Bad Eggs are Deviled Eggs! |
The foxes have been put in charge of the hen houses and now the fellow foxes are crying wolf. Out of the frying pan, into the fire for no matter how you scramble it, they're all rotten eggs that only taint the Church more by their stench. Throw 'em all out and start anew. That is our response to the Novus Ordinarians' hero Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz who, as is plain to see, isn't as enlightened as many give him credit for.
Official Defrocking Process
It was former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating, who said, "To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church. To act like La Cosa Nostra and hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy." This was the former FBI agent and federal prosecutor's deduction once he began to understand the depth of the sewage which the men in miters had been covering up and continued to do so. The 'Godfather' lives among the 'Magenta Mafia.' It was that same mob which originally selected Keating to head a special unit created by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops from the unprecedented Article 9 of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People at the now infamous Dallas Conference two years ago next month. Of course, for such remarks he was summarily asked to resign from the National Review Board, the very lay council formed to assess the prelates' progress in implementing the programs they had promised to clear up at the Dallas Conference. The one most outraged at Frank's frank statement of fact was one Cardinal Roger Mahony, himself probably the biggest offender and worst cardinal in America, if not the world - though there are a few who would rival his offenses.
Keating was replaced by Justice Anne Burke, a member of the Illinois Supreme Court who, in the 80's and 90's helped promote the agenda of her bishop, none other than one who greatly enabled the sex abuse scandals - Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Just recently she announced she's had enough of the stonewalling and will resign, citing her own duties on the court taking precedence. All fine and good. But has she really seen what is true justice? Though she denies the constant stonewalling as the reason for her leaving, has she discovered what is really going on?
Recently Catholic World News interviewed the ordinary of Lincoln, Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz. Of course he is regarded by Novus Ordinarian Catholics as the great conservative, orthodox hope of so many dumbed-down ones who can't see the trees through the forest. Sadly, neither can his Excellency. I offer the following comments excerpted from his interview with the Vatican puppet publication CWN.
Bruskewitz openly questioned the wisdom of his fellow peers in selecting some of the members of the National Review Board. For example, Dr. Michael Bland, a clinical professional counselor at the Center for Psychological Services in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Again, there's that Bernardin connection. Anyway, with all his windy city credentials in behavioral mental health, the guy himself is a wacko and full of hot air. What makes it even worse, the guy is a former priest. Bruskewitz himself doesn't know if Bland was ever canonically laicized. Great! By Bruskewitz own admission he is not in good standing with the Church, but the bishops have placed their trust in Bland. Talk about really bland judgment, make that poor judgment!
Bruskewitz also calls into question the selection of a known pro-abort in Leon Panetta who, as the Lincoln prelate is quoted, "brings us face to face with some alarming facts. One of the members of the Board is Leon Panetta, who as a politician - both in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government - was devoted to promoting and fostering and permitting the heinous practice of abortion." Ah yes, the great compromise of the American Bishops, a division of the Democratic Party no less.
And there are others whom Bruskewitz is suspicious of such as Robert Bennet, counsel for none other than Slick Willy - Bill Clinton - who, as the bishop says, "through the time of the partial-birth abortion veto and through the episodes of sexual immorality in the Oval Office and through the whole drama of impeachment." Bruskewitz also wonders about people like Alice Bourke Hayes who long ago sold out to mammon as the former president of the University of San Diego where drug problems and sodomy abound, not to mention the total abandonment of true Catholicism. What did she do? Let the bishop explain: "she put a known homosexual man in charge of religious studies; she also, as I understand it, had a Gay and Lesbian Club on her campus. What qualifies her, specifically, to be on the Board?" Good question. As to the allegations against her and USD, a well-known journalist from San Diego Allyson Smith can affirm they are true. I might add that here again Hayes comes from the Bernardin den, having spent 27 years at the liberal Jesuit Loyola University in Chicago. And what are her credentials? She's a biology major. Just what the modern church needs, right?
And the backgrounds of others on the board? Well there is fellow Loyola alumna sociologist Jane Chiles who has subscribed totally to the heretical seamless garment nonsense promoted by Bernardin. Then there is Ray Siegfried II whom I am sure was appointed because of his business acumen rather than his name. Though, considering the bishops' track record, maybe they thought Ray was the magician Siegfried of Siegfried and Roy and could all magically make the headaches disappear. But we all know that takes attorneys to iron out the problems the bishops are encountering with all the ugly sex abuse lawsuits that have sapped the coffers of dioceses and milked Sunday funds clean from the pockets of the gullible churchgoers. Therefore, of the twelve, half are lawyers.including Pamela D. Hayes, the only black on the Board, Petra Jimenez Maes, the only Hispanic on the Board, and Nicholas Cafardi out of Pittsburgh where he was legal counsel to, you guessed it, Bishop Donald Wuerl who has been stone silent as to not only the sex abuse scandals, but calling pro-abort politicians to task who claim to be Catholic. The latest evidence: saying nothing about one under his charge - a Fr. Robert G. Duch - freely participating in the sacrilege and scandal of giving a known persistent sinner John Kerry communion this past Sunday.
Then there is one William Burleigh whose claim to fame is journalism who started out as sports reporter. Heck, yours truly started out the same way. Maybe I should be on the Board. I can guarantee they'd get the straight lace without any lace or doilies. I can guarantee you another thing: they'd never have me. You see I am a leper to the USCCB for I am from the Colony of Traditional Catholics. Burleigh rose to fame as editor of the Cincinatti Post getting to know the bishop of the Queen City who was, you guessed it, one Archbishop Joseph Bernardin. Yes, folks, Bernardin's Boys and 'Girls' as well stretch throughout the seamy garment of the fabric known as the American Catholic Church.
There is only one psychiatrist on the board, Paul McHugh who served 26 years as Chief Psychiatrist of Johns Hopkins Hospital and was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics. He would seem to be the only qualified member of the Board. Kind of a reversal of the eleven good Apostles and one bad Apostle. Here we have ten very questionable members and only one with the kind of credentials necessary for carrying out the duties and studies required of a board that is delving into a terrible psychological dilemna - mortal sin. Why no priests are on the board is a puzzle to me, but then what do the bishops do that isn't puzzling?
What the bishops have done is create their own monster and now they don't know how to rid themselves of the curse. Bishop Bruskewitz is candid in saying,
"I really don't know what the purpose of the Board was and is. I think, in my darker moments, that there was a desire to placate the Beltway press - the media in Washington area - and somehow it was supposed that the appointment of these particular persons would provide some satisfaction for the media, and allow for some more favorable coverage in this tragic business, the heinous business of sexual misconduct by priests and bishops. But I just don't know."
For God's sake, here is a man who is a Doctor of Divinity and an STD and he doesn't know?!? I can tell him clearly it had nothing to do with the Washington media because I don't think Cardinal Theodore McCarrick wields that much power with the Capitol movers and shakers. Secondly, if it were about appeasing the Beltway media, wouldn't they have appointed Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. But they're not Catholic you say? Folks, I have news for you, practically speaking neither are those sitting on the present board! But Bruskewitz doesn't get it, seeing the rationalization for placating man rather than God, which goes against exactly what Saint Paul warned in Galatians 1: 10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I did yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." What then is Bruskewitz and the rest afraid of? Listen to this from his own lips:
"One of the things that makes the situation difficult is the fact that if the people who are now on this committee were put off it, there would most likely be an outcry, suggesting that somehow or another the bishops were engaged in covering up sexual abuse. I think that the bishops' conference has painted itself in a corner, to a large extend, by placing themselves in this situation. I really think that if these people were asked to leave the Board, they would scream, 'Cover up'."
Really, your Excellency, is that what you fear? What about the welfare of the flocks you and your peers vowed to protect? Have you not covered up for the past 40 years? I am screaming 'Cover up' and it has nothing to do with the National Review Board. It has everything to do with the very fact that you and your fellow bishops have succeeded in covering up for the Revolution that raped the faithful of the precious treasure of their Faith and the one saving grace to keep countless souls afloat - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - the immemorial Latin Mass of Tradition codified by numerous Sovereign Pontiffs throughout Church annals including the saintly Pope Saint Gregory the Great and Pope Saint Pius V .
Bishop Bruskewitz evidently is confused about the people on this Board, forgetting the entire idea of saving souls. He asks, "What qualifies him to be on this Board? I don't know. These questions make the construction of the Board and its purposes and goals open to a lot of questions in my mind." Really? I have some questions for you, your Excellency.
You say, "I think that surely these crimes and sins and horrors of sexual misconduct - and perhaps also the guilt and cowardice and folly and the sloth of bishops who didn't properly address these issues - are horrible in themselves. But I don't think they are an excuse [to] burn down the barn, just to get rid of the rats." Oh, really? Well, then, your Excellency, how do you justify Our Lord's certain words in Matthew 7: 19?
"Every tree that yieldelth not good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire." or Mark 9: 41-43, "And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones, who believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, then having two hands, to go into hell, into unquenchable fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished."
But, according to our enlightened prelate from Lincoln, that is no longer the way in addressing the problem of theological dissent. I quote his Excellency:
"There were two areas where, in my view, things had gone off the rails. The first was the issue of homosexuality, and the second - fundamentally connected with the first - was the issue of dissent. It is very easy, at least from my perspective, to see how by permitting the cancer of dissent to metastasize, we have allowed that disease to leach over into the issue of homosexuality. If the Church is thought to be in error about artificial birth-prevention, for example - if it is said that the magisterium of the Church has been in error for centuries on that issue - then it is a very simple adjustment to leap over and say that obviously the Church could very well be, and probably is, in error about other questions of moral teaching regarding sexual matters. That would include these horrible things: sodomy, pederasty, and so forth."
Over easy has hardened hearts
First of all, the Church is not in error and any thought of Her being in error is akin to heresy for as we affirm in the Act of Faith "I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou has revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." Yet the very fact those within the Church have questioned these truths is a scandal unto itself. The sexual sins are merely a byproduct and bad fruits of the real problem: apostasy from the True Church enabled by Vatican II! Only when you, your Excellency, and your fellow prelates realize the truth of the Third Secret of Fatima and rally your peers and persuade the Pope to consecrate Russia in union with all the bishops of the world to Blessed Mary's Immaculate Heart as she asked 87 years ago, will good fruit begin to take seed.
Bishop Bruskewitz admits the morale of priests is low and the bishops have taken a tremendous hit on the faithful having confidence in them? Well, duh. But who does he blame? Why those who are pointing out the warts which include not only the media, but the National Review Board who the bishops appointed, or at least we thought they did. Yet, in equating the Board to a "bully pulpit," Bruskewitz says,
"I'm not at all sure that's the way the church should be run - from a bully pulpit, occupied by people who are doctrinally and morally not in sympathy with the Church! To put these things in their hands is very misguided... The bishops themselves have - collectively, I wouldn't say individually - put a whole lot of ammunition into the hands of questionable people, and even the enemies of the Church."
Well, duh again. Don't you realize, your Excellency, this is how the higher hierarchy has done things since the early sixties? How else do you explain the disastrous Second Vatican Council in which the foxes were placed in charge of the hen house, so to speak by John XXIII appointing men like Karl Rahner, Hans von Balthazar, Edward Schillebeeck, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kung, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, Cardinal Joseph Frings and one Cardinal Giovanni Montini, all censored by Pope Pius XII and held in check until the unleashing by the 'good pope.' Their disciples who learned at their knee at the Council were none other than Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, Jean-Marie Lustiger and many others who have been empowered to complete the ransacking of the hen house known as Christ's True Church. These are the same enemies of Holy Mother Church whom Bruskewitz complains of but says individually the bishops are not to blame. I wonder if the Almighty Judge will give each bishop a pass when it comes to each's Particular Judgment. I can just hear God saying: "While collectively you have totally destroyed what I created and endangered countless souls which I created to know Me, love Me, and be happy with Me in the world I gave them and in eternity, I can't blame you individually because you had your head in the sand and couldn't see that you were accountable for keeping your vows and striving for holiness for yourself and those entrusted to you. So since you were kind to friends and tolerated all, welcome to universal salvation." NOT!
How Bishop Bruskewitz can say individually the bishops are not responsible is beyond me even though he admits that this whole loss of faith and trust
"has been caused by the bishops' own (how should we say it?) sloth, folly, negligence, or whatever it might be. I think it's unquestionable that history, and God himself [sic], will judge very adversely the carelessness or recklessness or whatever it was that caused this entire situation to develop. As William Donohue of the Catholic League says, you can't excuse the inexcusable."
No you can't. What about quoting also the holy Doctors of the Church who kept the Faith burning in the midst of the greatest heresy up until present time? Saint Athanasius and Saint John Chrysostom asserted, that "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops." They were, of course, speaking of the Arian bishops who sold out Christ and His Church. If they were referring then to the small majority at that time, think how full hades will be when it makes room for the modern prelates who have embraced the synthesis of all heresies - Modernism. Note to Bishop Bruskewitz: If you have accepted the Novus Ordo you can count yourself among the apostates for Pope St. Pius V made it quite clear that for anyone to alter the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they would "incur the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." Do you not think His wrath has been incurred by the "abomination of desolation" that raised its ugly head on April 3, 1969?
And when it comes to individual culpability, it is now left to each bishop to set the standards of the Faith? As bizarre as that sounds, it's a fact. How else do you explain that one set of morals exists in say the Archdiocese of St. Louis and another in Boston or Pittsburgh where a known persistent sinner can flaunt all that is sacred by committing the scandalous sacrilege of receiving while in the state of mortal sin? Multiply this by not only the plethora of pro-abort politicians, but those who have enabled them - the voters. Are their consciences truly clear? If the bishops fail in their duty, and they truly have - then the domino effect is in effect. The priests won't make waves and so go along with whatever comes down the pike even if it is diametrically opposed to Church teaching. Thus the people in the pews (oh, that's right, they're chairs now since kneelers are passť) aren't getting dogma or doctrine, just more lukewarm pabulum, and we all know what happens to anything lukewarm (cf. Apocalypse 3: 16).
Yet so few are hot over the issues, cold-hearted to the real tragedy of the loss of so many souls. Meanwhile Bishop Bruskewitz moans about the loss of vocations because of the perception painted by the media through editorial cartoons and "all the ridicule in the secular press," in which he deducts will have an
"impact on on such things as vocational work and evangelization will echo for years. I really think that many of these things take some time to percolate, but eventually the adverse - even disastrous, even catastrophic - results of what has been going on will take terrible toll among the clergy in this country."
I have news for the Lincoln ordinary: It already has! Not from the sexual abuse, but by abuse of the Faith and the Holy Sacrifice. He claims that in Nebraska he is pretty much immune from the fall-out. Guess again. If he has accepted the Novus Ordo and all the bafflegab skimble skamble of Vatican II, he has succumbed.
Finally, Bishop Bruskewitz throws up his hands seemingly without a clue. When asked what he would do to change things, to right the ship, here is how he responded:
"Well, I'm not in a position to change the approach. And I don't have a magic wand or a perfect solution. But I would certainly say that there should be some more clear statutory regulations, and some clear job descriptions, for the National Review Board. And the National Review Board should be reconstituted with people who are loyal to the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Church in their full dimensions."
Sunny Side Up
First of all, it's not that complicated, your Excellency. You do have a 'magic wand.' It is called the Traditional Latin Mass. Reinstitute the Latin Rite of All Ages without exception in your diocese and see what happens. First of all, you would have countless souls flocking back to church returning to the uncompromising teachings of the Church in their full dimensions. You see, in truth, those infallible tenets do not include the new direction embarked on since Vatican II for the documents of post-conciliar times are in direct contrast to what was taught from Saint Peter through PopePius XII; in fact were condemned by previous Pontiffs.
Secondly, the faithful would rediscover their Faith in all its fullness. Within a short time vocations would begin to flourish again, schools would teem with pupils responsible parents entrust to learn the Faith as their ancestors learned in the simple but sure and solid Baltimore Catechism. Oh, you might have to build some halls to hold bingo or meetings or church suppers since today the churches serve as multi-purpose buildings which Our Lord sternly condemned in Matthew 21: 13, Mark 11: 17, and Luke 19: 46, "It is written: My house shall be called the house of prayer: but you have made it a den of thieves."
Thirdly, you would be summarily relieved of your duties as Bishop of Lincoln because the
foxes are in charge of the hen house. That is why your idea, your Excellency, of arranging apostolic visitations from the Holy See won't work either for these are more foxes from the lair of men like Cardinals Walter Kasper, Darian Castrillon Hoyos, Angelo Sodono, Francis Arinze and the like. Do you really think that is going to solve the problem?
The answer is a resounding no. There are two solutions, both drastic but necessary to restore the Church in America. Allow me briefly to share them. The first, of course is my prior strong recommendation: Abandon the synthetic man-made concoction called the New Order 'Eucharistic Celebration' and return to the Immemorial Apostolic Mass of Tradition. Yes, you will run into persecution. Welcome to the family. But then didn't St. Thomas More and so many saints throughout the history of the Church? Should we do less? If you are truly a servant of Christ, truly following in the Apostles' footsteps with true apostolic succession, then you will abandon the apostate course the post-conciliar hierarchy has followed.
As for appointing members of the National Review Board, you could do no better than appointing one Stephen Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful who has a true grasp of the scandal abuse. Also one Michael Rose would be an excellent choice. Someone from NARATH, not NARAL could contribute to the cause. As for others, I'm sure they exist. You might also research those priests who have been exiled by their bishops because they sought to be orthodox and reject the modernism pushed on them. There are many good men out there. They don't need women on the Board, just as there is no need for a woman in the Curia, nor as spokespersons for your fellow bishops. Let them pray and take care of their families. Leave the business of administering to souls to those who can - priests, for they are the only ones who can administer the sacraments. Deacons and eucharistic ministers don't cut it with the Catholic culture. And speaking of the Catholic culture practiced for nearly 2000 years, make it mandatory for every priest ordained after 1968 to be reordained and relearn Latin. Henle is an excellent textbook to accompany the St. Andrew Daily Missal or Fr. Lasance Daily Missal. Those who choose not to, well, don't hit your backside on the way out of the Church.
For the Hard-boiled
Finally, if you really want to clean things up in America, then it calls for the most drastic of measures but not unprecedented for indeed Pope Benedict XIV released his Pontificale Romanum of March 25, 1752 of applying to the apostate bishops the "Degradation of a Bishop" as Father Gommar A. De Pauw translated and shared on his Catholic Traditionalist Movement page. It is basically, a defrocking of the bishops. Following is the formula which Father shares and affirms was authenticated by Victor Cardinal Dechamps, then Primate of Belgium and Archbishop of Mechelen:
If the degrandandus (the person to be degraded) is an archbishop, the Degradator (the Pope or a papal substitute) removes the man's pallium (archiepiscopal stole), saying:
"We deprive you of all the prerogatives (rights and privileges) of the pontifical dignity, of which this pallium is a symbol, because you have abused them."
Next, whether the degrandandus is archbishop or mere bishop, the Degradator removes the man's miter saying:
"The Miter, emblem of the pontifical dignity, is hereby removed from your head, because your evil administration has disgraced it."
Next, one of the assistants gives the degradandus the book of the Gospel, which the Degradator pulls from the man's hands, saying:
"Give the Gospel back, because, despising God's Grace, you made yourself unworthy of the preaching office, of which you are herewith properly deprived."
Next, the Degradator removes the degradandus' ring, saying:
"It is proper for us to pull off this ring, the sign of faithfulness, because you have shamelessly raped God's very Own Bride, His Church."
Next, one of the assistants gives the degradandus a crosier, which the Degradator takes from the man's hand, saying:
"We take from you the Shepherd's Staff, to indicate that you no longer have any claim to the pastoral office you have mismanaged."
Next, the assistants take off the degradandus' gloves, after which the Degradator lightly scrapes the man's thumbs and hands with a little knife or a piece of glass, saying:
"To the full extent of our powers, we herewith deprive you of the power to spiritually bless and mystically anoint, and hereby remove you from any office to which this power is attached."
Next, with the same knife or glass, the Degradator lightly scrapes the degradandus' head, saying:
"We herewith completely erase the consecration, the blessing and the anointing previously bestowed upon you, and we herewith expel you from the pontifical order for which you proved yourself unfit."
Finally, the assistants remove the degradandus' shoes.
No doubt the last is to signify that the man can no longer follow in the footsteps of the Apostles. It is a humiliating ceremony and most necessary in these times when so many bishops have indeed abused their rights and privileges, disgraced their administration, made themselves unworthy of their preaching office, shamelessly raped God's very Own Bride, and mismanaged their pastoral office. If ever there was a time for the renewal of the Office of Degradation, it is now, especially in the United States. Fr. De Pauw strongly recommends applying it to the removal by Rome of all those who were cardinals or bishops as of the June 2002 Conference in Dallas.
Drastic? Yes! Necessary? Most definitely for the welfare of Holy Mother the Church and the souls entrusted to her shepherds. The time is long past to have compassion on the prelates. It is time to be concerned with their souls. The longer they pose as wolves in shepherds' clothing the worse it is not only for those entrusted to their care, but their own eternal salvation. Therefore, the time has come to strip them of their garments that they may repent and do penance. What shall they don to cover their nakedness? Why, sackcloth and ashes come to mind as the ideal fashion statement for the defrocked, disgraced and degraded. Drastic? Yes, but, when push comes to shove, and we've been shoved enough, it is the only way to keep the foxes out of the hen house! It's time to unscramble the mess in the frying pan and face up to the sad, but inevitable facts. In order to restore order and grace to the Church and to save souls, it's necessary to throw 'em all out and start over because bad eggs are deviled eggs!
Michael Cain, editor
For past CATHOLIC PewPOINT editorials, see 2004ed.htm Archives