI does not allow freedom of speech in the Catholic Church

2009-12-16T20:22:00.001-05:00

Freedom of speech is one of our American basic human rights. Unfortunately under the totalitarian government of the Vatican, the despot Pope does not allow any form of freedom of speech. That is why Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei Bishop of El Salvador “silenced” our hero the Jesuit Jon Sobrino and forbid him to preach and teach in all Catholic venues.

We have featured in detail, see our earlier posts, why Jon Sobrino was silenced by Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei Bishop see also the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com. And ODAN explains it clearly that Opus Dei, who controls the papacy since John Paul II, do not allow freedom of speech.

http://www.odan.org/

Official Announcement of ICTOD, the International

Collaboration for Truth about Opus Dei
A collaboration of three separate groups who have experienced
firsthand the deceptive, manipulative and cult-like practices of Opus Dei
has been formed in response to Opus Dei's depiction of itself to the
media and the general public.

Note: Regrettably, it is our understanding that the domain name www.opuslivre.org has been purchased by Opus Dei and is no longer a source for information about Opus Dei. Nevertheless, concerned individuals and former Opus Dei members remain in Brazil. Please contact ODAN if you would like to be placed in contact with others from Brazil.

Reflecting on this action by Opus Dei, the question to ask is this: What does Opus Dei fear about the free flow of information that it would pursue shutting down those who have experienced firsthand Opus Dei's deception and manipulation? This is the type of action employed by extremist regimes, whether fascist or communist, where information is routinely stifled through control of all forms of media.
ODAN supporters and those familiar with cult information may remember the similar demise of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) which was completely taken over by Scientology in 1997. Opus Dei's actions speak louder than its words...

OpusLivre, Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. and Opus Libros http://www.opuslibros.org/ have announced the formation of The International Collaboration for Truth about Opus Dei (ICTOD). The collaboration is the result of three separate groups of people who have had harmful experiences with Opus Dei in locations from all over the world wherever Opus Dei operates.

ICTOD was formed to challenge the statements made by Opus Dei in its recent media campaign to dispel the image depicted in the book and recent movie, The DaVinci Code.

The collaboration consists of Opuslivre, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Opus Dei Awareness Network, (ODAN) based in the United States, and Opus Libros, http://www.opuslibros.org/ based in Madrid, Spain.

ICTOD believes Opus Dei has focused on the extremes of the movie, such as bloody use of the discipline (whip) and the cilice (spiked chain) while saying nothing about how the organization takes away a person's freedom through a subtle indoctrination process consisting of aggressive recruiting techniques, the withholding of information necessary to make an informed choice and the use of subtle pressure, fear and guilt to exact blind obedience upon its members. ICTOD will focus its resources to educating the public about the absolute control and obedience that exists in Opus Dei along with deceptive and manipulative recruiting practices.

For more information about ICTOD, including contact information and a statement from the coordinator of Opus Libros: ICTOD http://www.odan.org/ictod.htm

Benedict XVI is an old God’s Rottweiler with old tricks

2009-12-14T16:50:00.002-05:00

Well, well, Benedict XVI has been given all the chances (while he is still alive) to be a little bit different from John Paul II, but, unfortunately he fails to take the opportunity to repent and change his ways. He and his hypocritical apologies about priest pedophilia are like the little boy who cried “Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! In the end, no one believed him. And now, at the wake of the Irish revelations of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com, Benedict XVI is crying Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Again.

Most Catholics are outraged by Benedict‘s bland reaction to the Irish priest pedophilia scandal, but, it should not surprise us Catholics any longer. Benedict XVI directly led the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. He is a criminal who aided and abetted the thousands of Catholic pedophile priests and he will never change. He should be sitting in jail instead of the Chair of Peter.

You cannot teach old dogs new tricks. And God’s Rottweiler, Benedict XVI is an old dog with old tricks – he’ll go on supressing the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army like "Dust in the Wind" unto his papal grave. He’ll keep on acting as the Supreme Pontiff, carrying out his pompous daily papal show at the Vatican, dealing with royalties, world leaders and wealthy investors for the sake of the Vatican Bank. But now, Italy’s government is now investigating the Vatican bank for money-laundering. Benedict XVI’s papacy will be marked by the moral scandal of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army and the financial scandal of the Vatican Bank. These are the two scandals that dwell in his ugly racoon eyes.

In spite of his daily gay Zeffirelli make-up crew, Benedict XVI becomes uglier each day and he shall die ugly like his idol John Paul II.

Pope Benedict XVI from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3665

----------
Vatican Bank investigated over 'money laundering'

The Vatican Bank is under investigation for alleged involvement in a money-laundering scheme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6746668/Vatican-Bank-investigated-over-money-laundering.html

Published: 7:00AM GMT 07 Dec 2009

Officials from the Bank of Italy's Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) have identified transactions worth up to 180 million (£160 million) in accounts held at a branch of one of Italy's largest banks that allegedly violated anti-money-laundering regulations.

Panorama, the weekly investigative magazine, reported that Prosecutors in Rome, led by Nello Rossi and Stefano Rocco Fava, were working with a special unit of the Italian tax police, to investigate a branch of UniCredit bank next to St Peter's Basilica. The bank was formerly known as the Institute for Religious Works (IOR).
The investigation centres on alleged breaches of financial regulations and disclosure obligations at the branch, but could broadened to include accounts held at other Italian banks. Investigators are examining every transaction in accounts held by the IOR from 2006 to 2008, the magazine reported. Some of the funds allegedly came from the sale and purchase of real estate.

In that period, it said that more than 180 million in cheques and transfers moved through the accounts. The magazine named a manager at the branch who it claimed had a close relationship with Lelio Scaletti, a former director of the IOR, who left the Vatican Bank in October 2007.

Prosecutors told the magazine that they would in the next few days to question Unicredit's senior management over the suspect operations.

This is the most serious investigation of the Vatican Bank since the 1982 collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, in which it was the major shareholder. Ambrosiano collapsed with the Vatican held partly responsible for $1.3 billion in bad debts. If the latest allegations are proved to be correct, they would be a blow for the new directors of the IOR, appointed two months ago by Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State.

Comments:
"The Vatican Bank may argue that they are outside the jurisdiction of Italian courts."

Just because you live in the Disney Land for pedophiles doesn't mean your property isn't part of the real world.
About a year I was at a dinner party in NJ where some dude mentioned that Anne Hathaway's boyfriend would be arrested soon and that the Vatican, Italian bank money laundering and Bill Clinton were all involved My eyes glazed over thinking this dude was nutso. But it turned out my dinner bore was working with the SEC, the FBI and the CIA and so far his whole story has turned out to be true.

-----------

Pope Benedict's lame response to Irish pedophile cases

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6870
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00505/Cartoon_505242a.jpg

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Pope Benedict XVI had the chance Friday to take aggressive action to punish Catholic archbishops and priests involved in disgusting pedophile cases in Ireland. But the Pope shamefully punted.

Oh, he apologized for the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, and for the decades-long cover-up by the archbishops.

Benedict said he "shares the outrage, betrayal and shame felt by so many of the faithful in Ireland." And he's praying for the victims.

That's fine as far as it goes.

However, the Pope failed to take concrete steps to show these victims the Catholic Church is serious about ridding itself of pedophiles and others who have allowed the molestation of boys and girls to occur for many years.

Demanding the resignations of four archbishops at the heart of the scandal would have been a good start.

Benedict's meeting Friday in Vatican City with Ireland's top two Catholic leaders came several weeks after a report was released. It said archbishops had concealed repeated abuse by priests over the years and never told police about the crimes.

Here's one heart-wrenching passage from the AFP News Service:
"One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another confessed that he had abused children on a fortnightly basis over 25 years."

Benedict XVI welcomes Anglicans and mauls Anglican assets

2009-10-28T20:28:00.005-04:00

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are so hypocritical in silencing the Jesuits like Jon Sobrino who work with the poor and censoring his book Jesus the Librator. And

Benedict and the Opus Dei - who covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army have "embraced" the Anglicans in order to seize their financial and prime-land assets. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are the only Catholics who serve both God (Escriva) and mammon (money). The Vatican Trinity is at work again in their deceptive schemes to achieve the WORLD DOMINATION AGENDA of the Opus Dei.

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal

By Mary E. Hunt
October 22, 2009

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1936/vatican%E2%80%99s_come-hither_to_anglicans%3A_a_theological_scandal

While the Catholic Church is touting its warm welcome to conservative Anglicans, it’s also a simple union of those who reject gay and women’s ordination.

The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams share a moment in spring of 2008. Photo: ACNS Rosenthal.

The Vatican’s new scheme to lure unhappy conservative Anglicans into the fold might have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard, but Catholics are not surprised by anything Rome does to shore up its market share. Conservative clergy, whose opposition to the ordination of women and LGBTQ people motivated them to split from the Anglican Communion, are now welcome to switch to Catholicism.

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.

A forthcoming Apostolic Constitution will spell out the details: Anglicans against ordination of women and LGBTQ people (like Bishop Gene Robinson, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/us/03bishop.html?_r=2 for example) are in full communion with Rome. Why bother, then, with individual conversion requirements or superfluous paperwork? These Anglicans can even make the transition as congregations or whole dioceses if they choose. They will be Catholics, but like the Eastern Rite Catholics they will do it their way. They can bring their own smells and bells and their Book of Common Prayer; even their own priests and bishops who will head the “Personal Ordinariates” which will function like dioceses. Come as you are, welcome to discriminate to your heart’s content in the name of God.

Rome changes not one whit on the arrival of the dissident Anglicans. It keeps in place its celibate clergy while welcoming married Anglican men with gusto. I predict more than a little consternation in the Roman ranks on that score. Current policy allows Lutheran and Episcopal married priests to jump the fence with the family in tow. Yet Roman Catholic men who wish to marry, never mind Roman Catholic women who might even agree to celibacy, are prohibited from being ordained. No Roman Catholic official seems to be able to say in a straightforward way why this is the case. They mumble something about tradition and certain distinctions. But the rhetoric is increasingly thin as they defend the indefensible against their own practice. It is not pretty.

Rome maintains its liturgy and theology wholly intact. Theological education stays the same, with the addition of small formation groups for Anglican candidates for the priesthood who can appreciate their own “patrimony” while also getting a good dose of Roman thought. In no way does the Vatican engage the issues that led to the English Reformation in the sixteenth century. Rather, Rome pretends to be flexible and modern about all this, gracious and accommodating like a fox. When the property fights begin, I predict the niceties will give way to some serious struggles and we will see just how accommodating Rome can’t be.

Denominations are businesses, after all, and as such they pay as much attention to the bottom line as to their teachings. Maybe more so. In this case, the low-hanging fruit is British Anglicans who have not figured out how to reorganize themselves in light of their denomination’s changes. Early word from the US group led by the Rev. Martyn Minns of Virginia http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14418 is that they are in fine shape, thank you, setting up their own structures so they will not need to convert.

One wonders how long they can resist Rome’s charms. Imagine the real estate opportunities as US Roman Catholic churches close and conservative Anglicans need buildings. Think of the brilliant solution to the priest shortage as guaranteed-to-toe-the-line Anglican priests replace the Roman boys as they die off and/or think for themselves. Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II. For the more “Catholic” among the Anglican dissidents, it is a marriage made in heaven. But the more evangelical of the conservative Anglicans may well consider it their worst nightmare.

What is to prevent other denominations from following Rome’s lead? For example, what if the Anglican Communion set up a Catholic wing where those Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women and same-sex loving clergy could be Anglicans of the Roman Catholic Rite? The Mennonites might create a Catholic rite for those who follow them on peace issues, resulting in Catholic Mennonites. I doubt it. It is more likely that Rome might decide that one does not even have to be Christian; that discrimination against women and gays is enough of a common bond to create some Catholics of the Muslim rite, for example. The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement—not little pockets of shared prejudice.

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class—however low—by itself.

===

Vatican seeks to lure disaffected Anglicans have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard

by The Associated Press
3_Britain_Anglican_Catholic_Church.sff.jpg

Associated PressBritain's Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, left, from the Anglican church listens as Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, unseen, from the Roman Catholic Church speaks during a news conference in London, held in reaction to the announcement of a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, Tuesday Oct. 20, 2009. Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.

1_Vatican_Anglicans.sff.jpg
Associated Press

Cardinal William Levada, right, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, flanked by Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, speaks at a news conference at the Vatican, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009. The Vatican has made it easier for Anglicans to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the election of openly gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions. Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to convert while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, told a news conference Tuesday.

2_Britain_Vatican_Anglicans.sff.jpg
Associated Press

Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams from the Anglican church speaks during a news conference in London, held in reaction to the announcement of a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, Tuesday Oct. 20, 2009.

Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.

VATICAN CITY October 20, 2009, 09:31 pm ET

The Vatican announced Tuesday it was making it easier for Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism — a surprise move designed to entice traditionalists opposed to women priests, openly gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The decision, reached in secret by a small cadre of Vatican officials, was sure to add to the problems of the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion as it seeks to deal with deep doctrinal divisions that threaten a permanent schism among its faithful.

The change means conservative Anglicans from around the world will be able to join the Catholic Church while retaining aspects of their Anglican liturgy and identity, including married priests. Until now, disaffected Anglicans had joined the church primarily on a case by case basis.

"The unity of the church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows," said Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in announcing the decision.

The spiritual leader of the global Anglican church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, was not consulted about the change and was informed only hours before the announcement. He nevertheless tried to downplay the significance and said it wasn't a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems.

"It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole," he said in London.

The decision could undermine decades of talks between the Vatican and Anglican leaders over how they could possibly reunite. Although Levada insisted such discussions remain a priority, the Vatican move could be taken as a signal that the ultimate goal of ecumenical talks is to convert Anglicans to Catholicism.

Still, the decision confirmed Pope Benedict XVI's design of creating a unified, tradition-minded Catholic Church — a goal he outlined at the start of his pontificate and has been steadily implementing ever since.

This drive also involved a recent move to rehabilitate four excommunicated ultra-conservative bishops, including one who denied the full extent of the Holocaust, in a bid to bring their faithful back under the Vatican's wing.

Levada made the announcement hours after briefing Williams and Catholic bishops in London about the decision. Notably, no one from the Vatican's ecumenical office on relations with Anglicans attended; Levada said he had invited representatives but they said they were all away from Rome.

Austen Ivereigh, a former adviser to the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, called the Vatican announcement historic because it allowed for the "gradual absorption into the Catholic Church of huge numbers of Anglicans," who are conservative in their theology and liturgy.

Until now, Anglicans had been allowed to join the church primarily on an individual basis. With the new provision, groups of Anglicans from around the world will be able to join new parishes headed by former Anglican prelates, who will provide spiritual guidance to Anglicans who wish to be Catholic. Called personal ordinariates, they will be established within local Catholic dioceses.

The new provision also allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests — much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans cannot become Catholic bishops.

A model for the future exists in the United States, where a handful of such parishes function — including three in Texas — thanks to a 1980 Vatican decision to accommodate Episcopal faithful and priests who wanted to convert. These parishes use a Vatican-approved Book of Divine Worship, based on the Book of Common Prayer, that includes Catholic and Anglican rituals, said Monsignor William Stetson, who manages the initiative.

The new entity is also modeled on Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for members of the armed forces and their dependents.

In addition, within the Catholic Church there are ancient communities in the Middle East and others in Eastern Europe that follow different rites and allow married priests while remaining loyal to the pope.

The new model doesn't create a new rite, but rather an Anglicanized liturgy within the Latin rite.

Levada said Tuesday's announcement was in response to many requests that have come to the Vatican over the years from Anglicans disillusioned with the progressive bent of the Anglican Communion. Some have already left and consider themselves Catholic but have not found an official home in the 1.1-billion strong Catholic Church.

Levada declined to give exact figures, though he said 30 to 40 bishops had been in touch, accounting for a few hundred would-be converts.

One group, known as the Traditional Anglican Communion, has publicly stated its desire to join the Catholic Church. The group, which split from the Anglican Communion in 1990, says it has 400,000 members in 41 countries, although only about half are regular churchgoers.

"This is a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history, not because the past is undone but because the past is transformed," the group's leader, Archbishop John Hepworth said in a statement welcoming the Vatican decision.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

Since then, the Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has fashioned itself as a kind of big tent of fellowship with a wide variety of worship styles and theological outlooks that include Anglo-Catholics.

It's not known how many Anglicans consider themselves Anglo-Catholic. However, the biggest impact of the Vatican announcement is likely to be felt in England, where the Church of England has been involved in a bitter battle over whether female priests can become bishops. British Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women simply leave and join the Catholic Church.

The announcement is likely to have far less impact in the U.S., where many Anglo-Catholics left the Episcopal Church more than a decade ago. More recently, four theologically conservative Episcopal dioceses and dozens of individual parishes broke away and formed a rival church in North America.

Still, no one expects a sudden mass exodus out of the Anglican Communion because of the Vatican announcement.

"We're not talking floodgates," said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times a London-based weekly that covers Anglican affairs.
"There are a significant number of people who remain loyal Anglicans who will be seriously (tried) by this," he said, adding that they may want to remain part of the Church of England but will "feel increasingly exposed if their friends start disappearing to Rome."

Some Anglo-Catholics who have not yet left the Anglican fold could choose to stay for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avoid lengthy and expensive battles over parish property. Others may oppose the ruling that married Anglicans cannot become Catholic bishops.

The Rev. Christopher Stainbrook, pastor of St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, an Anglo-Catholic parish that is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, said it was far too soon to know the implications for his parish or others like it in the U.S.

Indeed, Levada made clear that the next step — publication of the pope's Apostolic Constitution outlining the new provision — would be the start of a lengthy process of consultation with Catholic bishops around the world about how to implement the change.

Still, Stainbrook and other traditionalist Anglican groups were elated by the Vatican announcement.

While some Anglicans will want to remain in the Anglican Communion, others "will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land," said two traditionalist Anglican clerics in Britain, Bishop Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet and Bishop Keith Newton of Richborough.

The Anglican Communion has been divided for decades over interpreting the Bible on many issues, including ordaining women. But the rift blew wide open in 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Williams has struggled ever since to keep the church from splitting, frustrated by moves by churches in the United States, Canada and elsewhere to bless gay relationships.

At least four conservative U.S. dioceses and dozens of individual Episcopal parishes have voted to leave the national denomination, with many affiliating themselves with like-minded Anglican leaders in Africa and elsewhere.
———
Associated Press writers Rachel Zoll in New York and Gregory Katz and Robert Barr in London contributed to this report.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Mary Hunt on Vatican's Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Perversion of the Ecumenical Movement

I'd like to add another article to the list I compiled yesterday of valuable commentary about Benedict's embrace of Anglican dissidents. Mary Hunt published a brilliant statement yesterday at Religion Dispatches, entitled "Vatican's Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal."

Though lots of centrist types are trying to dance around the misogyny and homophobia that are driving Benedict's warm welcome of Anglican dissidents (and more on that below), Hunt is unambiguous about what this initiative is all about:

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.

As she also notes, the way in which Rome has proceeded with this announcement is a betrayal of the Anglican communion and of ecumenism--a stab in the back to Rowan Williams and the worldwide Anglican communion, which does not place the Catholic church in an admirable moral light:

The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement -- not little pockets of shared prejudice.

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class, however low, by itself.

I highly recommend Mary Hunt's article, and encourage readers to read the entire text.

Meanwhile, I'd like to note that Jamie L. Manson, whose National Catholic Reporter piece about the recent Roman initiative I recommended yesterday, is under heavy attack at the NCR blogsite on which she published her fine statement. I have to say, I anticipated this attack.

I've noted a troubling tendency of male critics to pile on when a younger woman writer makes a courageous statement like this at the NCR site. Even one of the big names of American religious journalism, a figure not known for his sympathy for gay causes and gay rights, has logged in to question the credentials of Jamie L. Manson.

Which tells me that her truth-telling has hit a nerve--and I intend to try to contact her to tell her that and to offer her support. It's fascinating that many male religionists, including big-name and purportedly "objective" ones, seem unable to hear this kind of plain truth spoken by women, and, in particular, by younger women writers. The old boys' network is clearly rattled when women get out of their places.

I wonder why that is.

Benedict XVI Harboring Sexual Predators in Scranton

2009-11-07T13:46:00.000-05:00

Harboring Sexual Predators in Scranton?
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020130_Harboring_Sexual_Predators_in_Scranton.html

St. John the Evangelist

An open letter to Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton

January 27, 2002

Dear Bishop Timlin,

It has come to my attention that you have removed Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey from the Society of St. John (SSJ), and have relocated them in Scranton. Your action is long overdue, though it is hardly a sufficient remedy for the sexual offenses these priests have committed. The fact that you have not suspended these priests shows your continued negligence in this matter. Indeed, you are guilty of gross negligence, for your inaction over a period of years has allowed these priests to continue their immoral relations with boys. Your guilt is established by a brief review of what you knew about these priests, and when you knew it:

(1) YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT SSJ PRIESTS PLIED BOYS WITH ALCOHOL

In March 1998, Fr. Paul Carr, then chaplain of St. Gregory’s Academy, an all-boys school run by the Fraternity of St. Peter, discovered boys in the dormitory in a state of extreme intoxication. Fr. Carr then discovered that members of the Society of St. John had provided these boys with alcohol. Given the severely drunken state of these boys, Fr. Carr called the police. The police arrived and issued warnings to members of the Society for serving alcohol to minors. Fr. Carr subsequently informed you of the situation.

Your response was to do nothing so that scandal might be avoided. You not only allowed the Society to continue to live at St. Gregory’s Academy, but you even permitted the Society priests to become the chaplains there during the following school year. As a result, Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey were free to continue to ply the boys at St. Gregory's Academy with alcohol and lure some of them into bed. Indeed, members of the Society again served alcohol to boys to the point of intoxication after the graduation ceremonies at St. Gregory’s Academy in June. Moreover, when the Society moved onto its own property in Shohola, PA, these priests continued to serve alcohol to boys and to lure them into bed.

(2) YOUR FAILURE TO DO ADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON SSJ MEMBERS
In May 1998, you canonically established the Society of St. John in the Diocese of Scranton without having done adequate background checks on the clerics in this group. Prior to that event, when you permitted the priests of the Society to serve as the chaplains to the boys at St. Gregory’s Academy, you violated your own diocesan guidelines that require background checks for anyone working with youth. Had you followed your own diocesan guidelines in this matter, you would have learned from the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X that Fr. Urrutigoity had been dismissed from the seminary in La Reja, Argentina for homosexual molestation. The fact that you knew that Fr. Urrutigoity had also been dismissed from the St. Pius X seminary in Winona, MN, should have made you even more vigilant with respect to making proper background checks.

(3) YOUR DISMISSAL OF SERIOUS TESTIMONY OF HOMOSEXUAL MOLESTATION
In February 1999, Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X informed you by letter that a young seminarian from the seminary in Winona had accused Fr. Urrutigoity of molesting him. This charge was supported by the personal testimony of the seminarian in July 1999 before your auxiliary, Bishop Dougherty, who told the seminarian that he believed his testimony. That seminarian, at the conclusion of his testimony, warned Bishop Dougherty that if Fr. Urrutigoity were not stopped, others would be molested. Nonetheless, you dismissed the testimony as “inconclusive,” and allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue to serve as chaplain to the boys at St. Gregory's Academy. You even failed to warn the authorities at the Fraternity of St. Peter and at St. Gregory's Academy of the danger to the boys under the "spiritual direction" of Fr. Urrutigoity and other members of the Society.

(4) YOUR DISMISSAL OF ADDITIONAL INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST SSJ
In the fall and winter of 1999, the key members of the Board of Advisors to the Society of St. John resigned. These distinguished Catholic businessmen made serious allegations against the Society for gross financial mismanagement. At that time, it was also brought to your attention that Fr. Daniel Fullerton, one of the founding members of the Society, had encouraged young men to swim naked at the Society’s property in Shohola. Your response was to issue a formal statement in which you said that you were “morally certain” that the Society had committed no wrongdoing.

(5) YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF FR. URRUTIGOITY’S HABIT OF SLEEPING WITH BOYS
In the summer and fall of 2001, you were informed by at least three different sources that Fr. Urrutigoity had a habit of sleeping with boys and young men. One of these sources was Fr. Paul Carr, now District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Another source was an eyewitness to the fact that Fr. Urrutigoity plied boys on the Shohola property with alcohol, and then slept with them in his private chambers. I myself was the third source, who, in numerous face-to-face meetings with you and Bishop Dougherty, presented compelling evidence of serious immoral behavior on the part of Fr. Urrutigoity. Bishop Dougherty, who had already heard the testimony of the two above-mentioned sources, told me that Fr. Urrutigoity was a “cult leader” who was “capable of pederasty at any time.”

Each of the three sources approached you independently of the other two. Yet you ignored all of their dire warnings, including the judgment of your own auxiliary, Bishop Dougherty. And you did this knowing that Fr. Urrutigoity had been accused of homosexual molestation in 1999. In sum, you allowed a priest whom you knew was sleeping with boys, and who already had a history of sexual misconduct, to continue as Superior General of the Society of St. John.

(6) YOUR LIES AND YOUR COVER-UP OF THE SSJ FINANCE AND SEX SCANDAL

From our very first conversation concerning Fr. Urrutigoity’s habit of sleeping with boys, you vehemently insisted that this habit was not immoral. You repeatedly claimed to have thoroughly investigated the Society and cleared them of any immorality, a lie that was then repeated by the Society to its donors. You yourself contacted donors directly and lied to them by claiming that I had not accused Fr. Urrutigoity of any immorality. And yet Bishop Dougherty, who knew better, had admitted that Fr. Urrutigoity was “grooming” young men for future sexual encounters.
You also insisted that the College of St. Justin Martyr remain associated with the Society even though you knew that Society priests were sleeping with boys. When I was compelled, in order to protect the College’s reputation, to dissociate the College from the Society, you suppressed the College even though the College had done no wrong. Later, under the pressure of adverse publicity, you contacted friends of the College and told them that you would allow the College of St. Justin Martyr to be established in your Diocese if I stopped my public and private criticism of Fr. Urrutigoity and the Society. When I wrote to you to inform you that I would not trade my silence for your permission for the College, you wrote back and again lied by denying that you had ever made such an offer.

Although Bishop Dougherty stated that Fr. Urrutigoity should be deposed, and that “radical intervention” was necessary to correct the Society’s wayward conduct, you failed to intervene in a principled manner. Indeed, when the Society’s developer tried to present you with his studies that demonstrated that the development was infeasible, you indicated that it was not necessary to discuss this matter. Why? Because, as you explained at the time, you had already decided that the Society’s property would have to be sold. Nonetheless, you continued to allow the Society to solicit funds for a development project that you admitted was “dead.” When Bishop Dougherty was asked whether your failure to take disciplinary action indicated that you were held hostage by the Society’s huge debt, he answered “yes.”

In short, the above demonstrates a consistent and determined effort on your part to cover up the scandal surrounding the Society, and to protect yourself and priests who have abused their spiritual office.

(7) YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSATION OF MOLESTATION AGAINST FR. ENSEY
You learned from my e-mail of December 8, 2001 that a minor had accused Fr. Ensey of repeatedly molesting him. Yet you waited for well over a month before removing Fr. Ensey from pastoral activity on the Society’s property. Had you made a genuine investigation of the Society in 1999 when a similar accusation was made against Fr. Urrutigoity, you would have learned then that Fr. Ensey was also a sexual predator who was molesting at least one boy at St. Gregory’s Academy.

(8) YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SSJ PRIESTS SLEEPING WITH YOUNG MEN

Over the course of the last six months, you have told me and others on numerous occasions that you do not consider priests sleeping with young men to be immoral. This is why you have refused to take disciplinary action against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, and why these priests have been able to pursue their perverse ends over a period of years.

The above known facts establish your gross negligence, Bishop Timlin, the consequence of which is that faith and lives have been severely damaged.

Yet even now you continue to talk about giving Fr. Urrutigoity the "benefit of the doubt" and treating him with "charity." All who are Catholic agree that charity is the law that must govern all our actions, but how can it be charitable to allow a sexual predator to continue to prey upon boys? Yours is a false notion of charity, Bishop Timlin, for it shows love for neither the victims nor even the predator himself, who must be stopped for his own good as well as for the good of those whom he seeks to abuse. Real charity would lead you to take salutary disciplinary action against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey.

You speak freely of charity for the accused priests, yet I have never yet heard you use the word "charity" in reference to the victims. In fact, you have still failed to contact the parents of the boys who were exposed to the priests of the Society of St. John. When recently asked why you had not informed the parents, you responded that you did not know their names. Are we to believe you could not have picked up the telephone to contact St. Gregory's Academy in order to find out who these boys were? Your lack of care for the victims is evident for all to see.

In addition to coddling the predators while ignoring the real needs of their victims, you have accused me and others of "attacking the Church" because we have sought to expose the wicked deeds of these priests. Turning a flashlight on the cockroaches in the Church can hardly be construed as an attack on the Church herself. It is rather you, and others in the hierarchy like you, who are destroying our beloved Church, for you have repeatedly sought to bury the truth of these ugly matters. You have sought to protect your own reputation and sympathies while invoking the authority of your office against those who are bringing the truth to light. You purport to be defending the Church against scandal, but fear of scandal is never an excuse for allowing harm to be done to souls. Pope St. Gregory the Great said it best: "It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be suppressed."

As an anointed of Christ, you are obliged to protect the souls of your flock, even if your attorneys and insurance agents instruct you otherwise. Who is running the Church, you or they? Your decision merely to relocate Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey to Scranton, without even suspending them, is more of the same pattern of behavior suitable to a corrupt politician rather than a bishop of the Catholic Church. You are merely hedging your bets: if the bad publicity increases, you will stress the fact that you have removed these priests from pastoral life; but if the bad publicity decreases, you will allow them to return to Shohola, or to some other parish, where they will begin anew the cycle of abuse and deception. In the meantime, you have allowed Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey to receive young men in their company while they are supposedly sequestered in Scranton. Have you no conscience?

Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey must be immediately suspended, and canonical proceedings for their laicization initiated. Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, as Superior General and Chancellor, respectively, are the leaders of the Society of St. John. To uncover the extent to which their moral corruption has infected the rest of the Society, a full and independent investigation of the other clerics in the Society must be undertaken. The investigation must determine if the other clerics have been complicit in the sexual abuse of boys and the cover-up of such blatantly immoral and criminal acts. These clerics are: Fr. Daniel Fullerton, Fr. Basel Sarweh, Fr. Dominic Carey, Fr. Dominic O’Connor, Fr. Marshall Roberts, Fr. Bernardo Terrera, Deacon Joseph Levine, and Deacon James Lane.

Finally, Bishop Timlin, I ask you to find the moral courage to acknowledge your responsibility for the grave harm that you have done, and to resign as Bishop of Scranton, for you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling to protect the souls entrusted to you by our Lord.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
570-685-5945
jmb@csjm.org
www.csjm.org

MORE INFORMATION:
# Scranton Scandal - A Follow-up: The bishop speaks (National Review Online)
# Scranton Scandal: Traditional Catholics are not immune to sex scandals (National Review Online)
# A Catholic community is shaken to its core (TimesLeader.com)
# Two priests relieved of duties as name of alleged victim surfaces (TimesLeader.com)
# Harboring Catholic priests who are sexual predators (Roman Catholic Faithful)

Benedict XVI Church's idealisation of sexuality may be root of abuse

2009-11-07T13:40:00.001-05:00

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Church's idealisation of sexuality may be root of abuse

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1103/1224257961990.html

Tina Beattie

RITE AND REASON: THE RECENT papal encyclical Caritas in Veritate is in many ways a wise and insightful reflection on the economic crisis. However, given the scandal created by the Ryan report, the people of Ireland may have good reasons for refusing to engage with a papal encyclical, even if it addresses a different scandal that has devastated so many of their lives.

But I wonder if Caritas in Veritate inadvertently reveals some of the problems inherent in the modern church’s teaching about human sexuality in a way that sheds some light on the conditions that allow a hidden culture of sexual abuse to take root. Caritas in Veritate risks presenting a utopian ideal in its representation of marriage and the family, and this is part of the problem we have to address if the church is to become more effective and trustworthy in its ministries and teachings.

For much of its history, Catholicism has viewed all human sexuality with suspicion, with sex in marriage being acceptable only if its main purpose was procreation.

That attitude changed in the mid-20th century and, although openness to conception remains a sine qua non of sexual love, modern papal teachings acknowledge that married sex is good even when it has no procreative capacity.

But the pendulum has swung so far that we are now confronted with a romantic fantasy about marriage and the family that results in a naive and, I believe, dangerous attitude to sexuality.

The problem with high ideals is that they often fail to distinguish between the good, the not so good and the downright bad, so that everything short of perfection stands equally condemned.

Consciences that have been shaped by such moral absolutism may be unable to differentiate between the ordinary muddle of more or less healthy sexuality, and levels of sexual dysfunction that result in abusive and predatory behaviour.

At the level of priestly formation, if priests are not helped to understand and accept the complexity of their own and other people’s sexuality, a minority may end up trapped in a culture of loathing and contempt for sexual bodies and, for some, it may be a small step to visiting ever more extreme abuses on bodies that arouse sexual desire.

Caritas in Veritate refers to “the beauty of marriage and the family”; it affirms Humanae Vitae and it repeatedly condemns abortion. When it discusses concerns on population growth, it does so by warning about the dangers of under-population.

It makes no mention of HIV/ Aids and it is silent on questions of maternal mortality and women’s reproductive health, despite the fact that an estimated 536,000 women die every year from causes relating to pregnancy and childbirth, 99 per cent of them in developing countries. These are startling omissions.

This apparent indifference to the suffering of sexual bodies (fertile women and those who have HIV/Aids) has deep roots, and there may be hidden connections between a culture of sexual abuse and a culture of sexual idealisation.

Pope Benedict fails to take seriously the complex realities and sometimes the tragic failures of marriage and family life, and he makes no acknowledgment of the difficult decisions that often confront us in the areas of reproduction and sexuality. I doubt if Josef Fritzl’s daughter would agree with his reference to “the primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality”.

If the church seeks to avoid further sex abuse scandals, then it urgently needs to reconsider its theology of human sexuality. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” says St Paul. That may be true, but in the area of sexuality some sins are worse than others, and until the church acknowledges that, we shall remain trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to Catholicism and sex.

Dr Tina Beattie is professor of Catholic Studies at Roehampton University, London, and director of the Catholic weekly, the Tablet. She will give a lecture on the subject of this article at St Mary’s Church, Haddington Road, in Dublin on Thursday, November 5th, at 8pm
This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

African nuns tell Vatican they want more influence: Shut-up Opus Dei-Pope!

2009-10-28T20:21:00.003-04:00

To the Opus Dei, all nuns must submit to the authority of the Opus Dei-Pope and they must parrot the writings of John Paul II (whose books they authored). But nuns in Africa and elsewhere in the world do not live in the ivory towers and palace of the Vatican amidst luxury and pompous daily ceremonies. Benedict and the Opus Dei are so filthy rich that they are out-of-touch-with-reality and so they silence all the Jesuits and Jon Sobrino who speak for the poor. Now the nuns are also speaking out against the hypocritical and mythical infallibility of the Opus Dei Pope Benedict XVI.

African nuns tell Vatican they want more influence

By Nicole winfield (AP)

VATICAN CITY — African nuns told a Vatican meeting Friday they want more of a say in running the Catholic Church on the continent, saying they have special talents and shouldn't be left to clean churches and mend vestments.

Women also have an important role to play in forging reconciliation in Africa's many tribal and ethnic conflicts — the main focus of the 3-week-long Vatican meeting on Africa, said Sister Pauline Odia Bukasa of Congo.

"We, your mothers and religious sisters, ask you — our fathers and bishops in this church-family — to promote the dignity of women," she said, requesting in particular greater emphasis on educating young girls.

Sister Felicia Harry of Ghana was more blunt, saying African nuns didn't want to usurp priests' powers but wanted to be part of the church's decision-making process.
"As well as teach catechism to children, decorate parish churches, clean, mend and sew vestments, we religious women in Africa would like to be part of various parish councils," she said, according to a summary of her remarks to the closed meeting.

The role of women in the church has been a recurring topic of discussion among the 300 prelates at the meeting, which is hearing testimony from bishops around the continent about their particular problems and advice from colleagues and Vatican officials on how to deal with them.

Ghana Bishop Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi said the Vatican needed to address a particular issue that many African priests face concerning polygamous marriages: A woman who married a man who then took other wives isn't allowed to receive certain sacraments because she is in a marriage that the church cannot bless.

He said when the women have walked away from such marriages without the consent of their husbands, "the church has been cited for injustice, insecurity, breaking up families, fomenting disunity and destroying social cohesion," he told the synod in asking for some special exemptions from Rome so such women can participate fully in the sacramental life of the church.

In addition to the role of women, the synod has addressed issues that are increasingly of concern to the broader church: how to deal with the rapid spread of Islam and Pentecostal churches, which are increasingly drawing away many Catholics.

Bishop Alfred Adewale Martins of Nigeria said it seemed the aggressive proselytizing of many neo-Pentecostal communities "aims at bringing down the Catholic Church both in her influence as well as in the number of her faithful."

"This intention is captured in the way some of them refer to the Catholic Church as the dead church," he said, urging the Vatican to reach out in particular to young professional Africans who are increasingly targeted by the new churches.

While such problems are universal, a purely African problem has also been raised: tribal and ethnic conflicts within the African church hierarchy.

Bishop Albert Vanbuel of the Central African Republic said recent months have seen increasingly bitter divisions between priests, bishops and laymen fueled by tribal and ethnic divisions.

"Our church is called on to show a witness ... of reconciliation, justice and peace, and above all of communion," he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.

Few US diocese willing to pay for Benedict XVI witch hunt on US nuns

2009-10-28T20:12:00.003-04:00

So Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei want to seize the financial assets of the American nuns -- by ordering them to submit to them like parrots and slaves. To the Opus Dei, women are second class citizens. But the American nuns are too well educated to become subservient to those Latin black gowned Opus Dei eunuchs. Those American nuns fight for justice like the Jesuits and Jon Sobrino. And the Opus Dei have silenced Jon Sobrino, now it is the American nuns' turn to be investigated, notificated and silenced. The Opus Dei are the worst news in the Catholic Church.

Few dioceses admit willingness to pay for visitation

Oct. 26, 2009
By Judy Gross
http://ncronline.org/news/women/few-dioceses-admit-willingness-pay-visitation
* Women

© Joseph Cortes | Dreamstime.com

Just two of 61 U.S. archdioceses and dioceses contacted by NCR said they would dip into local church coffers to support the Vatican's controversial visitation of U.S. women religious congregations.

NCR called and e-mailed every archdiocese in the country, as well as a sampling of 29 dioceses across time zones. Twenty-two archdioceses responded to the inquiry, while only seven dioceses did. Many refused to comment, while others cited the difficult economy as a reason they would not contribute to the three-year visitation process, which the Vatican estimates will cost $1.1 million.

Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, has asked the U.S. bishops to support the three-year study. "I am asking you, my brother bishops, for your help in offsetting the expenses which will be incurred by this work for the future of apostolic religious life in the United States," Rodé said in a July 14 letter to every U.S. bishop. If every one of the 178 Latin rite dioceses contributed equally, the tab would be nearly $6,200 each.

"There are several orders that have their roots in our archdiocese and the archbishop, Joseph Kurtz, has communicated his desire to cooperate with this visitation," said Cecelia Price, spokeswoman for the Louisville, Ky., archdiocese. In addition, said Price, "it is customary that expenses related to initiatives of the Holy See ... are shared by the U.S. diocese."

This sentiment was shared by Salt Lake City Bishop John Wester, according to spokeswoman Colleen Gudreau. "We cooperate with all church activities," she said.
Custom notwithstanding, several dioceses indicated they will pass on this collection. "We have no vested interest in this, as we have no institutes of religious in this diocese, so I see no reason to contribute," Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore., told NCR.

"We are not going to be able to contribute," said Los Angeles archdiocesan spokesperson Tod Tamberg. The archdiocese, he said, is facing tough financial times. "I'm calling from a cubicle in a rented warehouse the diocese used to own. We've had no pay raises for clergy or staff in two years."

Meanwhile, Deacon Jake Arellano of the Pueblo, Colo., diocese said, "We do not have the funds to support this. We are settling 26 clergy abuse cases and we are a mission diocese. We are hurting."

Others, such as Omaha, Neb., Archbishop George Lucas, are keeping their decisions private. "He hasn't made a decision and he won't discuss it when he does," said a spokesperson for Lucas.

Likewise, Jim Goodness, spokesman for Newark, N.J., Archbishop John Myers, said, "The archbishop makes these decisions privately."

In Chicago, archdiocesan spokesperson Colleen Dolan said, "Cardinal Francis George does not discuss his personal correspondence between the Vatican and himself."
Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk "has not responded to Cardinal Rodé," according to spokesperson Dan Andriacco.

No response or "no comment" came from the archdioceses of Washington; Denver; Hartford, Conn.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Galveston-Houston; New Orleans; St. Paul-Minneapolis; Philadelphia; Boston; San Francisco; Anchorage, Alaska; and Indianapolis.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan's spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said he asked three chancery staff about the Rodé letter, and "nobody knows what I am talking about."

In the Baltimore archdiocese, communications director Sean Caine sent a recent column by Archbishop Edwin O'Brien by way of response. "I cannot help but see some reactions on the sisters' part which were very similar to those on the part of formation and seminary personnel at the announcement of both prior visitations," wrote O'Brien. "Why us? Why now? Why the secrecy? Have we done something wrong?"

He continued, "In time, once the process gained momentum, most of the seminaries accepted the visitation and in the end even found it most beneficial. I hope and pray the same will be said about the current visitation."

Judy Gross writes from Tallahassee, Fla.
If and when pressed by Rome,

Submitted by John Chuchman (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.

If and when pressed by Rome, those wishing a red hat will, indeed, stuff the coffers.

* reply

So much for the touted
Submitted by John Boos (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
So much for the touted solidarity in the Church, even when some dioceses are "hurting".

* reply

Interesting how bishops
Submitted by Dr. Art C. Donart (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Interesting how bishops figure it is their decision alone whether or not to support this witch hunt withour money! My stance is: "No say; no pay."

* reply

I would also ask a simple
Submitted by Charles Bolser (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.

I would also ask a simple question. Seminaries, Womens Religious Congregations, and others have some obvious need for oversight and evaluation for the purposes of correction, renewal, etc. Who evaluates the Curia and the college of bishops, which includes the Pope? Checks and balances are seen as important and necessary, but why is this process always one way - and that is from the top. Good managerial practices include evaluation of the entire organization - even the Roman Catholic Church. When those on top of the pyramid forget to listen to the entire community and hold themselves accountable to the CHURCH - then we get into deep trouble. Why, for instance, have the bishops not been evaluated and held accountable for their responsibility for the expansion of the sexual abuse crisis? Why do the bishops hold themselves above and apart from the wider commuinity? They appear to act like the congressmen and senators who pass laws for everybody but themselves, but even these politicians have to place their names up for re-election on a regular basis. Unless of ccourse, they are acting as an oligarchy, choosing their own successors and beholden to no one.

* reply

I could not have said it
Submitted by Pat Joyce (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I could not have said it better. Coodos to the writer. Everyone, even the bishops should be held accountable to the people they serve..the other denominations do.11

* reply

I am informing my parish that
Submitted by Ron B. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I am informing my parish that ALL monies donated by me are to remain within the parish for specific parish needs. Nothing to the bishop or Rome! Nothing until they rid themselves of their arrogance and insensitivity to our real needs - married clergy and openness to ordained women. Nothing! CRS and Covenant House certainly will get something when I have it. Nothing until this insulting "investigation" is cancelled!

* reply

Me too :)
Submitted by Marie N (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Me too :)

* reply

Good luck. The only way to
Submitted by nancy in fort worth (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Good luck. The only way to ensure that none of money goes to Rome is to not give the parish the money in the first place.

* reply

"Married clergy and openness
Submitted by Michael B (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"Married clergy and openness to ordained women" constitute real needs? Apparently Ron B has decided what the Church's "real needs" are, and many Americans agree with him. On the other hand, many Americans, and most Africans, don't. Ron B complains about Rome's "arrogance." Well, his little letter sounds utterly arrogant to me.

* reply

Why would any diocese want to
Submitted by Ivan07 (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Why would any diocese want to pay for this 'visit?' If Rome feels as though it is needed, then let Rome pay for it!

* reply

STAY ON IT, NCR. Help us to
Submitted by Craig B. McKee, Hong Kong (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
STAY ON IT, NCR. Help us to FOLLOW THE MONEY!
"NCR called and e-mailed every archdiocese in the country, as well as a sampling of 29 dioceses across time zones."

* reply

Amen to that! and...please
Submitted by Lena (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Amen to that! and...please support NCR's work!

* reply

$1 million could feed a lot
Submitted by BronxLady (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
$1 million could feed a lot of hungry people; seems like they could do it for less. Also, the Vatican ought to have enough money to self-finance its studies.

* reply

"Also, the Vatican ought to
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"Also, the Vatican ought to have enough money to self-finance its studies."
Ah, no, that's why they're so interested in those wealthy Anglicans!

* reply

a message should be sent,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
a message should be sent, enthusiastically, telling the vatican the 'inquiry' is unnecessary, disrespectful, and seen by many laity as a witch hunt that will yield no Christ-like result either for the personnel that come from Rome or for the American religious who are so very deserving of every positive tribute that can come from the vatican.....further, to the 'vatican'... : if you want the trip, break open your own copious piggy bank and pay for it....... -

* reply

The "Private" decicions and
Submitted by Googie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The "Private" decicions and "no comment" responses to the individual dioceses is exactly what I'm doing when I hear any further requests for donations of any kind from my parish that may find their way into the coffers supporting the visitation. More accurately, I won't participate further in this closed, secretive "pay, pray and obey" mentality.
Where do these bishops think the money comes from other than from contributions? Any money they EVER receive isn't theirs to cloak in secrecy. It is generously given to them. They have an obligation to disclose where every penny goes. I've said it before, I'm done, put a fork in me. Ludicrous...

* reply

One reason the Bishops may
Submitted by Stevie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
One reason the Bishops may not have paid is because the have not had time to consider it. They are too busy completing a SECRET questionnaire about women religious sent to them by the Vatican. This is to be a confidential matter but several good bishops let the cat out of the bag.

* reply

Stevie: Is the bishops
Submitted by dennism (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Stevie: Is the bishops questionairre different from the one that went to the Sisters? If so, can you share it?

* reply

I think that we have much in
Submitted by essay writers (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I think that we have much in common with O'Brien

* reply

I have two thoughts on this.
Submitted by Pat Mertz (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I have two thoughts on this. 1)This would be a great chance for dioceses and archdioceses to publicly stand up for the sisters who work in their diocese (which apparently is not happening anywehre), and 2)$1.1 million could go a long way in works of justice.

* reply

2 very good thoughts--I
Submitted by sr. ellen zak (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
2 very good thoughts--I agree!

* reply

Dear Pat Metz, I doubt that
Submitted by Stevie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Dear Pat Metz,
I doubt that bishops will stand in solidarity with women religious since some of the bishops called for this visitation/inquisition. Naturally, we won't know who they are because everything surrounding the visitation is SECRET, SECRET, SECRET. Those who have no personal power use SECRECY...this power is an illusion but don't tell those in authority they might cry...in SECRET of course.

* reply

Let us hope that when the
Submitted by Sheila Croke (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Let us hope that when the Vatican officials discern the lack of interest and support for this "visitation", they will permanently retire this suggestion that reflects poorly on the source.

* reply

Why should a very small
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Why should a very small diocese be billed the same amount as a HUGE ARCHDIOCESE? It is like a man who has a large flock of sheep taking a lamb from the table of a poor man. It is an unwelcome charge for an unwelcome process. At least be fair in assessing charges.

* reply

Rome has never been on the
Submitted by nancy in fort worth (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Rome has never been on the side of fairness when it comes to internal matters. They really don't practice what they preach.

* reply

The only way to ensure the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The only way to ensure the bishops do not contribute to the fund is for us to withhold all contributions to our churches until the bishops unequivocally state they will not contribute to this witch hunt. Money is the only weapon we have and money is what is most important to the hierarchy, just behind power. There are many woman's religious orders that could use our money toward their retirement funds.

* reply

As for bishops keeping their
Submitted by Rachel (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
As for bishops keeping their decision to fund or not to fund secret, they owe transparency to ALL the people of their diocese...afterall, it's the people's money, not the bishop's.
The secrecy just oozes and drips from this entire "visitation".

* reply

Of course, the diocese should
Submitted by patricia p. normile (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Of course, the diocese should not pay for this inquisition! Good for the
decision makers in this cause.

* reply

"There are several orders
Submitted by Joseph Jaglowicz (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"There are several orders that have their roots in our archdiocese and the archbishop, Joseph Kurtz, has communicated his desire to cooperate with this visitation," says a spokeswoman for the Louisville archdiocese.
I'm not surprised.
Kurtz chairs the U.S. bishops' marriage committee, and, if the draft "pastoral" letter on this subject is any indication, he shares the general ignorance of his fellow hierarchs on the subject.
About a year after his arrival in Louisville, he told all parishes to install (or reinstall) kneelers.
Kurtz also was scheduled to speak before the Opus Dei regional meeting in Chicago earlier this year (this trip was discreetly mentioned in the archdiocesan paper). So far as I know, we've learned nothing of his remarks, etc. at this event.
It would seem that Kurtz is like virtually all of his fellow hierarchs: not from the local see he manages, an ecclesial "suckup" to Rome, ad nauseum.
And the institutional crap continues......

* reply

My understanding is that, if
Submitted by Sam Weller (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
My understanding is that, if the bishops do not help to underwrite the cost of this debacle, then the entire cost will somehow be charged to the religious congregations. Have I missed something? I have never read anything indicating that the Vatican has any intention of paying for this witch hunt.

* reply

Just because a diocese didn't
Submitted by TNCath (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Just because a diocese didn't respond to your request or is not contributing does not necessarily mean that the bishop of that diocese does not support the Apostolic Visitation. Whether or not diocese contribute or not, the Apostolic Visitation will take place. Sorry. This is a non-story.
I can't wait for your next attempt at sabotaging the process. Maybe your next story's headline will be "Nun Bites Bishop as Bishop Writes Check for Apostolic Visitation"?

* reply

Follow the money: No
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Follow the money: No funding; no visitation.

* reply

Praise God! The Spirit is,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Praise God! The Spirit is, indeed, moving throughout our land.

* reply

Wow! Will the hierarchy of
Submitted by Gabrielle Azzaro (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Wow! Will the hierarchy of the Catholic church never cease to amaze us? How dare the Vatican ask dioceses to pay for the visitation when it is the Vatican that has asked for the inquisition?! Diocese have nothing to do with religious women! Some diocese probably don't even have any congregations left in them any more! These men really are brazen in carrying their power - not true authority, but power - to the limit! I hope all the bishops tell them to find another source of income for this lame excuse of an inquiry to find out about the "quality of life" of religious women.

* reply

I completely concur wih
Submitted by Elizabeth Fitting (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I completely concur wih "anonymous" who said: "The only way to ensure the bishops do not contribute to the fund is for us to withhold all contributions to our churches until the bishops unequivocally state they will not contribute to this witch hunt. Money is the only weapon we have and money is what is most important to the hierarchy, just behind power. There are many woman's religious orders that could use our money toward their retirement funds."
In addition, I would add that this is a wonderful opportunity to let the Vatican know where we, the laity, stand on how their assumption that we shouldn't have a voice in decisions or the direction of the Church. Maybe they will finally begin to listen to what we want in our church besides a return to a pre-Vatican mentality with its rules,regulations, censures and secret investigations. Money talks.

* reply

Does any one else find this a
Submitted by JH (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Does any one else find this a strange line:
-Meanwhile, Deacon Jake Arellano of the Pueblo, Colo., diocese said, "We do not have the funds to support this. We are settling 26 clergy abuse cases and we are a mission diocese. We are hurting."-
And it is the sisters who are being investigated? Huh?

* reply

I just sent in my check!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I just sent in my check!

* reply

I would like to see NCR do
Submitted by Rev. Louis Arceneaux, c.m. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I would like to see NCR do some exploring about this "confidential" questionnaire sent to bishops about religious women. What is this all about?

* reply

I suspect the money will be
Submitted by Northcountry1 (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I suspect the money will be coming--secretly. Notice the conservatives in Chicago and Newark don't discuss anything when it comes to money. They live a life of secrets. Rode must be regretting his announcement of asking for the money. This won't happen again. Back to the secrets. And to complete the circle of secrecy---the report will be secret. Kafka where are you now that we need you? So some day something will happen to the nuns. But they will be sworn to secrecy.

* reply

I'm sure I speak for many
Submitted by Chris Cudmore (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I'm sure I speak for many Australian Catholics who are similarly offended by the "visitation" and the request for alms to fund the unwanted intervention.

* reply

Oh Lord that the arrogant
Submitted by Edie HuntAnonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Oh Lord that the arrogant hierarchy living in luxury on yhe backs of the faithful, rich and poor, would only follow in Christs Footsteps and not that of the greedy, worldly, selfish, profligates that abound everywhere.

* reply

How much money are Catholics
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
How much money are Catholics wasting by supporting the livelihoods of worldly-minded women's religious whose loyalties to the Church and belief in Jesus have been replaced by pure ideology? The Catholic faithful trust women religious as representatives of the Catholic Church, but it seems that nothing could be farther from the truth. The only reason, no doubt, that many women religious remain Catholic in name is so that they can suck their livelihood from the ever-trusting faithful.

* reply

Yes, WITHHOLD ALL MONEY, not
Submitted by Chris Smith (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Yes, WITHHOLD ALL MONEY, not one penny should go for this degrading and humiliating witch hunt of our women Religious. It would be like funding a far right political group like the" BIrchers" because this entire campaign is nothing but a political witch hunt and a very shameful one at that. This really needs to receive as much attention in the media as possible. Follow the money, NCR and you will find more than you expect.

* reply

Being a Chicago Catholic, I'm
Submitted by Kathmary (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Being a Chicago Catholic, I'm not at all surprised by the comment
"In Chicago, archdiocesan spokesperson Colleen Dolan said, "Cardinal Francis George does not discuss his personal correspondence between the Vatican and himself."
However, I think that since monies sent from the archdiocese to the Vatican would be coming from the parish collections, he needs to be a little less arrogant and a little more open.

* reply

I once attended a parish
Submitted by Victoria Martin (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I once attended a parish meeting in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where the pastor put the question to the Laity as to whether their parish should contribute to the appeal by Cardinal Roger Mahony to donate to cover the costs of the clergy sexual abuse lawsuits. I'm very proud to say those good people voted, "NO".
Now we have the Vatican City State asking the "People in the Pews" to pay for an investigation of, probably, the hardest working people in the Catholic Church; our Women Religious. It is an insult to these Good Women of the Church who, through their self sacrifice and devotion, are the only thing left that is good about our church.
I agree that the male Clergy, the Bishops and the Cardinals of the Church are more in need of a "cleansing" than the Roman Catholic Women Religious.

* reply

Where's the TRANSPARENCY with
Submitted by Dr. Dale (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Where's the TRANSPARENCY with OUR money Archbishop John Myers?? Please respond. Here's your opportunity to catechize. Are you truly a shepherd of your flock or a wolf in sheep's clothing? I'm not holding my breath and your silence will speak volumes.

* reply

For once some bishops are
Submitted by jakecarm (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
For once some bishops are responding to Rome the way they should. It's the Vatican's idea to do this idiotic "investigation"; let them pay for it.

* reply

No money for Rome's witch
Submitted by Paula Nettleship (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
No money for Rome's witch hunt. The $1.1 million would be better spent on the nuns who have served us selflessly, working for pittance.

* reply

The bishop brothers have been
Submitted by Augusta Wynn (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The bishop brothers have been asked to pay for the investigation of their religious sisters by the very men who have led us into the clergy sex abuse crisis, and Bishop Wester thinks it appropriate.
Too bad Bishop Wester doesn't send the money directly to the nuns themselves, to help them in the care of their elderly. Too bad all the bishops don't do the same.
Too bad Bishop Wester "cooperates with all church activities." You think there might be some he'd be ashamed of.
AW

* reply

What a sad day it is when the
Submitted by Elizabeth A. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
What a sad day it is when the Church, the clergy in Rome, does not know when to honor the ones who have done so much work for the church, the women religious congregations, and now are after the money of the poorest of the poor, the ones who still feel that the church needs to be supported in order to get the benefits from the faith they hold dear. I do not get it.

* reply

It is revelatory that our
Submitted by outsidethebox (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
It is revelatory that our fearless leaders have nothing to say beyond "No comment".

* reply

There are enough ultra
Submitted by Eddie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
There are enough ultra conservative, one issue, folks in the pews to finance the whole damn inquisition. Let them pay for it.
Where are the Bishops going to get the $$$$'s to cover the cost of this travesty? 'Right out of the collection basket.
Whatever I contribute goes directly to help schools, soup kitchens and struggling parishes run by Good Sisters and several wonderful Priests and Brothers in destitute parishes.

* reply

As a chapter leader for CTA
Submitted by Pete Anderson (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
As a chapter leader for CTA Columbus, OH, we have been looking for another place to meet after our local Bishop (Fredrick Campbell), deprived us of our previous meeting space at the Ohio State University's St Thomas More Newman Center, and I am finding a tremendous feeling of reluctance from the Catholic community in the mid-Ohio region. I guess I can sum up my sense that 'It is very difficult to be a Progressive Catholic these days.'
I agree with what one person wrote "No say, No pay".

* reply

History finally brought an
Submitted by Denis Quinlan (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
History finally brought an end to the era of the divine right of kings - or so we thought. What can be said with regard to the arrogant and demeaning response of the bishops when people raise honest and proper inquiries about the expenditure of church funds? After all the money came from the people, did it not? Yes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What happened to the ideal of servant leadership? It was to have been one of the legacies of Vatican II, or so we thought.

* reply

Benedict XVI Bigot-rustling is the Pope’s latest insult to Rowan Williams

2009-10-24T13:43:00.001-04:00

Bigot-rustling is the Pope’s latest insult to Rowan Williams

http://www.secularism.org.uk/114838.html

By Terry Sanderson

Of course, in a strictly secularist sense, the NSS should not concern itself with the internal machinations of religious organisations. If the Pope wishes to stab the Archbishop of Canterbury in the back (in a wholly ecumenical sense, of course) then that’s nothing to do with us. If the Pope wants to change the rules of his club so that he can steal personnel from the opposition, that’s his business. Let them slug it out, betray each other, lie and steal from each other. Or, as Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper put it “The Vatican’s welcome ... is a Trojan horse. It appears to enhance Christian goodwill while inflaming the doctrinal battles between and within the two churches.” As long as they don’t try to involve the state in their hostilities, they can rip each other to shreds as far as we are concerned.

But wait a minute. The state is involved in this. We have an Established Church, the head of which is also the head of the State. So when the Roman Rat plays such a comprehensively dirty trick on Rowan Williams, we all have to consider whether there are constitutional implications.

Since the Holy See is at once both the government of the Catholic Church and also of the State of the Vatican City, any bishops who sit in the House of Lords who decided to opt for Rome would owe allegiance to the Holy See, which, when wearing one of its hats, is a foreign government.

In other words, because there’s an established church at this end and a church-state at the other, the constitutional implications could be enormous. If half of the Church of England is going to end up under the Vatican umbrella, then can it really remain “by law established”?

After all, the Church of England was created with the sole purpose of thwarting the authority of the Pope. Now that the Pope has moved his tanks on to the lawn of Lambeth Palace, it is time for the whole constitutional arrangement to be urgently rethought.

The Church of England must now be disestablished – and soon. If it is not, there could be a constitutional crisis that may bring the whole shambolic house of cards tumbling down. This week’s events have left it in tatters under the leadership of a man who is clearly incapable of the job.

In his anxiety to keep the “Anglican Communion” intact, Rowan Williams abandoned his own humane, liberal instincts and threw in his lot with the worst elements of bigotry within his flock. They have now rewarded him by conniving with the “Holy Father” to pile on the humiliation. The fact that the Vatican didn’t tell the Archbishop about its plans until a week before they were announced indicates just how irrelevant they consider him to be. Or, as one commentator put it: “The faces of many Church of England bishops have turned as purple as their cassocks.”

But let’s step away from this nasty piece of Machiavellian cunning and take a look at the bigger picture.

The Catholic Church in Britain is dying on its feet. And rightly so. The Church of England is already on life support, but it continues to twitch. Both institutions provide a playground for some of the most gruesome and horrible people you could ever wish to meet (particularly if you are a child).

They argue endlessly and violently over which bell to ring and which language to say their prayers in. They spend their lives bowing down to the bones of a dead girl and pretending that a biscuit is actual flesh and that wine is really (that is, literally) blood. They swan about in their ridiculous costumes, which were originally designed to intimidate simpletons, a trick that still seems to work among politicians.

The Catholic priesthood claims to disown its own erotic nature in order to remain “pure” – and yet endless court cases show many of the “fathers” to have been wallowing in a pit of unimaginable sexual depravity. They concoct elaborate lies to sustain their “teachings” (“There are tiny holes in condoms through which HIV can pass”), they care little for the death, destruction and suffering their senseless dogmas create in the developing world. They are more concerned about the damage the child abuse crisis has done to the Church than about what it has done to the people they tortured. As Matthew Parris said in The Times: “The more reactionaries Pope Benedict can gather around himself and his Church, the faster the whole thing will sink under the weight of its own weirdness.”

And yet, throughout history, the Vatican has managed to convince those in highest authority that it is entitled to unique and unquestioned respect. Politicians and diplomats bow down to these monsters and let them get away with murder (quite literally sometimes). Whatever corruption the Vatican is involved in (and it has been involved in every conceivable immorality in its time) no-one in high secular authority (the UN, for instance) dare point the finger and ask for an explanation.

Through forming alliances with some of the worst dictators and tyrants the world has ever seen, the Vatican has managed to gain for itself a small patch of land where no international law can intrude, where no inspections take place, where no questions have to be answered. And from that protected base it stretches its poisonous tentacles around the world.

We need to ensure that the bigots and reactionaries that infest those few acres in Rome do not get a grip on Britain. We can begin by disestablishing the now-defunct Church of England and establishing a secular constitution that will put an end to the Vatican’s political ambitions once and for all.

See also:
Oliver Kamm on Divisions of the Pope

And the Daily Mash puts the whole thing in perspective
Fri, 23 Oct 2009

========

Divisions of the Pope

Oliver Kamm is a leader writer at The Times. Subscribe to a feed of this blog at: http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/rss.xml

« Race and reaction | All Posts | Griffin and Nuremberg »

October 21, 2009

Divisions of the Pope

Benedict
The Times leads today on an extraordinary piece of diplomacy by the papacy:

"As many as 1,000 priests could quit the Church of England and thousands more may leave churches in America and Australia under bold proposals to welcome Anglicans to Rome. Entire parishes and even dioceses could be tempted to defect after Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to offer a legal structure to Anglicans joining the Roman Catholic Church."

I'm an outsider on this, and I'm unmoved by the observation in our leading article that the position of the Church of England has been dangerously weakened. But it is interesting that the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain is as confident and assertive as I can recall. The Church was in a deep malaise in the 1970s, under Cardinal Heenan and some mediocre lieutenants. Very little of the reforming ideas of the Second Vatican Council permeated British Catholicism. Things are different now, when the ethos of the papacy is different. Catholicism has reversed its steady decline, and the influx of traditionalist Anglicans is plainly designed to hasten that revival.

Not just an outsider: I'm a non-combatant. I wish to see moderate religion, which makes its accommodation with science and secular education, supersede absolutist forms of it. But my position is that of the fine American social critic Susan Jacoby: "I do not regard 'moderate religion' as a threat to freedom of thought, but that does not make moderate religion rational."

One of our guest columnists today regrets the "weaken[ing of] the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way".
Secularism is the separation of civic and religious authority, and the consignment of religious beliefs to the realm of private conscience rather than public policy. I strongly favour it, and therefore am entirely unfazed by the declining authority of the Established Church. Bring it on.

And that leads me to the humiliation of Catholics by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. The description is not mine but that of Andrew M. Brown, a Catholic columnist for the Telegraph, who writes:

"I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

"The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember."

I was there too, and it was as Brown describes it (though he misremembers the disastrously evasive words used by the Archbishop, on being asked a tough question: "that's the wrong question"). If you read on, you'll see that he refers to the Archbishop's being "discomfited", a word that is often misused but is right in this case - it means "routed", not merely "rendered uncomfortable". It will be broadcast at some point on BBC World, and is worth watching for the most unequal rhetorical contest I've ever seen. I have to feel sorry for Ann Widdecombe, whom I disagree with on almost everything apart from her defence of Classics but whose willingness to speak her mind merits respect.

But Brown's honest account veers into futile lament at the end:

"It was a gripping evening’s entertainment but a little discouraging for those of us who are Catholics. I found myself wishing, one, that the Catholic debaters would for once not content themselves with offering pettifogging excuses but instead actually own up to some of the charges, and, two, I wished that there still existed a great Catholic apologist like Chesterton or Belloc, someone who was not only brave and prepared to square up to the Hitch, but was his intellectual equal. Surely there is someone today who could do that?"

Hitch is a great guy, but Brown has severely underestimated the problem here. It's the intellectual paucity of the case not of the people. I'm a great admirer of Chesterton: I have a signed photograph of him above my desk, and treasure a signed edition of his collected poetry. But he would have been hopeless too in this debate. At the height of his prowess as a Catholic apologist, the Catholic Church ensured the triumph of fascism. As the late Adrian Hastings, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, noted in his History of English Christianity, 1920-2000, 2001, pp. 168-9:

"So Mussolini got his way. Italian democracy disappeared under the pressure of murder, the administration of castor oil and the Vatican's decision to back him. It is clear in retrospect that the only force strong enough to have held Fascism in check would have been whole hearted Catholic commitment to democracy, including a willingness to co-operate with Socialists. Pius XI was interested in neither."

Chesterton was unconcerned. He wrote a terrible book, The Resurrection of Rome, recounting how impressed he was on meeting Mussolini. And as another admirer of Chesterton (unlike me, a theist), Martin Gardner, has written (The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, 1985, p. 348): "Whenever he touched on science (as in his essays deriding evolution), he revealed an ignorance exceeded only by that of his faithful friend Hilaire Belloc."

Posted at 12:50 PM in Religion | Permalink | Post to Twitter Bookmark and Share
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451586c69e20120a663049f970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Divisions of the Pope:

Comments
That's OK, Oliver. Continue on your happy secularist way.
Islam is about to give the spiritual waste land that is modern hedonist Britain, a rude shock. Fry, Hitchens and other Catholic haters will long for the day when they could take cheap pot shots at Catholicism.
If only these fools knew that Christianity is their only hope against the coming onslaught.

Posted by: Brendan Marshall | 21 Oct 2009 16:40:54
That's OK Brendan. Continue on your happy christian way while Hitchens et al denounce Islam even more than popery.
We secularists believe in freedom of religion, does catholicism now support that? Maybe, but when Iran demanded Rushdie's muder the pope condemned... Rushdie!
Hindus, Pagans, Zoroastrians, yes even Christians can be fine. But please, no more immune from criticism than Atheists.

Posted by: Christopher | 21 Oct 2009 17:49:47
Those who engage in the contests about which religion is ‘better’ always puzzled me.
Are they so stupid that not to notice that they undermine one of the main arguments regularly advanced in support of religion, namely that religion is the depository of morality?
If you must decide which religion is better, you obviously must use a moral standard that is extraneous to (any) religion. But by doing so, you contradict your basic premise.

Posted by: Consider | 21 Oct 2009 18:12:01
It is, I think, worth noting that Brown, whatever his denominational affiliation of origin, is in fact agnostic verging on atheist (or possibly vice versa) in his present actual thinking. He is, however, consistently unpersuaded that the rhetoric of many of his fellow non-believers is as rational or as rigorous as it is presented to be either by its advocates or their camp-followers.

Posted by: Doug Chaplin | 21 Oct 2009 23:48:56
Confusion of Browns here. The one who writes for the telegraph is Andrew M. Brown. He is indeed a catholic, or at least a protege of Damian Thompson's. I am neither, and don't use any of my middle initials. I edit, and blog at, the Guardian's religious web site.

Posted by: Andrew Brown | 22 Oct 2009 11:08:18
Thanks for that. I wasn't confused between you and your namesake, but by dropping his middle initial I have inadvertently caused it. I shall restore it in the text.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm | 22 Oct 2009 11:25:57
If Chris Hitchens is said to have dominated the debate, we can conclude one fact: the opposition wasn't very good. One question emerges: If Catholicism is so intellectually vacant, as Oliver claims, then why are atheists, such as Dawkins totally reliant upon Catholic theology for their intellectual conclusions?

Posted by: Tony Francis | 22 Oct 2009 16:50:25
Oh Lord, Francis is resurrected.

Posted by: peteralexander | 23 Oct 2009 09:28:35

=======

POPE IN BOLD TRANSFER SWOOP FOR EIGHT MILLION ANGLICANS
22-10-09

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/pope-in-bold-transfer-swoop-for-eight-million-anglicans-200910222160/

THE Pope has made an audacious bid for eight million worshippers in a move that has infuriated Anglican manager Rowan Williams.

Image

Experts say the transition should be easy as they all believe in the same impossible shit

Pope Benedict has promised the incoming flock greater freedom to oppress anyone that confuses or frightens them and will unveil his multitude of new signings in St Peter's Square next month.

The Pontiff said: "They are a great bunch of guys and it will be a real boost to have them on the team. They bring with them years of experience in arranging jumble sales and hating science.

"And now they have the opportunity to not only help us pay off all the people we abused, but they'll also get access to our state-of-the-art range of pointy hats."

The new flock will begin training with head liturgical coach Archbishop Charlie Reeves once their applications for worship permits have been approved by the International Tribunal Of Churches.

Reeves said: "I'll be getting the cones of incense out and then we'll do some work on the basic sacraments, followed by half an hour of chin-ups and a quick game of leapfrog."

Anglican boss Williams has hit back by offering an undisclosed sum for millions of Muslims disaffected by 'racist beatings, constant explosions and the exquisite agony of denying yourself a bacon sandwich'.

But Pope Benedict feels his expanded crop of worshippers will see the church triumphant when the two denominations meet at the Last Judgement.

He added: "Unlike other religions, we can offer the best facilities for fidgety Anglicans who love to obsess over where people put their cocks."

Why Is Benedict XVI in Rome Investigating U.S. Nuns? (Sister X's Letter) Part 1 & 2

2009-10-21T18:33:00.003-04:00

Benedict XVI investigted Jon Sobrino and then silenced him. Now he is doing it to the nuns -- in order to silence them and then seized their properties -- which Opus Dei will use for its WORLD DOMINATION Agenda.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/132124.html
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/132166.html#

Why Is Rome Investigating U.S. Nuns? (Sister X's Letter) Pt.1

By BirchBricker

"I have been a religious sister for more than thirty years, part of a community that has been active in this country for over a century, and whose work centers on teaching and health care. Our order belongs to an umbrella organization, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents 95 percent of U.S. Catholic women’s congregations.

Thanks to recent Vatican actions, the LCWR has garnered a few headlines. In February the Vatican announced it would conduct a three-year “visitation” to assess the “quality of life” of American sisters. A month later, the president of LCWR received a letter from Cardinal William Levada, formerly archbishop of San Francisco and now head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), informing her that there would also be an investigation, or “doctrinal assessment,” of the Leadership Conference itself. Certain problems, Levada explained, needed to be addressed. As it turns out, these have to do with the LCWR’s alleged failure to express sufficiently rigorous doctrinal compliance with several recent church documents. Evidently, the Vatican is concerned that the LCWR has not been forthcoming about the magisterium’s teachings regarding the ordination of women, the relation of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions, and the “intrinsically disordered” nature of homosexual acts.

The Vatican’s visitation—conducted under the auspices of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL)—does not assess the “quality of life” of cloistered orders of Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, or other communities devoted to the monastic contemplative life. Neither does it assess international congregations with members working in the United States whose central motherhouses are outside this country. Rather, the visitation exclusively targets active women religious whose centers and houses of formation are in the United States—women educated here and trained for religious life here, women who work with major health-care and educational institutions in this country, and who collaborate with one another financially on ministerial projects such as peace and justice ministries.

Why are American sisters being singled out? One widely shared area of concern, of course, is the dramatic drop in vocations in recent decades. Forty years ago, there were 180,000 vowed sisters across the country; today there are fewer than 60,000. Yet the number of priests has also dropped precipitously during the same period, leaving more than 10 percent of parishes without resident pastors. Why isn’t the priest shortage the subject of a visitation? And during the same period U.S. bishops have presided over a sexual-abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic community more than $2 billion and the episcopacy much of its moral credibility. So why no visitation for the bishops?

I want to offer my own view, as an ordinary member of a congregation that belongs to the LCWR, of what is happening to American sisters.

Let me begin by saying that I want to believe in the good will of the institutional church. An essential part of my commitment to Christ is a belief in the holiness of the church; that is what I professed when I took my vows. For me, religious life outside the structure of the institutional church is hardly imaginable. I love the church. I love its vision of God, its Scriptures and sacraments, its heritage, its tradition of faithful change, its saints and thinkers. I believe in its mission and future.

Yet my reaction to the visitation, and especially to the prospect of “doctrinal assessment,” contains more than a little skepticism. While I’m glad for a chance to “let Rome know the truth” about our lives and our devotion to Christ, I can’t help suspecting that those behind these initiatives are not primarily interested in the quality of my spiritual life. To put it bluntly, I feel that American women religious are being bullied. The fact that the visitation is apparently being paid for by anonymous donors, and that the leaders of our communities will not be permitted to see the investigative reports that issue from it, does not engender trust. And indeed, the dynamics of the visitation and investigation so far have been experienced by women religious as secretive, unfriendly, and one-sided.

The implicit accusation underlying the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR is that its leaders are not Catholic enough in the church’s eyes. Having lived, worked, and prayed with these women for decades, I find this suggestion both insulting and absurd—so absurd, in fact, that one wonders whether the investigation is actually meant to undermine confidence in women’s leadership of their own congregations. Canon law, as well as the constitutions of our congregations, ensures that vowed members can freely elect our own leaders, rather than have them imposed on the community by a bishop. Like those in other vowed religious congregations, I have acted on the belief that democratic governance of my community is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. In helping me choose our leadership, I have relied on my knowledge of my sisters’ gifts and my history of prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit. Yet Cardinal Levada now informs me that the doctrinal integrity of those leaders is questionable...."

Part 2

"... The threat of disciplinary action makes it difficult for women religious to speak out on this topic. That is why I am writing anonymously. I happen to trust my local bishop and thank my lucky stars for him. But what if a bishop from some other diocese, or an American cleric at the Vatican—or a bishop on a USCCB committee who wanted to make a show of doctrinal orthodoxy-decided to target me for what I have written? This has happened to other sisters. In the current climate, would my bishop be willing to violate the tacit norm that bishops “don’t criticize one another in public” by intervening to defend me? I don’t want to put him in such a position.

And that’s not the only worry. When a bishop wants to go after an individual sister—to “make an example of that nun”—he often has some Vatican office write a letter to the superior or the president of her congregation, pressuring the leadership to “do something.” The rule is judgment first, evidence later; and if the women in leadership don’t do something to punish the allegedly wayward sister, the Vatican will move against them. It’s a form of collective punishment, and the threat keeps rank-and-file women religious silent on controversial topics—such as the visitation. And so with a few notable exceptions, such as Sisters Joan Chittister, OSB, and Sandra Schneiders, IHM, the rank and file has been silent about the visitation since it began nine months ago. Members don’t want to say anything that will draw down the Vatican’s wrath on their leadership.

Cardinal Levada has delegated the work of doctrinal assessment of the LCWR to Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio. Bishop Blair seems a genial man; yet his dissertation for his doctorate at the Angelicum in Rome was titled “Masculine and Feminine Symbolism in the Church: A Reappreciation of the Marian/Feminine Dimension.” I’m sorry, but I tend to get nervous when bishops start expatiating on the symbolism of the eternal feminine. Bishop Blair was also a member of a bishops’ committee that was scheduled to meet at the University of Notre Dame last year, but moved the meeting off campus to protest a performance of The Vagina Monologues. Suffice it to say, most bishops are good and well-meaning men; still, it is the rare bishop who has any real understanding of the lives women actually lead.

Let’s back up a bit and ask: Where did the impetus for the visitation and investigation originate? During a visit to Rome last April, several officers of the Leadership Conference put this question to Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of CICLSAL, and were informed that the initiative had been suggested by American members of the curia, some U.S. bishops, and some members of religious communities. Cardinal Rodé told LCWR officers that “concerns” had been expressed on issues ranging from living arrangements to the lack of new vocations to the public positions some women religious take on topics such as women’s ordination, homosexuality, and abortion.

In early August, the Vatican made available the twelve-page Instrumentum laboris that outlined the visitation process. The document’s provisions are not reassuring. For instance, no women representatives of American congregations are slated to speak to Cardinal Rodé; nor will any be allowed to read a draft of the report submitted to him by the appointed “visitator,” Mother Mary Clare Millea, ACSJ. Thus, no congregational president will have the chance to qualify the report’s evaluation or dispute its conclusions—or even to see a list of the American cardinals and bishops who recommended the study in the first place. Such secrecy does not create a climate in which the church’s pastoral outreach can be effectively communicated; and one suspects that Rome’s interventions will hardly promote vocations to women’s religious communities.

There are other concerns. Being a pontifical institute, rather than a diocesan congregation, carries the privilege of self-governance, which protects women religious from a local bishop’s intrusion into their internal life and governance. Or, it’s supposed to. Ominously, the visitation initiative calls for a willingness on the part of visitation team members to make a public profession of faith and take an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See. The visitation decree instructs the apostolic visitator to “seek information from those diocesan bishops” where the sisters’ “general houses, provincial houses, and centers of initial formation are located.” That reinforces the suspicion that some diocesan bishops, still trying to reclaim the moral authority lost in the sexual-abuse scandals, want to assert personal and jurisdictional authority over women religious. Some women’s communities, to be honest, also worry about designs bishops might have on appropriating their properties..."

Benedict XVI can sell Vatican to end world hunger: Comedian

2009-10-21T14:53:00.001-04:00

comedian Silverman suggests selling the Vatican to end world hunger

Thu Oct 15, 8:12 AM
The Associated Press

ROME - Comedian Sarah Silverman has a new proposal for ending world hunger: Sell the Vatican.

In a new profanity-laced monologue making the rounds on YouTube in time for UN World Food Day on Friday, Silverman suggests that it's time for the pope to "move out of your house that is a city" and use the proceeds to feed the world's poor.

"On an ego level alone you will be the biggest hero in the history of ever!" she exclaimed. "Sell the Vatican. Feed the world."

The Vatican clearly has no plans to follow suit. On Thursday, a spokesman declined to comment. But the Catholic League, the U.S. Catholic civil rights organization, denounced Silverman and cable broadcaster HBO for her "obscene" and "filthy diatribe."

In a statement, it noted that such an attack would never have been levelled against, say, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem or the state of Israel and added that the "Catholic Church operates more hospitals and feeds more of the poor than any private institution in the world."

Yet the Rev. James Martin, culture editor of the Jesuit magazine America, says Silverman may be onto something. In an online article, Martin noted that Jesus himself told his followers to sell what they had and give it to the poor.

"Of course Pope Benedict XVI could not 'sell' any of the treasures of the Vatican, the same way that your local archbishop couldn't sell off the cathedral at a whim; they are not his, they are the church's," Martin wrote. "And the church is not simply the hierarchy but the entire people of God."

But he added: "Still, perhaps Ms. Silverman, in her postmodern, potty-mouthed way is on to something. Like Jesus was. Sell the Vatican? Well, maybe not everything but perhaps a statue or two?"

For the record, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which just released its annual report on the state of world hunger, says global food output will have to increase by 70 per cent to feed a projected population of 9.1 billion in 2050.

To achieve that, poor countries will need $44 billion in annual agricultural aid, compared with the current $7.9 billion, the Rome-based FAO said. Overall, an annual net investment in agriculture of $83 billion is needed to feed the world.
Even if the pope were to sell the Vatican, it wouldn't be enough.

In 2004, the Vatican disclosed that the Holy See's real estate was worth 700 million euros, or about $908 million at the time. That doesn't include St. Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel, which the Vatican termed priceless and valued at a symbolic 1 euro.

While the Vatican's artistic holdings are obviously worth millions, the institution itself doesn't bring in a lot of cash. In 2008, it ran a C0.9 million ($1.28 million) deficit, the second year of losses. Revenues were C253.9 million and expenses C254.8 million.

The Vatican began publishing its finances in 1981, when Pope John Paul II ordered financial disclosure to debunk the idea that the Vatican was rich.

Silverman, who is no stranger to religiously and racially charged slurs, gained international attention with her 2008 "The Great Schlep" campaign in which she exhorted Jews to go to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Barack Obama.

Benedict XVI and Roman Polanski and clergy abuse

2009-10-03T13:10:00.005-04:00

Benedict XVI and Roman Polanski have 3 things in common: fame, fortune and lots of famous supporters. Benedict XVI has the Opus Dei supporting him and his crime of cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com and Roman Polanski has the Hollywood celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg supporting him in The View.

Roman Polanski and clergy sexual abuse

Andrew Hamilton October 02, 2009

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=16816

Roman PolanskiWhen I see media headlines about child abuse, my response is like that of a family I know, where one of the siblings is a publicly notorious criminal. When his crimes or even similar ones receive publicity, they feel humiliated. They accept the humiliation, as the price you pay even for indirect association with villainy, but they do not welcome it. That is how I, as a priest and so part of a group that has been identified with the abuse of children, react when there are more headlines about abuse: in weary resignation. If you do the crime, you — and those associated with you — do the time. I simply hope that the news item that reminds me of my humiliation might help someone, somewhere, who has been abused.

So it was in the last few days that I read of the reaction to Roman Polanski's detention and possible extradition to the United States to face an old charge of sexual abuse of a minor.

As the Polanski case was unfolding this week, Vatican United Nations Observer Archbishop Silvano Tomasi was reported to have claimed that few Catholic priests had abused children, that these were mainly gay, that there was as much abuse in other religious groups as there was among Catholics, that the vast majority of children were abused by relatives, and that there was as much abuse of children in other churches as by Catholic clergy.

Furthermore, he said, the Catholic Church had put its house in order. The implication was that the focus on child abuse in the Catholic Church was disproportionate and discriminatory.

Assuming the Vatican official was rightly reported (something not to be taken for granted), I believe he missed all the things that matter. The consistent spirit of anything we write about sexual abuse must surely be one of compassion for the human beings who are affected by it. Those who are abused, primarily, but then those who are wounded through their relationships with the victims of abuse: their family, friends, wives, husbands, children and — if our compassion stretches so far — the abusers, so often themselves once victims of abuse.

They are the people who matter, and what matters is that they are recognised and that others do not suffer as they did. This must be the focus of those who speak on behalf of groups among whom abuse has taken place.

The focus of Archbishop Tomasi's reported remarks was not on the human reality of abuse, nor on its direct and indirect victims. The comments seemed directed at saving the reputation of the Church as a public institution. And their spirit was less one of compassion than one of judgment. They asked who was to blame for abuse, both within the ranks of Catholic clergy and in the wider world.

It was an exercise in the transfer of blame, and one potentially damaging to priests who are homosexual. Certainly the remarks did not highlight what matters — the humanity of those affected, and compassion.

Nor are they likely to be effective. I doubt whether Catholics by their own words can redress the damage done to their reputation or establish that they have set their house in order. The only effective words will be spoken by those whose lives have been hurt by abuse. When they speak in gratitude and affection for the way in which they have been heard, compassionately received and healed by representative Catholics, their words will count.

All that said, the arguments made by Archbishop Tomasi are important, provided our focus remains on attending to the victims of abuse, and not on transferring blame.

To understand abuse and the experience of those who have been abused we must understand its extent and causes.

Tomasi's own account does not seem internally coherent. If he is right in claiming that abuse is common in many churches and religious groups, and most common in families, it seems highly unlikely that the sexual orientation of abusers is a determining factor. Abuse is likely to have more to do with abusive experience, sexual immaturity and with attitudes to power. But these are all opinions that call for methodical investigation.

His criticism of the focus on the Catholic Church also raises interesting questions. But the central question is not about how fair media coverage has been to the Catholic Church, but how helpful it is to those intimately and indirectly affected by abuse.

In my opinion the public reporting of abuse committed by religious officials has been necessary and helpful in changing attitudes to the abuse of children. I am less convinced, however, that the focus on monsters and punishment, and the repetitive treatment of abuse exposed and dealt with in the courts is helpful. It focuses on blame rather than on compassion, and hinders understanding.

In this respect the story of Polanski is telling. The case for his avoiding extradition has generally received a sympathetic hearing despite the seriousness of his admitted crime. The same sympathy is not generally shown to religious officials who have been tried for less serious acts committed just as many years ago.

I do not say this to complain about double standards, still less to argue that Polanski should be pardoned. What is significant in his case is that there is space to ask difficult questions about whether it is in the public interest to pursue and publicise crimes committed long ago. But the public conversation about sexual abuse in churches has been focused on blame and punishment and had been more resistant to inquiry.

The compassionate are often criticised for being out of touch with reality. In these questions, as elsewhere, they may actually be more in touch than their critics with what matters.

Andrew Hamilton is the consulting editor for Eureka Street. He also teaches at the United Faculty of Theology in Melbourne.

======

Roman Polanski rape case: Child abuse activists call for boycott, quick extradition

http://www.examiner.com/x-264-Celebrity-News-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Roman-Polanski-rape-case-Child-abuse-activists-call-for-boycott-quick-extradition

Child-abuse activists are calling for the quick extradition of film director Roman Polanski so he can be held accountable for the rape he committed more than 30 years ago.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Joelle Castrix, a regional director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), held a press conference outside the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office to show support for Polanski's extradition and to urge people to boycott movies and TV shows made by Polanski and those who back him, namely Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen.

Castrix said Polanksi is getting special treatment because of his position in the film industry:

Child molesters can be rich and famous, but they also need to be held accountable.”

--------

Victims group boycotting against Roman Polanski and supporters

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13459434

Daily News Wire Services
Updated: 10/01/2009 08:29:29 AM PDT

Roman Polanski
The organization that champions victims of predatory priests staged a demonstration in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday and announced a boycott of the work of Roman Polanski and those who support his bid to avoid extradition to the United States.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, best known as SNAP, charged that entertainment industry figures speaking out for Polanski since his arrest in Switzerland Saturday are helping to enable the crimes of current child predators.

The 76-year-old Polish-French director was arrested by Swiss gendarmes at Zurich Airport as he flew in to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to have received a lifetime achievement award.

The arrest came in response to a warrant issued by U.S. federal authorities at the request of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

In 1977, when Polanski was 44, he lured a 13-year-old girl to actor Jack Nicholson's home on Mulholland Drive, saying he wanted to take photographs of her for the French edition of Vogue. He gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude and forced her to have sex.

After he spent 42 days in a prison hospital ward for a mental evaluation, a deal was worked out for him to plead guilty and be sentenced to time served. Polanski pleaded guilty, but, fearing that a judge was going to reject the deal and send him to prison for 50 years, he fled the country.

U.S. authorities have 60 days to file a formal request for extradition with Swiss authorities.

Polanski's lawyers have vowed to oppose it.

Dozens in the film industry have called for Polanski's immediate release, including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Woody Allen, Costa- Gavras, Pedro Almodovar, Fatih Akin, Walter Salles and Wong Kar Wai, actress Debra Winger and producer Harvey Weinstein, founder of Miramax Films and now head of The Weinstein Co.

"Since his arrest and the announcement that he will be extradited to the U.S., some entertainment figures have expressed sympathy for him," SNAP said in a statement.

"These public statements of support ... makes teenagers who are being victimized now feel intimidated and hopeless, thus staying silent and enabling their predators to keep hurting them and others."

SNAP said three or four victims of abuse by Catholic priests will take part in the demonstration, joined by relatives and other members of SNAP, which describes itself as a self-help organization.

Many of Polanski's backers, including French government ministers, have pointed to the suffering in his life, including his family's persecution by the Nazis and the slaying of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and her fetus in the Manson Family murders.

"While sympathetic to Polanski's painful childhood and his wife's murder, SNAP feels that's irrelevant, as is his victim's personal decision to forgive him," the SNAP statement said.

"What matters most, SNAP feels, is that a child predator is kept away from kids and that criminals learn they can't simply hire smart lawyers, make themselves popular, flee the country and get off scot-free."

Polanski lawyers Tuesday filed papers with the Swiss Federal Criminal Court seeking his release, and the court said it would make a decision in the next few weeks. If it rules against him, he will have the option of asking Switzerland's highest court, the Federal Tribunal, to overturn the decision.

To date, the support for Polanski appears to have been more widespread in Europe than in the United States, where at least one entertainment industry figure has spoken out against him.

"Thirty years have not dimmed my memory of the crime for which this man was convicted," Paul Petersen, the former "Donna Reed Show" star and now president of A Minor Consideration, a nonprofit watchdog group for child performers, said in remarks published in the Daily News Tuesday.

"Hollywood may have forgiven Mr. Polanski," Peterson said. "I have not."

===

French govt drops public support for Polanski

FRANCE
oneindia

London (ANI): The French government has withdrawn its support to film director Roman Polanski, who is currently held in Switzerland, after a campaign for his release was shunned by many leading European political and cultural figures. The foreign minister of France had asked the Swiss government to free the 76-year-old director, who was arrested in Zurich last Saturday, on a US arrest warrant for having unlawful sex with a teenaged girl in the late 1970s.

!France had made the appeal because Polanski holds a hold a duel citizenship of France and Poland. However, the French government has changed its stance now. "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job," government spokesman Luc Chatel was quoted by the BBC, as saying.

====

Roman Polanski and His Supporters No Better than OC Pedo-Priests and their Apologists

By Gustavo Arellano in Ex Cathedra
Thu., Oct. 1 2009 @ 8:17AM

I'm glad to see that prominent Catholic church sex-abuse victims advocate and Orange County resident/native Joelle Casteix is publicly criticizing the perverted director Roman Polanski and his apologists.They remind me of those ghouls, many Mater Dei High graduates, who offer every sort of excuse for an admitted rapist, who say forced sodomy was just a misunderstanding, who throw going-away parties for pedophiles, who prop up molesters with cushy jobs, who say the victim wanted it so that makes schtupping an underage teen okay, who give standing ovations to kiddie fiddlers. Wait a minute: did Polanski ever work for the Diocese of Orange?

Straight up, folks: fuck Roman Polanski. Fuck his supporters. May they get the karmic equivalent of what Polanski's character did to Jake Gittes in Chinatown Yeah, Chinatown! It was a cool movie, right? That makes everything okay!.

See trailer of Chinatown http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/ex-cathedra/roman-polanski-and-his-support/

Comment

Albino Luciani says:

First of all, I have to agree, as a MURDERED POPE, that the WAY to get at rape and sodomy supporters of Roman Polanski is hit them where it hurts, their pocket-book$.

Whoopi Goldberg, formerly welfare mom 'Carolyn Johnson', is a prime example of the double standard HOLLYWOOD TRASH crowd.

Just yesterday, 9/30/09, yet again, on The View, to grab ratings, Whoopi was saying Roman's child rape and assault, that he fully admitted to, was "different" than than of child rape and sodomy from others, like the 140,000 documented sexual assaults on kids in less than 30 years, just in the USA, Rog "Mahal" Mahony, Tod 'Gay Boy' Brown, and the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops), as well as Beppe 'Red Shoes' Ratzinger, Bill 'Darth' Leveda, Bernie Law (less), Christian 'Kiddie Porn' Schonborn, Noberto 'Kidnap & Kill Them At The Airport' Rivera, Claudio 'Lie With Statitics' Hummes, Tarscio 'Rump Ranger' Bertone, Ray 'Han'M High' Burke, etc., and the Roman "La Cosa Nostra" Pedo Curia have and continue to cause.

OK, Polanski, did not cause at least $4.5 BILLION in stolen laity offetory plate dollars, just in the USA, to cover up the curia caused crime sprees, thus far, that remain ongoing and unprosecuted, but let's call a SPADE A SPADE please (no racism intended Ms. Goldberg - funny you don't look Jewish?).

The common foundation is MONEY & POWER.

Want to hurt these 'holier than thou' criminals in Hollywood (Goldberg or Mahony), cut off their revenue (if not their heads, figuratively or literally).

www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for other daily verified & vetted reporting on the pedo curia cult in the entertainment business (religious or useless celebriety unwashed tripe).

Just today, 10/1/09, at this above suggested empirical web site, is a most interesting article on the IOR (aka VATICAN BANK).

Do not be fooled loyal Naval Gazing Readership, this is about MONEY & POWER....your money for their power.

Cut off their money, or as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted: "STOP DONATING LAITY", and they FALL from power, back to the scum pool they emerged from in HELL.

There is no middle ground, you are either financially contributing to proven and documented global criminal degenerates, or you are not.

HOW WILL YOU ANSWER YOUR MAKER?!

Fiat Lux & Veritas!

Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE

Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 8:28AM

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish says:

I agree with Joelle Casteix and other spokespersons from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

There should be a total boycott of Roman Polanski films as well as a boycott of his apologists in the entertainment industry and anyone else who support him.

As far as Whoopi Goldberg is concerned, she has lost all credibility and is a disgrace with her comment that Polanski's actions "weren't rape-rape." She is sexist and does nothing much for her race either.

I wonder how Whoopi Goldberg would view Polanski and what she would be saying if the raped and sodomized young girl was a black child?

Boycott every single one of them.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 9:15AM

Albino Luciani says:

"sux2bu" (Short we suspect for 'SUCKS TO BE YOU') apparently, you are trying to chum the race card, when the issue REMAINS the criminal activity that goes unpunished of Hollywood degenerates, of all shapes, ages, sexes, creeds, races, colors, etc., as well as the Pedo Curia pretending to be the solution, when they are the PRIMARY CAUSE!

Over 15% of the Roman Catholic Clergy globally (documented) are/were child abusers domestically and globally (not the .5% to 1.5% touted by the pathologicall lying curia).

The pedo curia's racketeering, kidnapping, deliquenting, obstructing justice, embezzlements, endangering, defrauding, aid & abetting, enabling, extorting, murdering of hundreds of thousands of children, with no punishment to themselves, at laity cost in the tens of billions of documented dollars, domestically and globally, remains among the top crime sprees of the past millenia, right up there with The Inquisition, Nazi Genocide, Communist Purges, and other demonic acts against humanity, including the noise and visual pollution daily churned-out by the defenders of self admitted criminals like Roman Polanski.

Until heads roll, literaly or figuratively, like overtly guilty Mahony, Brom, Brown, Barnes, Leveda, Cummins, Steinbock, Ryan, Quinn, McGrath, Garcia, Curry, Rivera, Soto, Walsh, Blaire, etc., in California, Roman Catholic Pedo Curia Central, nothing will improve or change for the better.

Ergo, the laity are leaving in documented droves, parishes closing locally and nationally in massive record numbers, while revenues plummet...maybe this a a good coming from the incarnate unchecked EVIL?

Who need cross-dressing pedo demons in self-made buildings of Mammon, falsely representing The Almighty, when "God Is Everywhere", expect the long ago sold off souls, to The Devil, of the above names?!

As a MURDERED POPE, I would like to say I will pray for your soul 'sux2bu', but somehow I do not think it will help, I hope I am wrong on this last point.

Ciao,

Albino Luciani
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 4:07PM

truths says:

The Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has sent a message to all children and young adults that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! Thank you to team of investigators and prosecutors in Los Angeles.

Polanski has been arrested based on his plea of having sex with a minor child back in 1977. Imagine how many Catholic priests and employees of religious institutions also confessed to sexual misconduct with minor children, BUT, in the name of God and freedom of religion, these individuals will never have to face arrest and incarceration. Where are these sexual monsters today? Mexico, Switzerland, Italy, Thailand, Europe, France, Australia, South Africa, etc. etc.

One has to wonder if Cardinals Bernard Law and William Levada will ever face extradition to the United States based on failures to report crimes relating to sex abuse, conspiracy and RICO statutes. Extraditing employees of religious institutions to the United States would set a valuable and life-long precedent, but most important, our children could witness history in the making... that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!

Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 9:16AM