Catholic Church Sex Scandals In France

punch.com  reported on October 22, 2018, as follows [1]:

A priest in central France accused of sexually assaulting a minor committed suicide in his church, Catholic authorities said Monday, the second French priest to take his life over abuse claims in a month.

Pierre-Yves Fumery, 38, hanged himself in his presbytery in the town of Gien in the Loire valley. His body was found on Saturday.

....

Orleans bishop Jacques Blaquart, whose diocese includes Gien, called it a “moment of suffering and a tragic ordeal”. 

Blaquart said some members of Fumery’s parish had brought attention to the priest’s “inappropriate behaviour” towards children aged 13, 14 and 15, including a girl “that he took in his arms and drove home several times.”

About a month earlier, on September 20, 2018, New Strait Times  reported as follows [2]:

RENNES: A 38-year-old French priest in a northern French town committed suicide in his church after being accused of molesting a young woman, local prosecutors and police sources told AFP on Wednesday.

Jean-Baptiste Sebe killed himself Tuesday in the church north of Rouen amid allegations from a local mother that her grown-up daughter had been a victim of “indecent behaviour and sexual assault,” a police source said.

Catholic churches in France, a country where so many saints came from are apparently not exempt from sex scandals, and based on the reports, apparently not all sex scandals are homosexual even though the majority of them in the news are homosexual.

Can one therefore conclude reasonably that homosexuals are more sexually active than heterosexuals?  Probably not because priests are sexual beings regardless of whether one is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.  Perhaps the reason why there are more homosexual scandals in the Catholic Church is because the majority of clerics are gay.  If, however, the majority of the clerics are straight, then there would likely be many more girls and young women who would be molested and raped than boys and young men.

A cleric's inability to remain chaste is not a function of sexual orientation but is dependent on the cleric's ability to control his sexual impulses.  One's inability to curtail one's sexual drive is not limited to clerics (straight, gay or bi) but is common among men, not just those who are famous, powerful and wealthy.


[1] https://punchng.com/priest-commits-suicide-after-abuse-claims/
[2] https://www.nst.com.my/world/2018/09/413090/french-priest-commits-suicide-church-over-accusation-molesting

Suggested Read: Theodore McCarrick, Donald Wuerl & The Papal Foundation

Written by Matthew B.O'Brien, a publication entitled THE PAPAL FOUNDATION & MCCARRICK’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST  reads like a fiction filled with intrigue [1].


[1] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/09/the-papal-foundation-mccarricks-conflict-of-interest

Truth & Evidence - Viganò's Third Letter

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's third letter was reviewed by americamagazine.org  in an article entitled In third letter Viganò repeats accusations but offers no new evidence on McCarrick case [1]. The entirety of the letter is published by lifesitenews.com  in an article entitled Archbishop Viganò issues third testimony, refutes accusations of Cardinal Ouellet [2] in which Archbishop Viganò specifically said, "Let me restate the key points of my testimony," [3] key words that americamagazine.org  failed to mention in its article.

Archbishop Viganò's third letter was a continuing dialogue between him and those who in the Catholic hierarchy subservient to Bergoglio.  It was never intended to introduce new evidence.  The conclusion that this third letter repeats the first without presenting new evidence misses the point, the point being that evidence so difficult to obtain in this world is not the case before God.

Before God one does not need to offer documents or testimony to prove the truth.  God knows everything.  From God one cannot run or hide.  One can do nothing but tremble (this blogger had experienced this once -- it was absolute fear in full mental nakedness).  Archbishop Viganò apparently knows this, quoting from his third letter [4]:

But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge – “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” -- what answer could I give?

This Judge, sometimes referred to as the "terrible" Judge, is considered by some to be "terrible" not because the Judge is nasty, wrong or unfair but because "[He] will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved" "even in [H]is infinite mercy," [5].  He is feared because of one's sins.  This blogger believes that upon seeing humility and repentance, the Judge lets His abundant love and mercy take over, leading souls to Heaven, possibly through Purgatory.

The question in the above-quoted passage would probably not be the only "dreadful" one asked of Carlo Maria Viganò, if indeed there is even a question and answer period.  This blogger thinks that there is none.  In absolute silence before the Judge, the soul knows with unbearable clarity (too much clarity) every truth and every sin resulted from commission and omission sending unmitigable fear throughout its entire constitution.

If anyone thinks that the game of "hide and seek" with the truth has to do only with worldly evidence and ends when life ends, one needs to think again, carefully.


[1] https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/10/19/third-letter-vigano-repeats-accusations-offers-no-new-evidence-mccarrick-case
[2] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-viganos-third-testimony
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.

Some Ambivalence Over The Possibility Of Building Up The Catholic Church In A Digital World

Quoted from an article entitled Synod of Bishops on Young People: Becoming digital missionaries  published by Vatican News  on October 17, 2018 [1]:

Today at the Synod briefing the press were told that a repeated theme in conversation in the Synod assembly was how the Church can be part of the digital world. For this, the Church needs “digital missionaries”.

Admittedly, having "'digital missionaries'" is not quite the same as having a virtual Catholic Church, but it is a step closer to having one.  Whether or not a "digital" Catholic Church is a good idea is hard to say.

This blog's existence is made possible by digital technology.  Without it, this blogger's thoughts would likely either not be written or if written, would be on paper that would be piled up in a dark corner of a closet that would never again see the light of day, so that not a single person on earth would have a clue as to how disturbed and convoluted a mind can be, one that allows for crazy thoughts to form.  Not having this blog could actually be better for society by not filling up cloud storage space with worthless words, but the same cannot be said for having a virtual Catholic Church, in some cases.

By being in this blogosphere, one is able to reach readers in far away places one has never seen and readers who may be nearby whom one would likely not ever meet or know personally.  This is amazing indeed, considering that this blogger who is a nobody, who is insane and incoherent at times, has unexpectedly reached a handful of readers (often less than that), but blogging in cyberspace with a tiny audience is quite a different matter from building up the Catholic Church in it that has the potential to reach 1.28 billion Catholics worldwide [2].

This is a good thing on the one hand, particularly for those who live alone in seclusion or in remote areas who would then be able to connect with "'digital missionaries'" which is better than having no connection at all but on the other, is it enough to have encounters via various internet portals with no chance of any direct one on one interaction with a person as opposed to an image of one?  Is watching a Mass online sufficient to satisfy the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and on Holy Days of Obligation?  If not, then why not?  Adoration of a virtual Blessed Sacrament is already available on You Tube [3].  What about receiving Holy Communion from a 3-D virtual priest by logging in and using one's own unique 3-D emoji?

How would the crucifixion of Christ be accepted and believed if it were digitized as opposed to real suffering on the cross?  A digitized version would be like an animation based on a fantasy that is no different from any other kind of morbid entertainment, except that the crucifixion of Christ is real, historic and not entertainment.  The most important moments of Christianity are the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, without which the Last Supper would have little to no meaning which is the underpinning of the Catholic Mass.  Would watching the consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ on a screen in 4K (or better) and in 3-D be more like having "make-belief" friends on social media that one never truly knows than like having real friends one can meet, hug and laugh together?  The answer is an unequivocal "yes."  Therefore, watching is the opposite of participating in real time the moment of transubstantiation when the Holy Spirit descends in the space in which one is present (body, mind and soul) and awakens one's faith in God and calls one's attention to the real presence of Christ.

For some it is challenging enough to have unwavering faith in God Whom they do not see or hear.  A distance between them and God therefore exists.  Having a virtual Church, one that replaces a structure into which one is able to walk and be in awe and perhaps even for a fleeting moment feel the true presence of Christ within it and within oneself, the distance between one who is already lacking absolute faith in God could increase.  Not that it is only possible to feel Christ's presence kneeling before a cross in a church or a chapel as compared to sitting at home in front of a screen, the sensation between the two is different and in this blogger's opinion, are not perfect substitutes, until he is convinced that during a future apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that She would ask a for a digital shrine be built in cyberspace instead of asking as She did San Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin [4] to construct a shrine on Tepeyac Hill where the apparition occurred [5].

Is the world about to arrive at a juncture where one is able to to choose between what is real and what is pretense while not being able to distinguish clearly one from the other?  Perhaps the foundation of pretense within the Catholic Church has already been laid long ago since there is no more incense to elevate prayers to Heaven and the Body and Blood of Christ have been treated as substances that can hardly be deemed as holy and reverential under the Novus Ordo Mass in contrast to the Tridentine Mass.  In a fully digital world, none of this would matter since the Church and the entirety of the Mass would be virtual.

Whether a virtual Catholic Church will deepen one's faith or distances one further and further from God remains to be seen.  The results will likely be mixed.  Those with unyielding faith in God will likely not be affected one way or the other.  Those who are in remote areas and who are living in isolation because of their nature may benefit from having a virtual Church, but those who are half-hearted,  hypocritical and not prayerful may be even more perfunctory and superficial in their faith.


[1] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2018-10/synod-youth-2018-press-briefing5.html
[2] https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/global-catholic-population-tops-128-billion-half-are-10-countries
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqW1lENuph0
[4] http://www.ewtn.com/spanish/saints/santos/juan_diego_biograf%C3%ADa.htm
[5] "On 9 December 1531, when Juan Diego was on his way to morning Mass, the Blessed Mother appeared to him on Tepeyac Hill, the outskirts of what is now Mexico City. She asked him to go to the Bishop and to request in her name that a shrine be built at Tepeyac, where she promised to pour out her grace upon those who invoked her." See https://www.guadalupeshrine.org/resources/saint-juan-diego

Women Demanding Greater Participation In The Catholic Church

EWTN News Nightly  raised the issue on women not having enough say in the decision-making process in the Catholic Church in its October 16, 2018 broadcast on You Tube [1].  This blogger has a response, not only on this issue but on every other issue everywhere in the world about which women have complained bitterly for not having enough participation, because men have been largely in charge, relegating women to the periphery.  His response is in the form of a question: where do men come from?

Every male come from the womb of a woman.  This woman is his mother.  He owes his life to her.  She is the most important person in his life, from infancy to boyhood, even to adulthood.  While he is growing up, he relies upon his mother who feeds him, raises him, teaches him and who sets an example for him so that when he grows up, he can become the man his mother wants him to become.

A man, therefore, is the product of his mother, a woman.  How can women, as a group, claim that they do not have participation in areas dominated by men?  Is a woman not the first person who has the most influence in the life of a boy?  This influence is critical to the formation of boy who is to become a man.  Based on this assertion, why do women blame men for excluding them when women are the ones with the greatest impact upon the life of a man?

What about those boys whose mothers have left them during infancy or boyhood, and boys whose mothers do not love them and who find them to be burdensome?  Can women blame these boys for excluding women in their lives when they grow up to become men?

Look at Jesus Whose Mother is the Virgin Mary Who is blessed among women, Who loves Her Son dearly, and look at where She is now and the powers She has -- even Satan fears Her.


[1] https://youtu.be/W-f61sXJH4Q?t=707

Paul VI - A Modern-Day Gay Saint?

Pope Paul VI was canonized a saint by Bergoglio on Sunday, October 14, 2018 [1]:

The Vatican calls Paul VI the "pope of modernity" for his influence on changes in "liturgy, seminary formation, theological study, and many other areas of ecclesiastical life."

Paul VI, being labeled by the Vatican as a "'pope of modernity'" is truly right and just.  An article entitled Paul VI's Homosexuality: Rumor or Reality? written by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D., published on February 1, 2008, [2] suggests the that Paul VI was gay and had a boyfriend before he was pope, when he was Cardinal Montini, Archbishop of Milan. [3]  This supposed rumor was "confirmed by another author, a serious professor and journalist who had worked at the Vatican in the papal quarters." [4]

If this is true, and why would it not be based on the probability that at least one of the popes throughout the centuries could have been a homosexual man, then the Vatican and Bergoglio must have known about it.  Not that a homosexual man could not ever live a holy life and be a saint, but that it would be important for Catholics to know that a gay man had been canonized a saint.  It is little wonder that the Vatican had called Paul VI "the 'pope of modernity'" since he could very well had been gay.

The Vatican also stated that Paul VI had exerted his influence upon many things, among them "'seminary formation ... and many other areas of ecclesiastical life.'" Interestingly, the truth of this statement reinforced the assertion that the article cited above had quoted which also helps to provide some insight to the state the Catholic Church is in today [5]:

Another change observed ... was the sudden appointment of homosexuals to positions of prestige and responsibility close to the Papacy. 

By highlighting the above, this blogger is not insinuating that all homosexual clerics are hypocrites and sexual perverts that prey upon children and seminarians nor is he is implying that all heterosexual clerics are holy and sinless.

In conclusion, this ought to be the truth--anyone can be holy and saintly (generically-speaking), regardless of one's gender, race, sexual orientation, and might he add one's religion to this partial enumeration, and one's past (recalling the conversion of Saul to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus [6]).


[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/14/657277667/oscar-romero-pope-paul-vi-elevated-to-sainthood
[2] https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02tPaulV_Accusations.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] https://catholicexchange.com/the-conversion-of-st-paul

A Perfect Union

The last blog post concluded that the marriage between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Catholic Church, the Bride, was an unhappy one.

A next conclusion can also be drawn, that a perfect union is not possible without Divine intervention.  There was a chance that it might have been possible in the Garden of Eden before Eve and Adam ate the Forbidden Fruit, but a sexual union did not occur since no child was conceived and born before their Fall, which gives rise to a question as to whether God ever intended Adam and Eve to be sexual with one another. Perhaps their union was to be a a union of their souls rather than of their flesh.

One could maintain that because of the complimentary male and female anatomy, a sexual union was intended, if not mandated, allowing for procreation.  After all, this is what the Bible said that God had said, quoted without references [1]:

God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.

If indeed that was what had occurred, then Adam and Eve's first disobedience was not that they ate the Forbidden Fruit, but that they did not conceive a child before the Fall when they were told explicitly to "[b]e fertile and multiply".  The Jews who wrote the Old Testament failed to highlight or explain away their first disobedience, a sin, or the real first original sin.

It was not until the New Testament that the world has learned that even though a human body features a certain anatomy, it does not mean that that it has to be used in a sexual manner. Did the Son of God Who was made man ever entered into a sexual union?  There has not been any claim by any one of either gender who had a sexual encounter with Christ.  In the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, She was conceived by the Holy Spirit but did not have a physical union with a man in the flesh [2], quoted without references:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. [Emphasis added.]

The world has also learned that a couple's life together does not have to be procreative, like the non-sexual union between the Blessed Virgin Mary and Joseph to whom She was betrothed. [3]  Theirs was made possible by Divine intervention and thus it was perfect.  It had to be perfect to be able to raise the Son of God.  Besides this union, there is no other in the world that was or is perfect, therefore this blogger is left to imagine one.

The imagined perfect union can occur only in Heaven after a soul has been cleansed of all of its sins, it being reverted to its original "pre-Fall" state of pure and complete innocence.  It is the continuous willful union of a soul's wholesome and untainted innocence and God's omniscience and omnipotence that can be and is perfect, unbreakable and eternal.

The longing for this union can hardly be expressed simply.  In this blogger's life this longing is a scale that weighs heavily on the one side the raw pains of interior emptiness against an uncertain hope for happiness and an unattainable dream of pure joy on the other from having the Holy Spirit dwell within forever so that life is without ever a hint or a moment of unsatiated desire and from having his seemingly endless vortices of different turmoils being stilled and filled by Christ's peace and by God's overflowing and unceasing love.


[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1, 28.
[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke, 26-35.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1:38, 18.

An Unhappy Marriage

Quoted below without references to footnotes is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church [1]:

The Church is the Bride of Christ 

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom." The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her." He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body: 

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church." And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."

The Catholic Church has evolved into a bride more suited for Satan than for Christ.  Even though the sex scandals since the release of the Philadelphia grand jury report [2] are no longer in the news headlines presently, the Bride of Christ is no longer "spotless" after being tainted by impurities, hypocrisies, denials and deceits over the years.  This is only part of the Church that has been sullied; the other parts that are being compromised are unfolding under this papacy.  How much more defiled the Bride of Christ will become time will tell, and likewise, if Her continuous defilement, by Bergoglio and by his self-serving clerics whose primary interest is their collective sacrilegious careers, will be reparable, assuming that they are praying, fasting, self-flagellating and repenting individually and as a group, which this blogger doubts are taking place with any regularity or at all.

If God was able to find a replacement for Eve in the Blessed Virgin Mary, God will most surely find a new Bride, a true Catholic Church that Satan will fear and not approach, for the Bridegroom Who is Christ, the replacement for Adam.


[1] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4112592-Philadelphia-2005-Grand-Jury-Report.html

The Pope On The Blessed Virgin Mary

In his book, the pope said as follows [1], quoted in part:


“From the moment she was born until the Annunciation, to the moment she encountered the angel of God, I imagine her as a normal girl, a girl of today, I can’t say she a city-girl, because she is from a small town, but normal, educated normally, open to marrying, to starting a family. One thing I imagine is that she loved the Scriptures: she knew the Scriptures, she had done catechesis in a family environment, from the heart. Then, after the conception of Jesus, she was still a normal woman: Mary is normal, she is a woman that any woman in this world can imitate. No strange things in life, a normal mother: even in her virginal marriage, chaste in that frame of virginity, Mary was normal. She worked, went shopping, helped her Son, helped her husband: normal”. [Emphasis original.]


He then went on and on, tediously, based on what was reported in the article cited under footnote [1].  This blogger has not read the book nor does he plan to read it.  The article did not report that Bergoglio said anything about the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Immaculate Conception.  Perhaps he did not.

Assuming that Bergoglio did not in his book acknowledge or does not personally believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin [2], it therefore makes sense that he was able to imagine the Blessed Virgin Mary being "a normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" (quoting his words).  My recommendation is that he needs to pray the Magnificat daily and publicly [2]:


My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
[Because] [H]e hath regarded [the humility of his handmaid;] [for] behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
[Because] [H]e that is mighty hath [done great things to me;] and holy is [H]is Name.
And [H]is mercy is [from generation to generations, to them that fear Him.]
He hath [showed might in His arm;] [H]e hath scattered the proud in the [conceit] of their [heart].
He hath put down the mighty from their seat[;] and hath exalted the humble[.]
He hath filled the hungry with good things[;] and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He [hath received Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy,]
As [He spoke to our] fathers, [to] Abraham and [to] his seed for ever. [Amen]
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. [in brackets: from True Devotion to Mary with Preparation For Total Consecration  by Saint Louis-Marie Gringion de Montfort, translated by Father Frederick William Faber, D.D., edited and annotated by The Fathers of the Company of Mary, retypeset and copyright in 2010 by Saint Benedict Press, TAN Books.]


The Magnificat tells the world that the Blessed Virgin Mary is unequal to anyone.  Therefore, this blogger concludes that Bergoglio was wrong to equate the "normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In doing so, Bergoglio was close to being Satanic by downgrading the Mother of God to a "normal girl, a girl of today" and to "a normal woman".

The Mother of God is no ordinary girl (or woman) of today, or yesterday.  Bergoglio should have equated the "normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" to the other woman who was made without Original Sin, Eve, who was full of pride and disobeyed God and fell for Satan and its temptation.

It would be rare and therefore "not  normal" for "a girl of today" or "a normal woman" to be pure and undefiled like the Blessed Virgin Mary Who humbles Herself and obeys God without question and Whom Satan hates and fears.  Yet, Bergoglio insisted repeatedly that Mary, Mother of God, was "normal" like a girl and a woman of today when She was blessed by God in a unique and holy way, a truth  (God's Truth) that Bergoglio, presumably, ignored on purpose in his book, that lastampa.it  did not highlight in its article quoted in part above.

This blogger is not so sure anymore that Bergoglio is truly Christ's disciple.  Perhaps he was once, then Satan entered him, allowing him to imagine and state in his book that the Blessed Virgin Mary is comparable to "a girl of today" and "a normal woman" and directing him to insinuate, ever so imperceptibly yet deceivingly, that the Mother of God is as impure, proud and corruptible as "a normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman".  The possibility that Bergoglio who is a disciple of Christ is also a betrayer of Christ is very real because to assume that Judas Iscariot was the only disciple whom Satan had entered and who betrayed Christ in 2,000 plus years is unrealistic.


[1] http://www.lastampa.it/2018/10/08/vaticaninsider/the-pope-ill-tell-you-about-mary-a-normal-girl-KTgt8GlyojXrw5SXmhQaHJ/pagina.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat
[3] "In 1854, four years before the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Pope Pius IX defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception which stated that 'the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin.'" See https://www.allaboutreligion.org/blessed-virgin-mary.htm

Another Fantasy: Healing The Catholic Church - Synod of Exorcists

The pope should gather all the bishops, archbishops and Cardinals from around the world, demonically-possessed or not, to meet at the Vatican to attend a first-ever annual Synod of Exorcists.

During the Synod of Exorcists, the clerics as well as the pope himself will have to endure the pains of exorcism for as long as would be required for the exorcists to exorcise all the demons from them collectively (this could be a first too) and  individually before they would be allowed to return to work as holy (non-demonic) shepherds.

Before being exorcised, all of them will first have to fast, drinking only water, eating only once a day plain bread, and pray unceasingly the rosary in Latin eight (8) hours a day for two full weeks as a group.  The clerics, probably all of them without exception, who are not used to fasting and praying the rosary this way, will come to realize that the preparation for the annual exorcism is far worse than being possessed and going through exorcism.

As a result, they will voluntarily tell Satan and its demons to get out in order that they may be able to be exempted from this annual ordeal by being transparent in all that they do and not do.

What about priests?  They, too, will have to be exorcised and go through the same fasting and praying under the supervision of their Archbishop who will accompany them throughout the ordeal.  And so do seminarians.  By fasting, praying and going through exorcism, they will be able to discern clearly if God is truly calling them to become the suffering Shepherd Who is Christ.

Can Viganò's Second Letter's Anecdotal Conclusion Perhaps Be Improved?

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò dated a letter on September 29, 2018, the Feast of Archangel Saint Michael, in which he wrote the following concluding remarks [1]:

It [referring to "a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice"] represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?”  Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40). [Italics  original.]

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to
act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

Perhaps this blogger is reading too much into it but his take away after reading Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's conclusion is this: after Jesus was awoken by Peter and after He had calmed the wind and the sea, He asked Peter why he was afraid and why he still had no faith.  If Peter had absolute faith in Christ and was not afraid, then he would not have awoken Christ Who was sound asleep in the boat in a stormy sea.  By saying that Bergoglio did not intend to awaken Jesus, it could be interpreted to mean Bergoglio having Christ at the forefront of his mind and having complete faith in Christ which is the opposite of Viganò's point.

This blogger thinks he knows the point that Viganò was trying to make and he agrees with it, but to make it clear, perhaps Viganò could have added after these words "he does not even intend to awake Jesus asleep in the bow" this: in order to put an end to Christ's ministry by letting the stormy sea destroy the boat and drown those who are in it (implying the loss of all moral authority of the Catholic Church and all credibility of the good shepherds who preach the Gospel by having hypocrisies attributed to them by association).

Of course, this blogger is no where near as eloquent and subtle as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, therefore his thoughts and blog posts are a reflection of such and other deficiencies.

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/389623829/Vigano-Scio-Cui-Credidi#download