Tag Archives: Archdiocese of Chicago

CCHD 2010 — Keep up the boycott!

In June LifeSiteNews reported on ten dioceses opting out of the bishops’ Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the “charity” that funds groups supporting abortion and other activities anathema to Catholic teaching. The group has a history of advancing leftwing causes and politicians. In fact, leftwing politics played a large part in the beginning of CCHD when Saul Alinsky and Msgr. Jack Egan hatched a plan to get their hands in the pockets of Catholics in the pew for their socialistic version of “social justice.” The Reform CCHD Coalition sent a report to all the bishop prior to their June meeting listing the continued problems with the group. You can see the press release here and the PDF report here. The Coalition documents 50 CCHD recipients that have links to positions in opposition to Church teaching.

As of June ten bishops had publicly opted out of CCHD. Here’s the list:

Bishop Joseph Adamec – Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Bishop Robert J. Baker – Birmingham, Alabama
Bishop John O. Barres – Allentown, Pennsylvania
Bishop Lawrence Brandt – Greensburg, Pennsylvania
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz – Lincoln, Nebraska
Bishop Victor Galeone – St. Augustine, Florida
Bishop Robert C. Morlino – Madison, Wisconsin
Bishop Kevin Rhoades (formerly) – Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Bishop David Ricken – Green Bay, Wisconsin
Bishop Edward J. Slattery – Tulsa, Oklahoma

CCHD has refused to release the list of 2010 grantees until AFTER the November Collection. The message is — “Trust us!” Anybody who does is like the Gingerbread Boy who let the fox swim him across the river. Here’s what Mike Voris has to say about the upcoming collection. As for “the insider” I think I know who he is and he definitely knows of what he speaks. CCHD is a fraud and no informed Catholic would give to this bogus collection. Pass it on.


Archbishop Nienstedt — Sorrowful Mother is sign of hope, solace

Sorrowful Mother is sign of hope, solace

by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt

Recently, I read the following article written by a friend of mine, Father Louis Cameli of the Archdiocese of Chicago. His reflection on Our Mother, Mary, under her title of Our Lady of Sorrow, seems an appropriate one at this particular moment in the church’s history. I hope it offers some food for thought or, better, prayer:

“Ten or 20 years ago, it would have been unthinkable or, at least, improbable to consider writing about Mary as the mother of sorrows. Devotion to Mary under that title and in Roman Catholic circles had its heyday in the ‘40s and ‘50s.

“Time has passed and given us larger perspectives. The flood of peppy and overly optimistic post­conciliar spiritualities failed to satisfy people, precisely because they did not and could not engage people on the level of suffering.

“There is a vast quantity of suffering in the world. It extends from deeply personal and hidden domains through social patterns and global realities. It even reaches a cosmic dimension. These abstract levels of suffering are marked out very specifically by sorrowing mothers. In some particular and powerful way a large quantity of human suffering coalesces in the hearts of mothers. . . .

“Even before a theology of suffering was elaborated, the images of a young and suffering mother bearing a child in a hostile world, and an older mother standing before the cross of her Son as He was dying, captivated generations of believers. The embodiment in art and poetry and music of the “Mater dolorosa” (sorrowful Mother) suggests that priority needs to be given to the primary experience which is both imaginative and affective.”

Context important

Father Cameli then makes a very important distinction that is also helpful for us in these days:

“If we are to trace the biblical witness to Mary’s sufferings, her experience of sorrow, a fundamental distinction is necessary. We are following the experience of someone whose title is sorrowful mother, not depressed mother. In the Gospels as documents of faith, we have Mary’s experience of suffering presented in a context of faith, hope and love. Were the Gospels to chronicle her pain simply in a context of sadness, perhaps anger, a lack of resolution, and ultimately without perceived hope, then she would not emerge as a pained, sorrowing yet faith-filled person but rather as depressed person.”

Four characteristics

Father Cameli then shares four characteristics of the biblical witness of Mary’s sufferings. He characterizes her approach as one of struggle, presence, expansion and surrender:

“1) Struggle — Mary’s first re­sponse to suffering is struggle. Because of an excessively passive piety in the past, we may be surprised that struggle can be named the first response to suffering. Mary’s ‘yes’ is not mere acquiescence but active engagement in the unfolding of salvation. Mary’s response to suffering by way of struggle becomes clear in the Magnificat (Luke, chapter 2). Here we find suffering, struggle, hope, courage and anticipation.

“2) Presence — As she shares in the sufferings of her Son, Mary accompanies Him, does not ‘do’ anything. Hers is an active and engaged presence that includes: knowing, understanding, accepting and loving.

“3) Expansion — A significant re­sponse of Mary to suffering is an expansion of consciousness and of concern. The Gospel narratives are quite clear about this. At the cross, in John’s Gospel, she faces the greatest loss. Precisely at that moment, she expands her embrace and receives the beloved disciple and, symbolically, all other disciples as their mother. In the face of her most intense suffering, she expands the arena of her concern.

“4) Surrender — Mary’s surrender is a surrender to God. Psychologically, that means not clinging to her control over matters or outcomes. . . .

“How can Mary be the sorrowful mother if she has been gloriously assumed in heaven? Recall the image of the Risen Lord Who continues to bear the wounds of His passion. He is glorified and wounded still. For the mystery is one: death and resurrection. Similarly, Mary is both “virgo assumpta” (virgin assumed into heaven) and “mater dolorosa” (sorrowful mother). Her sufferings and sorrows have shaped her glory. She is a ‘sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God.’ ”

God bless you!


The liturgical reincarnation of Jim Jones — Rev. Pfleger

Filed under: Bombastic; Egomaniacal; Uncanny…

Catholic Truth (Scotland) has the Rev. Pfleger story [Shame on You, Cardinal George!] with link [Eucharistic Prayer Number Zero] to yet another I’m-not-so-sure-it’s-even-a-valid-mass video. But, this one caught my eye instead:

Rev. Pfleger’s Holy Thursday 2010 Eucharistic Prayer…

In viewing Fr. Pfleger’s unnecessary emotionalism (As if, God’s presence isn’t enough for us…) I kept feeling drawn for some reason to compare and contrast Pfleger/Jones preaching styles, and so Googled the movie on Jones’ life–Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones . The similarities are, well, you tell me…

Best comparison: Clicking back and forth between videos following sentences…     


ADMIN NOTE: In no manner am I implying upon the person of Rev. Pfleger that he in any way shares in/or wills the same dastardly motives leading to the reprehensible acts of Jim Jones upon the unfortunate souls in Guyana. The same cannot be said, however, for Rev. Pfleger’s monstrous poisoning of authentic faith and morals and “Protestantizing of the Sacred Liturgy…”   In this “Year of the Priest” we need to pray deeply for heterodox priests such as these…


A Non-Catholic Perspective — “The Myth of the Pedophile Priest”

A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context  


EDITOR NOTE: Excellent commentary and bullet-points from Fr. Dwight Longenecker today on his blog Standing On My Head, followed by Penn State professor, Phillip Jenkins, and his fine article on the scandal and nature of sexual abuse within society:

As more pedophile priest scandals blow up across Europe we should be ashamed of the offenders and those who sheltered them and oppressed the victims. The guilty should be weeded out, removed from office and handed over to the civil authorities where they are guilty of crimes. Systems to avoid abuse must be established and rigorously maintained, and victims should be justly compensated for their suffering.
However, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article.

In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles: 


  • Priestly celibacy is not the issue – married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried
  • Most child abuse takes place within the home.
  • All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.
  • Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.
  • Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.
  • Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.
  • Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucractive to sue.
  • Pedophilia and Euphebophilia are different problems. The former is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The latter is attraction to teenagers. Most cases branded ‘pedophila’ are actually ‘euphebophila.’
  • Most of the cases of euphebophilia are homosexual in nature, however the politically correct do not want this problem to be associated with homosexuality.
  • The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.
  • What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.
  • When lawsuits are looming people smell money. We must be wary of false accusations.
  • The accused must be entitled to a fair hearing. The church should insist on hard proof of the abuse, and for the sake of justice, ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted.
  • When guilt is established the offender must be punished, not sheltered.
  • Distinctions must be made between types of abuse. Some offenses are worse than others. Verbal abuse or corporal punishment during a time when that was acceptable, while lamentable, is not the same as sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse.
  • Sexual abuse of an adult, or a sexually experienced older teenager is wrong, and damaging, and should be punished, but it is not the same as the sexual abuse of a younger, innocent child.
  • Number of offenses must be considered. One lapse is not of the same seriousness as repeated, persistent and premeditated offenses. 

I am in no way wishing to be soft of pedophiles and those who covered for them, however justice and truth demand an objective analysis of the facts. 

A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, MARCH 11, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Philip Jenkins, a Penn State University professor of history and religious studies, is author of “Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis” (Oxford University Press, 1996). He wrote this article for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which published it March 3 under the headline “The Myth of the Pedophile Priest.”

* * *

By Philip Jenkins

Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to “Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston.” Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan.

Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan´s pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.

No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the “pedophile priest” scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted — or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.

We have often heard the phrase “pedophile priest” in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.

My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas — and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.

However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the “pedophile priest” is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about “pedophile pastors”?

Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.

By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group.

Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.

The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase “pedophile priests” conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. “Pedophilia” is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.

But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.

Also, the definition of “childhood” varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of “pedophile priests,” they commonly cite a case that occurred in California´s Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term “child abuse” or “pedophilia.” For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being “accused of child abuse.”

Get the rest of the story at the source: ZENIT


Catholic Climategate: Truth Vs. Falsehood


“We have, of course, the patron of the environment. I asked the children at school here, recently, I was talking the environment, and I asked, I checked the school, and asked, does anyone know who the patron saint of the environment is? A little girl put up her hand, a 12 year-old, she said, St. Al Gore…”    

Irish Archbishop Dermot Clifford   


  “Fear makes men believe the worst.”    

Quintus Curtius Rufus (fl. 100 AD, Roman Historian)   

  On 10 November 2009 Irish Bishops launched a pastoral reflection on climate change entitled ‘The Cry of the Earth’ [HERE]. The pastoral from the Irish Catholic Bishops Council calls for ‘ecological conversion’ of everyone and among other recommendations aimed at educating Catholics and inspiring local eco-action, prods their conversion through spiritual formation–inviting pastors to include the theme of care for God’s creation in homilies, prayers of the faithful, and even, examinations of conscience.  

At the launch of “Cry of the Earth” Archbishop Dermot Clifford was joined by other contributors to the pastoral including Professor John Sweeney. Prof Sweeney is a geographer attached to the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units in the department of geography at NUI, Maynooth. He was a contributing author and review editor of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With several hundred other climatologists, he shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Speaking during the launch, Professor Sweeney’s comments included the following statement:   

“Belief in global climate change is not a matter of faith. The evidence that the planet is undergoing rapid climate change is factual and beyond scientific dispute. In terms of causation, for almost all the world’s atmospheric scientists, the debate about the human contribution to climate change is now over.”   

Well, maybe not…   

10 days later, On November 20th, news flashed across the internet [Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? ] reporting that hacked and/or leaked e-mails revealed concrete evidence that publicly funded climate scientists responsible for collecting, assessing, confirming, and informing the international community concerning real or perceived threats of Global Warming had, quote, “perverted their science in the service of social and political causes.”    

Early on into what is now being called the greatest scandal ever within the scientific community, one columnist reading from the e-mails went on to charge the prominent scientists with, quote: “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims, and, perhaps, most troubling of all, communication between one another on how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.”   

Catholic Green Schools    

Also present with Archbishop Clifford and Prof Sweeny at the Launch of “Cry of the Earth” was environmentalist  Fr. Sean McDonagh SSC, Author of  ‘A Green Cristology’ and many other eco-works, including the paper “Climate Change, The Response of Catholics”, which I read.  

In it, Fr. McDonaugh concludes that global warming will have, in the main, a negative impact on human kind and most other forms of life in the biosphere. He goes on to ask: 

 “So what steps should the Catholic Church take globally to deal with this reality that is poised to bring pain, suffering and death to millions of humans and other creatures?” 

  His response was, “The Churches should be in the forefront in tackling global warming at the moral level.”  

 “Scary stuff”, I thought to myself as I read along. And how much more so for Irish Catholic school children whose futures according to the “Cry of the Earth” pastoral, which Prof Sweeney helped author, consists in this terrifying scenario:  

  • Increasing heat waves, floods, storms, fire and droughts, causing death and displacement for hundreds of millions of people. Between 200 and 600 million people will experience extreme hunger.
  • By 2080 between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people will face water shortages.
  • Flood waters could make life difficult for between 2 and 7 million people in New York and Tokyo alone. The effect would be greater in cities such as Shanghai, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro or Manila.
  • A rise of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius could see the extinction of one third of the species of the world.
  • Glaciers retreating in the Himalayas will affect billions of people in Asia. This would create tens of millions of environmental refugees, who would be forced to leave their place because it is no longer habitable.

This last, glacier retreat in the Himalayas affecting billions, has come under recent attacks by sceptics because of speculative evidence offered up as truth and obstinately defended without apology by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And just today, [HERE] Pachauri finds himself under increased pressure to resign after the head of Greenpeace called for him to step down. Indeed, a quick Google of Rejendra Pauchauri finds [HERE] the real possibility of personal financial conflict of interest with the position he holds as Chairman of the IPCC. 

All this will be flushed out in the end, of course, and is not the pure focus of this post. But, the situation in Ireland does cause wonderment here in America… 

If a non-Catholic member of the now highly suspect IPCC such as Prof Sweeney is invited to help author a Catholic pastoral in which compromised climate data was used as evidence to fortify doomsday scenarios, and thus scare Catholic populations into action, including our children, we must ask what many other international organizations and authorities are attempting to discover about the IPCC today, namely: 

Was this intentional manipulation? And if so, for what purpose(s)? 

There’s also this question that comes to mind — Who is educating Catholic bishops and school educators in America on the truth or falsehood of climate change science? 

After all, this is not just a simple push or reminder to use common sense as good stewards of the earth, but instead, as happens in Ireland, is an all-out effort directed toward the complete re-orientation of Catholic school systems in re-educating our children… As the following video from the Archdiocese of Chicago seems to reveal, ‘the greening of our children in defense of the climate and salvation of the planet appears to supercede the greater commission of defending the faith from error and saving souls for Christ…   

Let me know what you think on the subject…

Next Post: “Whose educating who in the greening of our schools?”

ED. NOTE: I’m not a scientist. If there are errors here I’ll gladly give way to truth if I’m in error…. But, will the IPCC?


Consecrate America Now: Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Guadalupe…

“I am the Mother of all who seek me and place their trust in me…”

Our Lady of Guadalupe
Our Lady of Guadalupe


Petition to His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Archbishop of Chicago, President of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archdiocese of Chicago

From Catholic Citizens of the United States of America

We Request a Consecration of the United States of America to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Guadalupe

“For I am truly your compassionate Mother: your Mother and the Mother to all who dwell in this land and to all other nations and peoples who love me and call and entreat me. I am the Mother of all who seek me and place their trust in me.”

~ Our Lady of Guadalupe

Your Eminence,

Canon 212, subsections 2 and 3, provides for Catholics the liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. In addition, it affords them the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.

We, the undersigned Catholics of the United States of America, respectfully request Your Eminence to consecrate our beloved country to the Blessed Virgin Mary, under her glorious title of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas.

As Catholic citizens of this great country which our Heavenly Father has deigned to richly bless, our concern for our spiritual welfare has increased dramatically since President Barack Obama has taken office and rapidly begun to foist upon our nation, with the assistance of numerous anti-Catholic politicians, a virulent Culture of Death and perverse agenda which, if not rapidly defeated, will destroy our nation. No citizen can be assured of God-given liberties in a nation which so aggressively legislates in favor of death and perverse lifestyles.

During his first one hundred days in office, President Barack Obama has “fulfilled ten of fifteen agenda items outlined in a December report from over 50 abortion-rights organizations submitted to the Obama-Biden transition team” (Susan B. Anthony List):

Reverse pro-life Mexico City Policy – Restore funding to UNFPA – Increase Title X Funding (Planned Parenthood Funding Stream) to $700M – Rescinding Conscience Protections for Medical Providers – Strike Abortion Budgetary Restrictions – Provide $1B for International Family Planning – Select Pro-Abortion Judicial Nominees – Choose Pro-Abortion Federal Appointees – Review Policies that Restrict Access to Emergency Contraception – Reduce Cost of Birth Control at College Health Centers

In addition to these aforementioned actions which are rabid attacks against Holy Mother Church, Her faithful shepherds and laity, the Hate Crimes Acts (S. 909) is set for a vote. If it passes, Catholics will be severely hindered from sharing pro-life information in public and, thus, saving babies from abortion; pro-lifers may especially be at risk of arrest and censorship under such “hate crimes” provisions, making these bills a serious threat to freedom of speech. It is multi-faceted and will result in persecution of Catholics who endeavor to uphold their Faith and Morals in a public forum. Catholics are experiencing systematic silencing as they witness President Barack Obama’s intentions for our nation, including the penetration of Catholic institutions.

At this most critical period in our nation’s history we look to you, Your Eminence, as our shepherd to utilize your God-given authority to call down upon our nation the powerful aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, that she may grant us an abundance of graces to defend our Catholic Faith in this present battle with the powers of darkness, even to our death if necessary; and if it be the will of God, mitigate incidences of persecution which will surely befall us if the current Administration is not promptly halted from proceeding full force with its perverse and deadly agenda. As Catholics continue to accomplish everything in their human power to avert morally destructive legislation, they recognize that our nation’s deep spiritual crisis has reached a level beyond their human abilities alone to fully correct. We, therefore, entreat you to lay our petition before the feet of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Confident as we are in the illustrious history of Our Lady’s maternal protection of her devoted ones in times of dire need, we seek her graces through your act of Consecration. As a token of our immense gratitude for your courageous pastoral leadership in this regard, we shall offer you during the month of June (the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) a spiritual bouquet of all our Masses, Rosaries, and sacrifices.

“Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God…I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who have confidence in me…. Listen and let it penetrate into your heart…. Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. Do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? What else do you need?”

~ Our Lady of Guadalupe