Find it worrisome also that fr. Martin runs around doing this out in the open and no one says anything. Francis appointed him and i feel in my heart that father martin is doing exactly what he wants to do with Francis's blessing. Confusion and chaos seem to be the law of the land.
Father Mark Goring's parish is doing a special prayer for their diocese in Texas (Cardinal DiNardo's diocese) on the vigil of the Immaculate Conception. In this video, he is asking us to storm heaven for the Church, etc. and he explains exactly what his parish will be doing this Friday night including reciting 20 decades of the rosary. Since I live in NY and I cannot be in attendance for this vigil, I plan on joining them by reciting 20 decades of the rosary on Friday from my home. I thought others here may want to do the same. This is his video from yesterday. The following is a very good article to read as we approach the February special synod which will address the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, Analysis: On sexual abuse, what will U.S. bishops, and the pope, do next? by JD Flynn | https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...at-will-us-bishops-and-the-pope-do-next-73604 Washington D.C., Nov 26, 2018 / 06:15 pm (CNA).- Bishop Frank Rodimer and Fr. Peter Osinski were friends. Osinski was a priest in the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey. Rodimer was Bishop of Paterson, a nearby diocese, from 1978 until 2004. For years the men rented a beach house together each summer on New Jersey’s Long Beach Island, south of Seaside and north of Atlantic City. There, for seven years in the 1980s, Osinski molested a young boy. The first year it happened, the boy was seven. The priest was arrested in 1997. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. In 1999, the victim settled a lawsuit against the bishop, the priest, and the priest’s diocese. Rodimer was not alleged to have have committed sexual abuse, but the suit charged that the bishop had been negligent in failing to recognize what was going on. In 2002 Rodimer apologized for failing to prevent the abuse at the beach house. He also acknowledged that he had mishandled other cases of sexual abuse involving priests of his diocese. At the same time, he defended his decision to allow an admitted child abuser, Fr. William Cramer, to serve as a hospital chaplain from 1991 to 2002. For much of his tenure in Paterson, Rodimer was the senior suffragan bishop of the ecclesiastical province of Newark. At the U.S. bishops’ conference meeting in Baltimore this month, Cardinal Blase Cupich proposed that metropolitans—archbishops—should be responsible for investigating claims of misconduct or negligence against their suffragan bishops. If metropolitans are accused, the plan says, the senior suffragan bishop should investigate. If that plan had been in place during Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s last years in Newark, Rodimer would have been the one charged with looking into allegations against McCarrick. __ Of course, Rodimer retired 14 years ago. And the fact that he was McCarrick’s senior suffragan bishop does not suggest that metropolitan and suffragan bishops are universally unqualified to address charges of sexual misconduct or administrative negligence in the life of the Church. But Rodimer’s position as McCarrick’s one-time senior suffragan is a reminder that addressing the problems of sexual abuse, misconduct, and administrative negligence is not as simple a proposition as many Catholics, and bishops, would like it to be. U.S. bishops have learned that lesson in recent weeks, even as responsibility for solving the problem has shifted apparently by the pope’s design, to Rome. After several confusing and turbulent weeks in the Church, it is worth asking where reform efforts stand, and where they will be going. Baltimore, thwarted plans, and the “metropolitan model” It is now well-known that this month’s meeting of the U.S. bishops’ conference was unlike any USCCB meeting that had come before it. The bishops arrived in Baltimore Nov. 12 prepared to pray together, and then to vote on facets of a plan they believed would address the allegations of episcopal sexual misconduct and administrative malfeasance that have plagued the Church in recent months. They planned to pass a code of conduct for bishops, create a whistleblower hotline, and establish an independent lay-led team of experts charged with investigating allegations made against bishops. On Monday morning, as the meeting opened, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the conference president, announced that their plans had been iced-- the Vatican had determined they should wait to vote until after a January retreat for U.S. bishops, and a February meeting involving the heads of bishops’ conferences from around the world. DiNardo himself seemed stunned. Bishops and observers were confused. Many bishops felt they had to return to their dioceses with evidence that some action had been taken to address diminishing lay confidence in their ability to address the ongoing crisis. Nevertheless, the meeting continued. By the end, at least one official action had been taken: DiNardo announced the formation of a task force, consisting of several former USCCB presidents, to assist him in assessing open questions and possible plans that arose from the meeting, in preparation for the February gathering at the Vatican. While several open questions are part of its mandate, the main job of the task force seems to be developing two competing proposals for the investigation of bishops. The initial plan for investigating bishops, introduced by conference leadership before the November meeting, called for a lay-led commission which could investigate allegations made against bishops who support the funding of the commission and choose to allow themselves to be investigated. Proponents of this plan say it has the benefit of inscrutability; that leadership by independent lay experts will ensure fair and thorough evaluations of complaints, and assist the Holy See by providing accurate and impartial information. Opponents at the Baltimore meeting raised a variety of objections: that funding the commission will be expensive, that the commission might not have a sufficient number of allegations to justify staffing it, that the plan puts laity into a position of “authority” over bishops, or, conversely, that the plan does not give sufficient authority to investigators because participation is not compulsory. After voting on that proposal was suspended, a new plan surfaced during the bishops’ meeting, introduced by Cupich. That plan would have metropolitans, or archbishops, along with their archdiocesan review boards, investigate allegations against bishops. If archbishops were accused, the senior diocesan bishop in the ecclesiastical province would investigate the plan, with assistance from his review board. The proponents of the “metropolitan model” plan say that it appropriately involves laity, is more consistent with Catholic ecclesiology, and is notably less expensive than the alternative proposal. At least one bishop at the recent meeting said it seems more fitting for bishops to be judged by bishops. Critics of the approach say that while the plan might work in theory, it is too late for the Church to impose a policy in which bishops are responsible for overseeing investigations into other bishops; that trust has eroded in the institution and is more likely to be restored by outside, independent lay involvement. Other critics say that the plan imposes responsibility on the metropolitan he may not be prepared to fulfill, and that could lead, potentially, to legal liabilities. Disagreement among the bishops over these proposals is not ideological. Both Cupich and Archbishop Charles Chaput support the metropolitan model, though they often have markedly divergent theological viewpoints. Most observers say that both plans have strengths and weaknesses that should be explored before any plan is recommended or implemented. The task force will take up that exploration. Its conclusions will be submitted to DiNardo before the February meeting. The task force’s work could prove to be for naught, if the pope, Vatican officials, or the meeting’s planning committee already know what they hope to see come from the meeting. Cupich, who was appointed by Pope Francis, said recently that the meeting will work to accomplish some “specific outcomes that reflect the mind of Pope Francis.” It is not certain that the pope supports the metropolitan plan proposed by Cupich, and publicly floated in August by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, but the appointment of Cupich to the meeting’s planning committee seems to suggest that the pope supports at least the cardinal’s basic approach. continued...
continued from above... Still, of concern to many American Catholics at this point are not the specifics of any initiative undertaken, but rather that the Vatican does something concrete and direct, and soon, to demonstrate that sexual coercion and abuse are intolerable, as is episcopal administrative negligence. At the same time, some bishops have said that while the pope’s apparent reticence to commit to a particular plan is concerning, it is also important that such a serious matter be addressed wisely and prudently, so that policies implemented hastily are not subsequently revoked. For many American Catholics, however, the Vatican’s reticence to allow action seems to reflect a so-called paralysis of analysis. Some worry that episcopal malfeasance will go on unaddressed long after the February meeting-- that while the pope seeks global consensus, reform in the U.S. will remain at a standstill. Some note that while talks are on hiatus, bishops accused of negligence or misconduct, among them Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo and Bishop Michael Hoeppner of Crookston, do not seem to be the subjects of ecclesiastical inquiries into their status. This situation, they say, will lead to increasingly diminished confidence in the Church’s capacity to reform itself, and increasingly stronger support for the intervention of civil authorities. These critics note especially that there has yet been little evidence of a canonical process for McCarrick, a situation to which global media outlets have remained attentive. McCarrick vote It is frustration about McCarrick that seems to have fueled much of the criticism from lay Catholics of the U.S. bishops. While the stalled policy reform can be attributed to the Vatican, many Catholics have expressed discouragement at a perceived lack of commitment from bishops to press for answers on McCarrick. Commentators and some bishops seemed especially frustrated that the USCCB failed to pass a resolution encouraging the Vatican to release all legally permissible documents related to McCarrick’s alleged misconduct. During debate, some bishops said the resolution was unnecessary because the Vatican had already pledged to release a summary report of its own internal investigation of documents related to McCarrick. One bishop said the resolution could be interpreted as an expression of distrust in the Vatican. Some bishops seemed uneasy about seeming to publicly pressure the Vatican, especially since previous efforts to that effect by conference leadership had been rebuffed. But one bishop told CNA that debate over the resolution got “lost in the weeds,” and lost sight of the symbolic importance of the resolution to Catholics hoping to see an act of solidarity and leadership from their bishops, a collective affirmation of the importance of the McCarrick investigation. After the Vatican’s suspension of policy votes, the bishop said, Catholics wanted to feel that their bishops continue to press for answers, that they are not afraid of what might be discovered. The resolution, however, failed by a wide margin. What's coming These are unpredictable times in the life of the Church, shaped by events with little precedent. But four points seem clear about the months to come. The first is that the February meeting is unlikely to conclude with the adoption of reform policies. Cupich has said the meeting will be the start of a process- given that the meeting is scheduled to last for only three days, it seems impossible to expect any policies to be adopted or promulgated. This will probably enflame a new round of frustration among U.S. Catholics, and many U.S. bishops, who perceive an urgent need to debate and decide on reform policy. While a slower process might indeed lead to better, more well-constructed policies, there will be a price to pay for the pace, and it will be measured in the costs of civil investigations, lawsuits, and possible indictments, and in the number of disaffected Catholics who lose faith in the Church while they wait. The second is that the episcopal conference now seems unlikely to remain the principal method of communication between the Vatican and the U.S. bishops. The pope has rebuffed several public requests from conference leadership for an apostolic visitation into McCarrick, and publicly rebuffed, at the very last minute, their plan to vote on reform policies. And it is telling that Francis appointed Cupich, who is not a part of the conference’s elected leadership, to help plan a meeting for the elected leaders of conferences around the world, and to represent the U.S. in the planning group. The pope has previously appointed Cupich to accompany elected U.S. representatives to Vatican meetings, including the 2015 synod on the family and the 2018 synod on the youth. The pope has again affirmed his trust in Chicago’s archbishop, who, in light of that trust, and his appointment to February planning committee, will be more frequently seen as an unofficial but important bridge, and interpreter, between Rome and the U.S. Next, it seems obvious that Catholics will continue to call for action from the U.S. Church’s leadership, as will civil authorities. Their call is likely to grow more impatient. Calls to withhold financial support from diocesan apostolates are likely to continue, although few observers expect such calls to have a serious impact on the bottom line for most dioceses. Far more likely to have serious financial and operational impact on the Church will be the decisions of the U.S. Attorney and state attorneys general-- indictments or litigation could have both domestic and Vatican consequences. Finally, there is one positive development worth noting. During the recent bishops’ meeting, DiNardo offered several opportunities for bishops to speak candidly about the sexual abuse crisis and their experiences. Some bishops spoke very personally about their own needs, their concerns, their shortcomings, and their hopes. Cardinal Joseph Tobin spoke earnestly, as did Archbishop George Lucas, Bishop Andrew Cozzens, and several others. Some bishops told CNA they sensed the Holy Spirit prompting a more fraternal exchange, a new openness to more human engagement, and even disagreement, on the floor of the meeting. It would be a strange development if the sexual abuse crisis ushered in a new era of episcopal candor, and a more discerning mode of operation for the bishops’ conference. But as the past few weeks have demonstrated, “strange developments” are the ordinary course of affairs for the Church. What will come next remains to be seen. Related stories: National Review Board [for the Protection of Children and Young People] offers suggestions for bishops' accountability Christine Rouselle | November 13, 2018 |https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-suggestions-for-bishops-accountability-91623 Cupich and Wuerl collaborated on alternative sex abuse proposal Ed Condon | November 16, 2018 [This article was already posted by member Fatima.] |https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...rated-on-alternative-sex-abuse-proposal-10934 AED, I'm not watching the funeral either. These powerful families like the Bush family scare me sometimes. I am often reminded about how George H.W. Bush's nephew, Billy Bush from Access Hollywood, almost caused Hillary Clinton to be our president by releasing that old videotape of Donald Trump. We know that DT is no angel but HRC would have been a disaster for the country especially in regards to morality. Father Goring also made a related video about this the other day that I will post below. Another political family that is somewhat dangerous is the Cuomo's. Andrew Cuomo followed in his father Mario's footsteps and became Governor of NY. He also has aspirations of becoming president although he is not admitting a run in 2020*, as of yet. Like George Bush, Andrew Cuomo has family in the news business. His brother Chris is a news anchor for CNN. I find it a little laughable when DT has been accused of nepotism. *https://nypost.com/2018/12/03/its-not-hard-to-figure-out-cuomos-gameplan-for-2020/ Agnes Rose, Doesn't Cardinal Timothy Dolan have some say in what Father James Martin is doing? Iow, isn't it also a reflection on Cd. Dolan that Fr. Martin continues to run around and do and say very unorthodox things? Imho, Cd. Dolan has been able to skirt around much criticism in this regard, or no?
I watched it but need to watch it again because I had problems with the connection. One question occurred to me and that doesn't seem to occurred to James: Is it possible that his grandfather was part of the St. Gallen group? McCarrick was a nobody until James' grandfather took an interest in him, and it was the grandfather who introduced McCarrick to St. Gallen. How does James know that his relatives who were so close to McCarrick weren't aware and complicit in McCarrick's activities. Perhaps I will find the answers when I watch the video again. While I believe that James is telling the truth, I would want to know a lot more about him before I would trust that he also doesn't have an agenda or is fronting for others who may have an agenda. I read somewhere that when McCarrick talked about his youth, there was a year missing - a year between the time he left one school and started in another.
I think Dolours, that in those times James relatives did not have the hindsight we do now. McCarrick from what I understand through this talk was a charmer and master manipulator. I think James suffered much at the hands of McCarrick and has finally found the courage to fight back.
I dunno, Sunburst, because there seemed to be holes in his story. For example, it was his family who brought McCarrick to St. Gallen when McCarrick was very young, and it was his family who had connections with the Hiltons and introduced McCarrick to them. McCarrick was his grandfather's protege and his uncle's best buddy. I'm thinking "birds of a feather" and wondering whether McCarrick did to James what someone connected to James had done to McCarrick. Also, how old was James when he travelled with McCarrick? Evidently, he was a lot younger than McCarrick, but how young? Wouldn't he have been old enough to have made up some excuse to avoid the trips or to simply refuse to travel? The entire St. Gallen business requires investigating, including James' story and James' grandfather's influence. Wouldn't Bernardin have been the top dog in the US Church while McCarrick was on the rise? Did James' grandfather have any connection with Bernardin? That James' parents weren't aware of McCarrick's predatory behaviour doesn't mean that everyone in the family was ignorant of the type of man he was. After all, we're expected to believe that all the Bishops knew about McCarrick yet James' relatives were closer to McCarrick than anyone and had been since he was very young, yet we're expected to believe that their wealthy contacts hadn't heard or didn't tell them to protect James? Clearly, the St. Gallen business stinks to high heaven, but there's something about James - I can't put my finger on it - that rings a few warning bells for me.
James Martin has gone to a new low. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can not stand much more of this. I have found myself to be feeling very sad lately. I have to be careful not to allow all this negativity drag me down as if there is no hope. I belong to God not satan, so somehow I have to keep picking up this cross of sadness and keep on going.
James Grein at the Silence Stops Now rally. The St Gallen stuff reminds me a whole lot of Windswept House.
Definately doing this to draw attention. He is wanting to be the leader in the 'new' catholic Church in which we can never be part of.
I couldn't agree more. This is what makes it so frightening. Fr James Martin is boldly putting it out there. He has no shame nor any holy fear of God. If he wants to go to hell, well thats his own free will, but to drag others with him is unforgivable. (Ok, it's only up to God to decide what can be forgiven, but you know what I mean).
Agnes Rose, I'm glad that you took my post the way that I meant because when I reread my reply to you I thought that it might have been misconstrued a little bit, sorry about that. I think I am a little annoyed at myself that I have not given much thought to Cardinal Dolan's responsibility in regard to Father James Martin. I am sure that Pope Francis is not aware of all that Father Martin is doing like his latest unorthodox tweets but Cardinal Dolan should be far more aware than Pope Francis. Dolan (& Martin) hob nobs with the rich and famous and he rarely speaks up in defense of scripture or the catechism. The focus is not on saving souls but on collecting big donations maybe. I just watched the video that Sunburst posted above of Dr. Taylor Marshall's interview with James. I don't think that anything really shocked me from the video and I don't think that I learned all that much either except that ex-Cardinal McCarrick went to St. Gallen, Switzerland. I already watched James' talk that he made at the time of the USCCB meeting. I think that he is brave and that his Faith is strong because he has remained in the Church through everything. I also do believe that money has been a motivator for the Church. Imho money is strongly linked to sins of the flesh, they often go hand in hand. We make exceptions to survive, many of us have done this in our lives to one extent or another. The Church's hierarchy has obviously made some exceptions which they should have never made but we may never know who in the Church knew exactly what was/is going on. I suppose I don't like pointing the finger at Pope Saint John Paul II in regard to this mess, we just don't have all of the details. I think that James is putting some blame on JPII, not a lot but some. Around three weeks ago, I watched the first video that I believe that I have ever watched from Marshall. I did a search on St. Gallen because I was reading about the former synod that was declared heretical. This was about a week or so after the Youth Synod wrapped up because I read about this other synod on wikipedia and Gallican* was mentioned and since I am not a historian of the Church I wanted to see if there was a relationship between the St. Gallen group and Gallican. I had forgotten until I came across Marshall's other video that St. Gallen is a location in Switzerland where the cardinals in this so-called group had met. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctorem_fidei I still don't understand why the name of Gallican was given to a part of the Church in France during the French Revolution but it is interesting that the Gallican Church wanted to give more power to the kings over the bishops. This sort of reminds me of what has happened in regard to China recently. The Vatican has given power to the Chinese government over the bishops there. In any case a few days after I investigated Gallican, on a Saturday morning I came down to my den and my husband had left the television on and left the room as he often does. I was blogging and not paying much attention to the TV but I looked up at the TV at just the right moment and the characters in a movie were speaking of St. Gallen, Switzerland. I took this as a sign from God, I don't know what it means but I do believe that it was a sign. I quickly pressed the record button on my remote and later I took a picture of the following from the movie as a reminder to myself. The name of the movie was "The Saint's Vacation"*. I can't make this stuff up. It is not a very good movie though, I watched it later because I was able to capture the whole thing on my DVR. If this is not a sign I don't know what is. Now, I just watched this new video from Marshall and he & James are explaining that they believe that something happened to McCarrick that was life altering in a very bad way after his first trip to St. Gallen many years ago. So strange. *http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/88925/The-Saint-s-Vacation/ On another subject like James and Marshall and most of us here, I get a very bad feeling about Cardinal Cupich. I keep meaning to bring the following up on the forum. Last week, at the beginning of Raymond Arroyo's program he mentioned that by 2030 the archdiocese of Chicago expects to close 100 churches. So, obviously Cupich has a lot to deal. He is the last person who I would imagine to have time to be involved in the planning of the February synod. Here is an old article about what has been occurring to the Church in Chicago. Massive overhaul slated for Chicago Archdiocese February 7th, 2016 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-archdiocese-parish-reorganization-met-20160205-story.html
I suppose they don't realy believe in hell. I suppose that is the most scarey thing of all. Poor, poor people. It reminds me of the guy who siad to Padre Pio that he did not believe in hell, to which the saint said, 'You'll beleive in it when you get there!!'. Terrifying.
I am posting this because many of Rod Dreher's articles get posted here or appear in Catholic circuits. Sometimes his articles are good and are also informative, but he also has ulterior motives. He is a schismatic who is not only pointing out issues in the current crisis, but assailing the very Church itself. Beware when reading his writings. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...-open-letter-from-a-concerned-catholic-priest
I know you addressed your question to Agnes Rose, and she likely knows more about it, but I think that Fr. Martin is answerable to his Jesuit superior. The Cardinal does have authority over what happens in his diocese, but moving against Fr. Martin would put him at loggerheads with the Jesuit order and with the Pope. Pope Francis would remove Cardinal Dolan rather than upset his boy Martin. Cardinal Dolan also has no authority over what Martin does in other dioceses. Most likely, he is invited by Bishops or by Catholic Universities, with the consent of their Bishops, to give talks in parishes, schools and universities. Most of them know that by inviting Martin to speak they are currying favour with the Pope, not to mention attracting funds from the extremely wealthy abortion and lavender lobbies. Pray that some day soon we will have a faithful Pope who will appoint faithful Bishops. When that happens, the Bishops can, without fear of retribution, tell the Jesuits to shape up or get out of the diocese.
I stopped reading his articles because to me it seems that he is intentionally trying to lead others away. That response was quite spot on I would say. Thanks for posting it.
You bring up a great point. I wonder, just how much money Father Martin brings into the coffers with the drivel he is passing off as Catholic. It might have a great deal to do with this as well.
Neither am I an historian, but as far as I know Gallic is derived from Gaul, the area now known as France. The name France comes from the Franks, originally Germanic people who ruled Francia which roughly equated to what is now France and Germany - Western Francia is France and Eastern Francia is Germany. Europe's history is a lot more complicated, but Gaul was once ruled by a Celtic people and Gaul is a derivative of the name the Romans gave them. (I think, but am not sure, that the name means Stranger or Foreigner. I also have a vague recollection of someone telling me that the Roman name for those Celtic tribes may be the origin of the word Gael or Gaelic). St. Gallen gets its name from St. Gall. St. Gall was a monk (most likely Irish) who travelled with St. Columba on his travels through Europe, spending a lot of time in what is now Southern Switzerland and Northern Italy. I think that St. Columba had strong connections with Bobbio in Italy, but I'm not certain. St. Gall and St. Columba had a difference of opinion, and St. Gall stayed in that region when St. Columba moved on. St. Gall became a hermit, renowned for his holiness, and the settlement there which is now St. Gallen, Switzerland, is named after him.
