Wednesday, September 19, 2018

UPDATE: Deceptive Responses to Fr. Walter Cuenin Sexual Abuse Inquiry


Boston Catholic Insider has a new update on Fr. Walter Cuenin story.

This is a story very much in progress, so I don't have much to add at this time, except I did want to shed some light on how crystal clear my conversation with Fr. Parrish was – here are my notes from the conversation:

 Me: I’m sure you’ve read what’s alleged about Cuenin’s removal from Brandeis on the blogs, but if not I’ll inform. I note on archdiocesan website Cuenin is ‘senior priest’ which, to the best of my knowledge, requires canonical good standing. I’m calling to find out his ministry status.

 Fr. P: Fr. Cuenin’s current status is a senior priest.

 Me: Oh. Then there are no restrictions on his ministry.

 Fr. P: Yes, there are. Fr. Cuenin had a very public problem with alcohol and the restrictions are related to that.  (Fr. Parrish later clarified Fr. Cuenin's restrictions are 'no ministry and barred from living on Church property'.)

 Me: Oh. Then information provided to blogs that he was removed from Brandeis because a student alleged Fr. Cuenin initiated an unwanted sexual encounter after intoxicating him, is false.

 Fr. P: No, that’s true.

 Me: Wut? (laughing in disbelief) Well, then that would be among the chief reasons for his restrictions! This is not at all surprising. Each one of us heard McCarrick-like rumors about lovers he was living with and his promiscuous consensual homosexual sex activity for decades. We had a right to information about this allegation and actions taken as a result.   These guys need to be cut loose and laicized!

 Fr. P: I’m not sure about that, if they are cut loose, nobody has any supervision over them and it’s much more of a risk. A lot of people believe it’s better the Church retain, treat and supervise to make sure they can never be a threat.

 Me: What do you mean by that? Is he in a lock-down facility?

 Fr. P: Not lock down, more like a supervised half-way house.

 Me: Well, that’s not going to stop him from going down to the local barroom or park.

 Fr. P: Believe me, he is physically incapable due to his health status and is not a threat to the public.  Do not worry about that.

 Me: You mean his health condition leaves him immobile/wheelchair limited?

 Fr. P: Yes, his health is very, very poor.


Does that sound to you like there could have been some miscommunication? 

Please.

The reason I reached out to Fr. Parrish is, he is among a handful of priests in the Chancery who you can report spiritual malpractice to and if he finds out what's reported is true, he actually does something about it. He is a priest who is building broken trust with laity with action – he sees a wrong and tries to right it.

Something that is not tolerated under Cardinal O'Malley. 

After McCarrick was outed, didn't DiNardo usher in the 2018 apology tour by telling us to call our chanceries to share concerns about sexual abusers? This is a perfect example of what they are trained to do after we call so it all ends up being a colossal waste of time and trust.

 I am floored by the stupidity of Cardinal O'Malley's tack.

I repeat the bewilderment I expressed directly to Donilon in an email published at BCI:   If stupid PR strategies could fly, this would be a jet.

He couldn’t just come up with a lame statement like ‘true dat, Cuenin violated boundaries’ – like every other bishop with a sex addict on their hands and let it be a story among the hundreds.

 Oh no, not Terry!  PR advice to the Cardinal that screws things up to a fare the well is his job security. 

Every time Donilon gets his hands on something, respect and trust for the Cardinal is smeared with caca.   If he was trying to sabotage the Cardinal, he couldn’t do a better job.    And let us face it:  a person who would pay $200,000 for it is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

They want the story to blow up?   Ok. 

But, let the record be noted - the communications shared are 1/10 of the free time I spent over the last two days trying to talk some common sense into them.  It's time to flush the toilet.     Stay tuned.


UPDATE

I sent the following letter to Vicar General Bishop Uglietto who was the lead in the management of Cuenin's removal from Brandeis:

-----Original Message-----
From: cmmckinley <cmmckinley@aol.com>
To: Vicar_General <Vicar_General@rcab.org>
CC: NuntiusUSA <NuntiusUSA@NuntiusUSA.org
Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 9:22
Subject: Fr. Walter Cuenin 2015 Allegation of Inebriating Brandeis College Student and Sexual Molestation
 +
IHS
Bishop Uglietto, 

As you are no doubt aware, for decades, informed and practicing US Catholics have received information about promiscuous homosexual conduct of priests and bishops.    I personally have knowledge of hundreds of Catholics who wrote to the Cardinal O'Malley to raise concerns about rumors of consensual homosexual promiscuity  by a handful of Boston priests.  
 
Post revelations confirming decades-old rumors about Archbishop McCarrick, Catholics have been instructed by Cardinal DiNardo and high-ranking prelates of the Pope's See to call our local chanceries with concerns about sexual misconduct of priests or bishops.
As you are also no doubt aware, after receiving information about a sexual molestation allegation against  one of the largest homosexual activists in the US, Fr. Walter Cuenin, I phoned Fr. Bryan Parrish of Boston's Clergy Personnel office to discuss my concerns and requested information on the status of his faculties.   

Here are my notes on that conversation: 

Me: I’m sure you’ve read what’s alleged about Cuenin’s removal from Brandeis on the blogs, but if not I’ll inform. I note on archdiocesan website Cuenin is ‘senior priest’ which, to the best of my knowledge, requires canonical good standing. I’m calling to find out his ministry status.
 Fr. P: Fr. Cuenin’s current status is a senior priest.
 Me: Oh. Then there are no restrictions on his ministry.
 Fr. P: Yes, there are. Fr. Cuenin had a very public problem with alcohol and the restrictions are related to that.  (Fr. Parrish later clarified Fr. Cuenin's restrictions are 'no ministry and barred from living on Church property'.)
 Me: Oh. Then information provided to blogs that he was removed from Brandeis because a student alleged Fr. Cuenin initiated an unwanted sexual encounter after intoxicating him, is false.
 Fr. P: No, that’s true.
 Me: Wut? (laughing in disbelief) Well, then that would be among the chief reasons for his restrictions! This is not at all surprising. Each one of us heard McCarrick-like rumors about lovers he was living with and his promiscuous consensual homosexual sex activity for decades. We had a right to information about this allegation and actions taken as a result.   These guys need to be cut loose and laicized!
 Fr. P: I’m not sure about that, if they are cut loose, nobody has any supervision over them and it’s much more of a risk. A lot of people believe it’s better the Church retain, treat and supervise to make sure they can never be a threat.
 Me: What do you mean by that? Is he in a lock-down facility?
 Fr. P: Not lock down, more like a supervised half-way house.
 Me: Well, that’s not going to stop him from going down to the local barroom or park.
 Fr. P: Believe me, he is physically incapable due to his health status and is not a threat to the public.  Do not worry about that.
 Me: You mean his health condition leaves him immobile/wheelchair limited?
 Fr. P: Yes, his health is very, very poor.

Does that sound to you like there could have been some miscommunication?  
 
As you are also no doubt aware, journalists seeking to confirm Fr. Cuenin's status due to allegations of plying a college student with liquor and molestation, Cardinal O'Malley's communications director, Terry Donilon, told journalists I am lying about verification received from Fr. Parrish. 

Latest updates are here:

https://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2018/09/19/boston-diocesan-denial-and-deception-by-donilon/


https://conqueredbylove.blogspot.com/2018/09/deceptive-responses-to-fr-walter-cuenin.html


I'm writing to you for two things: 

 1. Kindly verify whether the allegations of sexual misconduct were among the reasons for Fr. Cuenin's departure from Brandeis and canonical restrictions. 

2.  Please explain what process and procedure Catholics are to follow to seek verification or denial of credible rumors of sexual misconduct by priests, bishops, deacons or employees of the Archdiocese. 

The days have come to an end where the we report these incidents and sexual predators are given decades of opportunities to rob our relatives of their innocence and salvation.     
Please reply by the end of work day today, or this email will be published with your non-response.   This conduct is absolutely intolerable.
In Christ, Carol McKinley 

I received no answer. 


As predicted when the Holy Father said he said he 'would not say one word' about Archbishop Vigano's testimony, he has been using the passive-aggressive spiritual manipulation protocol of using his homilies to caricature sexual predators and their episcopal enablers as Jesus Victim who remains 'silent' and depicting lay Catholics seeking the protection of the flock as demons.

Unimaginable diabolical infestation and activity.

Yesterday, the USCCB announced the 2018 sexual abuse dog and pony show.  I haven't delved into the details, but it appears Pope Francis has nixed the request to assign an Apostolic Visitor, as well as the lay-led review board that reports to the Nuncio, and he's asked the bishops not to have their annual meeting in November that would tackle internal sexual debauchery and coverups and to instead, asked them to 'retreat' behind closed doors.

When it comes to internal corruption in the Church, I do not consider myself a naive person.  I knew things were bad.  But, yesterday, I started to come to terms with the latest reality check: It is way, way, worse than any of us could imagine.

All their bs about being committed to honest dialogue and legitimate actions on sexual and spiritual predators, the above is what actually happens when you make a sincere attempt to trust their commitment for real reform.    After decades of similar experiences, most people wouldn't even bother to offer them the opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity and honesty.   Who keeps going into a room where the occupants kick you in the head and when you ask them to stop, accuse you of victimizing them?

As a person with the courage to go where angels dare not tread, and keep giving them another chance, here's my assessment:

There are priests and bishops who realize what needs to be said and done to build trust, but as soon as they attempt it, they are silenced and oppressed by the infiltrated power structures that protect  spiritual and sexual priest predators.     And it appears this power is more lethal than it has ever been in the history of the Catholic Church.





Thursday, September 13, 2018

Laughing Their Butts Off

The Holy See released a picture of the meeting about sexual debauchery and the picture depicts everyone in the room laughing out loud.

 Shortly after the picture was released, an incriminating 300 page dossier was leaked.

I guess they still don't know what's happening?

I'm just going to leave this right here:




Boston "Reformer" Fr. Walter Cuenin Molestation Cover Up?

Catholic journalists and bloggers have been busy following leads and speaking to various parties about the breaking/developing disturbing allegation of sexual abuse of a Brandeis University student by head of Boston's lavender mafia, Fr. Walter Cuenin.

  Boston Catholic Insider has updated details on what's been confirmed so far, and a good summary of Cuenin's long legacy of public warning signs.

 This story really got to me. Chiefly because Cuenin was Boston's McCarrick. Brazen, out of control homosexual antics and decades of rumors of problems with alcohol, participation in homosexual subculture of promiscuity and shacking up with sex partners.

 How did he get away with this for decades? Like a CEO, POTUS and other positions of power and influence, by the nature of the relationship between God and the priesthood, there is NEVER a situation where a priest's sexual advances would lead to consensual sex. No matter how old the object of their sexual desires, it is a non-consensual abuse of power.

 Who would assign a priest with substance abuse and alcohol problems to a college? He should have been laicized decades ago, along with Josoma and all 58 priests on the lavender mafia declaration

Why were Boston Catholics not informed for 4 years of this surreal development? Hundreds, if not thousands of us, wrote to the Cardinal to point out the warning signs and requested he be taken out of ministry.

 When someone finally steps forward and says what Cuenin was doing is not really consensual, officials at Brandeis University went the route of cover up because they appreciated Walter's willingness to applaud promiscuity and practice it himself?

When it comes to RICO dragnet, it is every bit as wrong for a school to respond with cover up as it is for authorities in the Catholic Church.

 I've read numerous people who compared what's happening now to Cardinal Law.   I vehemently disagree.
 
The counterinsurgence now at play is exact opposite overthrow of power that occurred in 2002.

 Every priest on this list, who planned, plotted and took part in the coup to overthrow Cardinal Law was affiliated with homosexual promiscuity. Every last one of them. They either taught it, practiced it, or both - and this group overthrew Law because he was an enemy of their agenda. Let that sink in.

The episcopal targets of the counter-coup currently underway are affiliates of homosexual promiscuity. Two coups are antipodal.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Pope Says Catholics Trying to Take Down Lavender Mafia are Devils


He isn't going to say 'one word', but he does want to mention that victims of the Lavender Mafia are Beezabub.

He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people
This is a confession if I ever heard one.

Do I understand this right: The Holy Spirit was covering up McCarrick's orgies for 40 years to keep us from being scandalized?

Letting homosexual priests molest our brothers,uncles and sons and rob us of salvation was all for the sake of unity?

The gang of nine met with Pope Francis yesterday to discuss a response to Archbishop Vigano's accusations.   Do you think they came up with this dud of a strategem?


Cardinal O'Malley was compared to Sgt Shultz with this vexing statement. He disclosed the Holy Father's commission on sexual abuse is only about the handful of pedophiles, not the pandemic of priests sexually molesting boys over 18. Their goal is to change the future so it won't be a repeat of the sad history they don't have anything to do with.

 I hope they are not paying for these PR disasters. If I were their PR person, I would tell them unless I hand them a piece of paper which they can read statements from, do not open their mouths.

  Wuerl has raised the red flag.

 Mark my word: There's going to be a lot of commotion if his replacement is a card-carrying member of the mafia.

Monday, September 10, 2018

Cardinal O'Malley's Dead Letter Branch is Back in the News



Retired NJ priest Fr. Kenneth Lasch told the Boston Globe he wrote to Cardinal O'Malley about an unresolved abuse complaint and received several dismissive letters from Fr. Kickham.

 I've been complaining about these template letters for decades!  I personally know hundreds of Catholics who sent Cardinal O'Malley letters about various problems who received a dismissive letter from Fr. Kickham.

 I've read letters other Catholics received from Fr. Kickham and received several letters myself. Let me tell you something: That guy knows a million and one ways to write letters about nothing.

But, after years of following stories of Catholics trying to get resolution about a situation Cardinal O'Malley has the duty to fix, I'm not convinced Fr. Kickham is the root of the problem.

 Don't get me wrong, Fr. Kickham letters are exasperating and need to be improved upon, but I believe the problem may be Cardinal O'Malley is an absentee father and Fr. Kickham doesn't have the authority to take action on most of the complaints he receives.

 If a bishop won't engage in communication or exercise his authority and your job is relaying information about his communication and authority, you've got to be an expert on patronizing letters that convey the bishop has abandoned his duties and obligations.

 Here's why I've come to that conclusion:

 Fr. Lash wrote three letters about his situation. He had a long way to go.

 I don't personally know anyone whose written to Cardinal O'Malley about sexual abuse, but I do know plenty of Catholics who've written to him about spiritual malpractice, heresy or blasphemy. To get some kind of a response, Boston Catholics customarily write a dozen or more letters about a situation over which the Cardinal has the duty and authority, before they would ever see action.  That's the reason the information is now disclosed on blogs.   Who has time for that?!

The process took years. If a situation was serious enough to warrant an appointment, when a meeting finally occurs, its clear the Cardinal never read the letters, not even in a quick review to find out what the meeting was about.

 Fr. Bill Scanlan used to call the phenomenon "O'Malley Dead Letter Branch".  Here is some commentary from Fr Scanlan’s files:
Another letter is added to the O'Malley Dead Letter Branch. 
The questions certainly are surfacing... 
Does he receive his mail? 
Does he read his mail? 
Is his mail being misdirected? 
Is this an intentional snubbing? 
Could this result from legal advice to avoid contact? 
Whatever is at the heart of his unresponsiveness it is certainly not the character of a real pastor/shepherd.
A few excerpts from Fr. Scanlan's letters to Cardinal O'Malley:

  "This is now my sixth (6th) letter to you since you assumed the 'cathedra' of Boston. The previous five have not received so much as a 'responsive' grunt. I therefore remain doubtful that you even received them." 
 
"Hello Bob, I suppose this is as tiresome for you as it is for me...this will be my ninth letter to my bishop, the third of the last two weeks. It was you who recognized these last three letters! I do appreciate that courtesy and I believe it to be quite sincere. Thank you."  

 "Nine letters have gone unrecognized by my Bishop. I can no longer see this as unintentional. I now recognize his silence as an intentional message "I can not be bothered with your concerns, and you, William Scanlan are 'persona non grata"  

 "Bob, I appreciate the awkwardness of your position. I do not hold you in any way responsible for this tragic reality..." 

Excerpts from Fr. Scanlan's letter written to Cardinal O'Malley following a meeting which occurred after years of sending letters:
"When you review that document, you will understand why I was mystified by your statement (more than once), "I did not know". You were informed in my numerous letters of the situations you didn't know. 
In deference to you, I have to therefore assume that communications intended for you are being misdirected. This would indicate a very serious situation within the Curia adjunct staff and ultimately with your own mission to shepherd the Diocese."
Fr. Scanlan was one of many who made dozens of attempts to get Cardinal O'Malley to communicate and exercise his authority.  In the absence of communication and action, he sought the assistance of auxiliary bishops, canonical yahoos, Nuncio Montalvo, the Romans.

 Through these experiences, it was his opinion the motives behind Fr. Kickham's responses were pastoral and kind in nature. Cardinal O'Malley has checked out. Rather than let a wounded person feel ignored, Fr. Kickham at least acknowledges receipt of the letters and comes up with something to say about the nothingness of the Cardinal's response.

 I could be mistaken.   I'm throwing this out there because indicting the wrong people for the wrong reasons is not going to fix the problem.   Given my own experiences, Fr. Bill's explanation is plausible.

 Going up the chain of command hundreds of times, it's become clear to me that solid faithful priests and administrators have their hands tied in the discipline of wayward priests. Wayward priests are taking advantage of Cardinal O'Malley's protection.

 Superiors of wayward priests will be outraged along with you, will reach out to the wayward priest, do what they can. But, eventually say things like "don't get mad at me, this is as far as I can go with it, the rest is up the Cardinal and you can expect nothing further to happen, its a sad situation, pray for us.."

 The Cardinal put out a response to yesterday's Boston Globe article, basically saying he 'will now' personally review correspondence 'of Commission related matters' or 'abuse related' matters, even if they address matters outside of his authority' and he's 'made a commitment to refer those requiring the attention of the Nuncio to the United States and/or the Vatican' (where the Holy Father has made the commitment to "not say one word on this matter").

 Knock yourselves out!

 It's important to note what Cardinal O'Malley's statement doesn't say.

 His press release is very specific on what he's authorized Fr. Kickham to give him to personally read:
Letters pertaining to the abuse of children and letters which fall outside of his authority that need to go up the chain of command.

 Letters pertaining to spiritual malpractice or the homosexual mafia will continue to be forwarded to the Dead Letter Branch. 

It's an unacceptable response.  He's got to sit and read all communications that require his intercession to resolve and he's got to 'commit' to resolving them, with removals and laicization where appropriate.

The letters have to start communicating to us that an investigation is underway and if allegations are found to be true, the priest will be removed, his faculties stripped and a canonical process will commence.

Enough smoke and mirrors.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

This Sums Up Abuse Coddling: "I Will Not Say One Word on This"



Yesterday, Boston Catholic Insider published Part II of their report on Cardinal O'Malley's Coddling of Abusive Priests.

Particular note should be taken of two comments in the comments section.

In one comment, a Catholic describes driving by a Church and having a person in the car tell him everyone in town knows Fr. Josoma's lover was living in the rectory with him.

Another comment about Fr. Call-Me-Walter Cuenin:

Cuenin did not leave Brandeis because of “health.” He was Removed because he took a young man away, plied him with alcohol and molested him. Both Brandeis and the Archdiocese wanted to keep it quiet. Shouldn’t they have been concerned if there were other victims?
I'm not the least bit surprised about this allegation.  Walter Cuenin is a classic example of what's wrong with the Church.

Sexually-active homosexual priest teaches Church teaching wrong/homosexual sex ok.   Diabolically-disoriented people who have been stewing in mortal sin for years pour in from a 100 mile radius to listen to his disordered psychobabble.    They deliver their own children to their own demons.  Then those children lure peers into traps.

Thousands of complaints pour into the chancery, the nuncio, the holy see for decades, who 'will not say one word' to Catholics who ask them to do something to stop it.   

But they say plenty to defend the dirty rotten scoundrels and they appoint them to places where they can do maximum harm.

Who appoints an individual with drinking and psycho-sexual problems to a college? 

This man and every sexually-active priest just like him should have been laicized decades ago.

There are dozens of these stories in the never-ending nightmare of Cardinal O'Malley's tenure in Boston. 





Monday, September 3, 2018

Consorting with the Enemy


This weekend, my pastor announced that at the end of every Mass starting next week, we'll be saying the St. Michael prayer and Hail Mary-because Mary has the ability to crush Satan's head.

What a difference it makes to be in a parish/diocese where practicing Catholics aren't in the position of having to beg spiritually-oppressed or bankrupt priests for powerful spiritual weapons or Church teaching.   It makes the sick culture in the Archdiocese of Boston stand out like a sore thumb.

I don't mean to say there aren't plenty of solid, orthodox priests and bishops in Boston.  My guess is, a little over 50% are solid, faithful, celibate orthodox priests. But, these priests are oppressed and controlled by the subculture of the lavender ring.

Maybe its more accurate to say Church teaching is oppressed and controlled by the lavender ring.

By that, I mean if solid priests teach moral theology, Cardinal O'Malley or one of his cronies will call and order them not to.   When a lavender ring has control of a diocese, this is how they oppress Church teaching and spiritual weapons.


Fr. Longenecker's quotes from CS Lewis are chilling to read at this time in the history of the Church


Lewis observed that Inner Rings exist in the institutions of every human endeavor and that the desire to belong leads the individual not at first to some great wickedness, but to the incremental compromise of truth and goodness required in order to be accepted by the insiders—leading at last to complete capitulation to the forces of evil. 
Inner Rings fester wherever humans gather, and the existence of such a ring within the church goes without saying. It is often said of the Catholic Church, “by all means come aboard the barque of Peter, but don’t go down into the engine room.” In other words, the Inner Circle of the Catholic Church is not only a dark and steamy engine room. It is also a noisome cave where “there be dragons.”
Fr. Longnecker describes how its put into practice:

The seduction by the lavender inner ring in the Catholic Church was for the young man to go with the flow and “not make a fuss.” The temptation is to keep quiet and mind your own business at first, then to allow oneself to be drawn in from silence, to condoning, and then to participation. If the seduction was sexual and one yields, then one is forever compromised—being open to blackmail and threats to reveal one’s own deep, dark secrets. If the young seminarian happens to be lacking in male friendship and insecure in his masculinity, the attraction of belonging to the inside circle of the the all-male clergy club will have deeper resonances in his immature personality.
The seminary is the breeding ground of the ring.

Many years ago, I was blessed to be able to drive to the Cathedral to with my children every Sunday.  I still consider it my spiritual home.

During that time, a master of ceremonies for the Archdiocese who also plays the key role in recruiting and ordination in the Archdiocese was telling people he spent his down time in gay bars.

I was extremely upset about this revelation.  The brazenness of his attempts to normalize it. The implication of gay hook-ups.   His proximity to candidates of formation to the diaconate and priesthood.   My fear was, this open dynamic had to be keeping orthodox men from ordination.

What struck me the most was the inappropriateness of his appointment and his retention after this disclosure.

What are the chances an ordained heterosexual boasting of spending his down time in a topless poledance booze parlor, would be appointed to leadership roles at the seminary and Sacred Liturgy?

I was deeply disturbed with this individual's comfort in making known he is placed into leadership position with open knowledge of what he does in his downtime.  It struck me as a brazen message that the power of the Archdiocese of Boston rests in the lavender ring.

The real story is the tolerance of this corruption, which we've done for far too long.

When it was first disclosed, I remember some people laughing about it.   It was entertainment to some Catholics - as if his presence and boldness represented an inner ring victory over the craven silence of pious people.

Of course, the silence is just a reaction to the hostility and slander of the corrupt.  The corrupt make it known you are the enemy. 

Few people have the courage to subject themselves to the ramifications of taking a position against their agenda.    It isn't a pleasant experience, even for Catholics who have their priorities straight.

Poor Archbishop Vigano is getting a good dose of it.   Unbelievably, Pope Francis is trying to portray the lies malice and slander the inner ring deploys as 'silence' and 'humble truth'.

As if discrediting Archbishop Vigano, instead of just answering questions, is the exercise of truth and humble pie.

Here is their idea of 'silence'.

Frs. Rosica and Lombardi stating they were upset they had to retract their lie that the only meeting the Holy Father would publicly acknowledge was with a gay man and his sex partner

Do they actually think this helps their credibility? 

They are admitting they're liars and support gay marriage.

They now claim who-am-I-to-judge-Pope-Francis was upset Kim Davis had been married four times, so they had to scramble to discredit the post-conversation actions of a woman who refused to surrender her salvation.

The public statement they wanted to make in the culture war was Pope Francis' support of gay sex partners and Archbishop Vigano turned the whole thing upside down.

How they think this helps to discredit Archbishop Vigano is an unsolved mystery.

They fail to recognize we are tired of lies and lies to cover up lies.

What we want is a statement from the Holy Father on whether he lifted sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick knowing he was a rapist.

We want a statement on why Pope Francis put known pederest Monsignor Battista Ricca in charge of the hotel he is living in.

We want a statement on whether he was told priest he gave a papal apartment to was known to conduct drug-fueled homosexual orgies.

We want a statement on whether he knows the real identity of Baby and if not, why Nighty Nights Tobin was appointed to a youth synod.

We want answers to these questions. 

We don't care if they accuse Archbishop Vigano doing a tango as naked as a jaybird with a rose between the cheeks of his butt in St. Peter's Square.

Just answer the questions of Catholics who long ago made a commitment to God that we would not consort with the Inner Ring for any reason.

This group of craftsmen will by no means coincide with the Inner Ring or the Important People or the People in the Know. It will not shape that professional policy or work up that professional influence which fights for the profession as a whole against the public: nor will it lead to those periodic scandals and crises which the Inner Ring produces. But it will do those things which that profession exists to do and will in the long run be responsible for all the respect which that profession in fact enjoys and which the speeches and advertisements cannot maintain.
Having 30+ years of experience in the group of craftsman, I can with absolute certainty, that every time the Inner Ring pulls a stunt like this, they are going to a big surprise from the rabbits in the hole.

Our friends at Boston Catholic Insider have the latest updates on the 'investigation' of St. John's Seminary. When faced with criticism Bishop O'Connell may have a conflict of interest in the investigation, Fr. Bryan Hehir replaced him with the Queen Bee of the Inner Ring.
Then there is the matter of Sr. Eisner now leading the “independent” investigation. Coincidentally, she is also on the Board of Trustees of SJS. Worse than that, Emmauel College is on a list of New Ways Ministry’s 130 known “gay-friendly” Catholic Colleges and Universities. 
Emmanuel College has a club, OUTspoken, for LGBTQA students to create a better understanding of their self-identity. Every year there is a student-led Reaching OUT Retreat for LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning, Ally) students on Cape Cod sponsored by OUTspoken and Campus Ministry which has as one core principle, “Accepting and being proud of your sexuality and who you are.” Then one sees that Sr. Eisner’s religious order, the Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur had a GLBT activist lead a retreat at the order’s high schools in California in 2014. 
Wouldn’t this investigation into a homosexual scandal a bit more “independent” and objective if the leader of it wasn’t so closely associated with promotion of the gay agenda herself? Why not tap someone truly independent to lead it, who also believes and promotes what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, such as the National Catholic Bioethics Center?
Good questions.

I suspect the answer is the same reasons an irrelevant 'joint statement' was issued from two cronies of the Roman Inner Ring.

And Jesus Wept.