Rorate Caeli

Troubles across the Río de la Plata
Bishop blackmailed by male lovers

The small Oriental Republic of Uruguay has a long shared history with Argentina - and common events... A few years ago, "Progressive" Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone was forced to resign after being blackmailed by a male lover. Now, a similar episode takes place across the Río de la Plata, with Bishop Francisco Barbosa, of the Diocese of Minas, as La Nación reports:

Local daily El Observador revealed the case that has no precedents in the Uruguayan Church, and that has led to commotion in the Catholic community of Minas, a city in the upland section of this country.

Complaint.

The sexual relationship of the priest with two convicts was discovered because the Bishop himself presented a complaint to the criminal courts when he felt harassed by his lovers, who were blackmailing him with the threat of making public the pictures of their encounters.

Bishop Barbosa had met the former convicts when they requested assistance to the National Service for the Detained which, in the Department of Lavalleja [where the Diocese is located], is run by a priest.
El Observador notes tonight that Pope Benedict XVI was informed of the situation and will make a decision in the next few hours. Francisco Barbosa was named Bishop of Minas by Pope John Paul II, in 2004.

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

If he wants to argue with the civil courts about this, it could possibly make him ''canonically incapacitated'', unfit to serve as bishop while standing on trial or something. It's an embrassment for his diocese and indeed for the whole Church.

The sad thing about the post-Vatican II episcopacy is that so many of them have actually been accused of some horrible sin, including adultery, homosexuality, pederasty, as well as public support of communism, freemasonry and abortion.

Dan Hunter said...

What happened to the comment section on the article about the FSSP priest going to Rio?

Anonymous said...

Just more 'fruits' of Vatican II.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

How come these sort of people ever reach to be bishops? A requirement for being a deacon, a priest or a bishop should be to have impecable personal behavior. Many catholic clerics do not live as christians.

Anonymous said...

But he's in full communion!

Anonymous said...

Blackmail, and the Church pays.

How about that the Bishop himself pays?

Brian said...

Is it any wonder that these sexually ill men oppose the Traditional teaching of the Church?

The SSPX will certainly not accept any arrangement that puts their flock under the deranged leadership of these Bishops.

Anonymous said...

Anon. says, sarcastically (and rightly so),

But he's in communion!

Well said. I once again mention the scandal of Fr. Raymond Gravel of Montreal (Diocese of Joliette). It has 'come out' that he was a male prostitute before he entered the seminary. Since ordination, he has consistenty advocated the legalisation of both abortion and inverted marriage. The major crisis came when he did so, as a priest, on television. Even worse, the Catholic position had to be defended against this 'priest' by a Muslim cleric, a mullah. He ran for election to Parliament without the needed consent of the Holy Father and then supported a pro-abortion bill and even spoke in its favour in Parliament. I must hand it to him: he has no fear.

Fr. Gravel is 'in communion' but the S.S.P.X is not. Fr. Gravel's confessions are licit and valid, whereas Bishop de Galarrets's are not. That's what Rome is saying.

I suggest to His Holiness that when and only when he has the courage to remove Fr. Gravel, Rome might, at most, hint that Society Sacraments are illicit.

It's ridiculous. It's like hanging a man for stealing a newspaper and then giving ten million bucks to a child molester.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Another scandal of a Vatican II/ John Paul II bishop.
How many John Paul II scandals are there now....50-60? There are numerous scandals involving radical liberal bishops, sexual scandals involving priests and bishops(gay or straight), and scandals involving radical liberal Cardinals or bishops and the lax lifestyle they have lived.
Not to mention enormous scandals involving religious Orders John Paul II protected--the Legionaries of Christ.
There's been John Paul II bishops removed in Africa (2 within the last month), because of sexual relationships with women. Now a scandal involving a homosexual bishop and his male lovers.
These men were all put into office by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Roman Precect of the Congregation for Bishops, a man John Paul II put into office in 2000 and described by some faithful Cardinals and priests as "the most radically liberal Cardinal in the Roman Curia". He's 75 and past retirement. Benedict XVI should sack him immediatly.
As well as this bishop in Uruguay...which by the way isn't an "Oriental country" as described in the piece, but rather is in Latin America....a world away from the Orient.

Anonymous said...

"How come these sort of people ever reach to be bishops? "

Start a campaign for the Pope to get rid of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, 75, currently the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops (since 2000---a John Paul II friend and appointee).
He has been labeled as "the most radically liberal Cardinal in the Curia". His appointments for the most part reflect this.

Time to campaign, pray, and petition the Pope to houseclean the Vatican and get rid of people like Re. He's past retirement age of 75 anyway.

New Catholic said...

"Uruguay...which by the way isn't an 'Oriental country' as described in the piece, but rather is in Latin America....a world away from the Orient."

It is the official name of the nation, República Oriental del Uruguay, because it is on the Eastern (Oriental) side of the Uruguay River, which separates it from the Argentine Republic.

Peter said...

There seems to be a lot of syllogising going on in this comment thread.

It's not clear to me that it is any better than the old standard: all dogs have four legs, this cat has ... you know the rest.

The foibles of one bishop, disgusting as they are, don't make a proof for everything else.

New Catholic said...

I don't know Peter... Maccarone, in Argentina; Barbosa, in Uruguay; and, the most famous of all, Weakland, in the United States... There seems to be a pattern here...

And these are the ones which have been made public!

NC

Anonymous said...

Another JPII(THE LESS)& Vac II loser.

Long-Skirts said...

Anon. said:
"Fr. Gravel is 'in communion' but the S.S.P.X is not"


AMBIGUITY

One day animist
The next day Latin
One day Renew
Some use a paten.

Some let ministers
Eucharistic-chick
Hand out Our Lord
So you can have your pick.

Sometimes bongos
Assembly on their feet
Holding hands in the air
Kneelers obsolete.

One Holy Catholic
Apostolic Church?
Good for some let others run
In circles as they search.

For we ourselves have ours
Don't ever rock the boat --
Like those who open schools and classes
Teaching souls to float.

Saintly Thomas More
Could’ve had it all
Private Latin Masses
Behind a purpled wall.

But no chose the scaffold
Where truth and lie collide

Heads were cut --

Entrails gut -

Ambiguity couldn’t hide!

Joshua said...

While it is no excuse for moral squalor, history teaches that high levels of moral scandals and generally low standards of unpriestly behaviour have prevailed among the clergy on and off almost since the end of the Roman persecutions or earlier, extending up to the highest echelons of the ecclesiastical hierarchy; and again and again, after such bouts of winked-at laxity, eventually the thankless task of cleaning out the Augean stables was undertaken - God grant it be undertaken once more. I suspect, however, that only in these decades of confusion has heretical opinion blended with moral peccadilloes to produce such a witch's brew of vice and corruption.

Michael said...

Peter: "The foibles of one bishop, disgusting as they are, don't make a proof for everything else."

Please...

It may not make a proof, but it's interesting that those persons finding themselves in these scenarios end up being the least friendly to tradition and most "progressive".

Cosmos said...

Peter,

Weakland was not a homosexual whose positions reflected his own perversions until he was (NYTimes), and then that did not prove anything.

The Chrch did not have a huge problem with homesexual men molesting boys until it did (John Jay report), and that does not prove anything.

Communist were not infultration the churches in Eastern Europe and Russia until they were (Polis KGB documents released by the President), and that does not prove anything.

Maciel was not sexually harassing people until he was (Pope Benedict XVI's CDF), but that does not prove anything.

Everything is just a "conspiracy theory," even after proven, if the results are too uncomfortable. Moderate men do not jump to conclusions. Moderate men do not connect dots which lead to embarassing discoveries.

The reality is there are more than enough facts to conclude, at this point, that, in the period coinciding with VII, a large number of homosexual men joined the Church and aided each other in their assents to power. New facts confirm this all the time. This is just the latest.

The reality is these men have weilded their ill-gained power to shape the Church more to their liking, and the Church has paid the price. It reflects their preferences in real ways. Facts are facts.

As much as men like our truly great Pope believes in the reform instittued by VII, it is undoubtedly mired not just in poor interpretations, but deliberate distortions to serve nefarious ends. this happened with early doctrinal councils as well, and new councils were held to clarify posisiotns. The whole VII reform project has been tainted by deliberate distortions, whether people want to admit it or not. It will be the great challenge of future good men to untie those knots. Unfortunately, even the best among us are tempted to pretend it is not as bad as it is, and so the hard work never seems to get started.

Anonymous said...

Another case, of which Rorate wrote last year (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/09/leading-medjugorje-priest-falls-under.html) was "closed" recently, with the priest in question reduced to lay status:
http://marcocorvaglia.blog.lastampa.it/mcor/esclusivo-padre-tomislav-vlasic-ridotto-allo-stato-laicale.html
or
http://www.radiomaria.it/documenti/dwnl.php?id=1408

okie said...

Cosmos, I think you say it well here:

"As much as men like our truly great Pope believes in the reform instittued by VII, it is undoubtedly mired not just in poor interpretations, but deliberate distortions to serve nefarious ends. this happened with early doctrinal councils as well, and new councils were held to clarify posisiotns. The whole VII reform project has been tainted by deliberate distortions, whether people want to admit it or not. It will be the great challenge of future good men to untie those knots. "

Timothy Mulligan said...

Have any of you read Dante's Inferno? There were quite a number of traditional clergy in hell. Or the Canterbury Tales? You get the point.

The bishop's behavior, if it happened as described, is sinful and ugly. But the schadenfreude I see here is ugly, too. I cannot imagine that it pleases Our Lord in tone or substance.

Adeodatus said...

I agree... well said, Cosmos.

It's easy to jump on the protestant bandwagon and blame the Pope. It's easy to dismiss Vatican II entirely and out of hand. What is difficult is to actually draw meaningful distinctions, and to avoid conflating malice, incompetence and mere failure.

In my opinion, it is not the case that Vatican II was an evil council... in fact, to say so is unthinkable and perhaps blasphemous. The tragedy of Vatican II is that, like all good works, it is opposed by the Enemy, and the men called to carry it out faltered and fell prey.

Fortunately, God has the ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. You all might have heard of such instances.

Anonymous said...

Our 'truly great Pope' has been part of this entire mess from the beginning. He ought to know what is going on by now! Why not start by doing the Consecration of Russia, in the manner requested by Our Lady, instead of giving the people some ridiculous story about how Fatima is a thing of the past? Trying to play both sides against the middle won't fool the only people who really count- God and Our Lady! Viva Christo Rey!!!

Brian said...

For those who argue this is an isolated, sexually sick man that has nothing to do with the state of the Church, have you read Good-bye Good Men?

Paul Haley said...

It would not take me long to solve this situation perhaps just a few minutes. First, I would announce that using my apostolic authority as the Vicar of Christ, all restrictions previously levied against the FSSPX are hereby vacated and the Fraternity has been granted as of this date and time a Worldwide Apostolic Administration for exclusive use of the Traditional Rite of St. Pius V. Second, I would announce that the Bishops of the Fraternity fall under my direct authority with all the privileges and authorizations that implies. Third, I would remove the offending bishop of the diocese in question and replace him with one of the Fraternity, yes that's right, Fraternity bishops with the mandate to clean up the chancery in question, interview all priests in the diocese to determine their adherence to Catholic moral principles and Tradition, expel those who do not show faithfulness to the laws and traditions of the Church and, finally, expel any of those who show a predilection towards immoral behavior or the so-called "liberation theology".

Can't be done, you say? Balderdash! The Vicar of Christ has the powder and authority to do just that and not only that but to select for elevation to the episcopacy those fraternity priests and perhaps some independents who show the talent and ability to stand up for what is right and clean up the dioceses that need it. It's the "God Squad" if you will, 2009 version. Can you imagine the communists, liberals and progressives shuddering with fear of the mighty God Squad? I can.

But, you see, I am a product of military training and background and the Pope clearly is not. Did I hear someone say: "Thank God for that"? Well, let me say this about that. Do you remember Jesus throwing the moneychangers out of the temple? To me, he did what needed to be done and fashioned whips to get the job done. Would that our modern-day clerics had that kind of intestinal fortitude. Well, we'll see what the next few hours or days portend.

mens sanctorum said...

Although I think that Long-Skirts' poetry is annoying nonsense that trivializes and detracts from the credibility of this blog, I did chuckle at the stanza:

"Heads were cut --

Entrails gut -

Ambiguity couldn’t hide!"

Anonymous said...

This is the fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Hopefully SSPX will straighten this mess out.

Anonymous said...

You know, I'm sick of all of this filth. It's all around me and I can't avoid it. Truly this life is enough to atone for any sins committed!

Jordanes said...

annoying nonsense that trivializes and detracts from the credibility of this blog ***

Your opinion is illogical. Rorate Caeli, quite obviously, is not responsible for the opinions, or quality (or lack of quality), of the comments posted here.

Neal said...

Some here would do well to remember that the traditional orders have had their own scandals regarding homosexuality and the like.

Anonymous said...

Long Skirts is a warrior poet for the faith! It certainly doesn't detract from credibility. You don't have to read her prose.

Long Skirts for mayor.

Cosmos said...

Anon,

Of all the men who might have been Pope, didn't you think it was a miracle that JPII's bishops chose him. The one insider whoever stood up to JPII on matters of tradition. Still, I personally get the impression that "fixing" everything is more difficult than it seems. If one side abuses power and begins to create the impression that Catholic doctrine is simply a matter of who is in power, as unsatisfactory as it sounds, simply bringing down the hammer once you are in power ends up playing into their hands in the long run. Some level of re-education might need to come first. Benedict may not be the best general, but he is an excellent teacher. And remember, there are lots of excellent Catholics who think that traditionalists are schismatics. They learned this from their mislead teachers, who were often misled themselves. How did you learn about the tradition?

Plus, I think BXVI truly worries about losing sheep in the process. Remember how the press spun the anti-semitism of Bishop Williamson. He has to be careful. Whether he is being too careful is open for debate.

Also, there really is a difference between trying to help restore and strengthen something (Vatican II), and continuing with the project when it has failed (2009). The mid-century, in hindsight, was an insane time and even good men were caught up in its spirit. I personally think it was intellectual pride--the Church overemphasizes advanced degrees over faith and leadership (Pope recently pointed to Cur d'Ars and Padre Pio as true examples of the priesthood!).

I think Joseph Ratzinger realized that the ideas that he, and many good men were espousing, were bearing truly rotten fruit in the hands of other men, but I still think he sees Vatican II as addressing some legitimate issues. The problem for us traditionalists is answering the question, "If things were so solid back then, how did the bottom fall out so fast." My understanding is that people with eyes to see saw what was coming. Their answer to the coming catastrophe was obviously inadequate, and may have exascerbated it in the long-run.


Bendict has rejected "the Spirit of VII," but he has not forgotten the problems that were looming. He does not want to reset the clock to 1955, even if 1955 was undoubtedly better that 2005.

Anonymous said...

Cosmos writes:

"Everything is just a "conspiracy theory," even after proven, if the results are too uncomfortable. Moderate men do not jump to conclusions. Moderate men do not connect dots which lead to embarassing discoveries."

I submit that moderate men can compare the Church of today with that of recent times in the past and conclude that something has gone terribly wrong. When was the last time one heard of bishops being blackmailed by male lovers in, say, the 1860s? When, ever in the history of the Church, was there a priest (Fr. Raymond Gravel) who publicly opposed the moral teachings of the Church on the gravest matters and yet remained a priest in good standing? When in the past were former male prostitutes admitted to seminary? When in the past did priests get elected to Parliament (Gravel) or the U.S. Senate (forgotten his name) who, once there, advocated legislation which butchers babies before they are born? These are priest-murderers; they complement the priest-buggerers who have now been discovered in large numbers.

Moderate men might well wonder why thousands of priests in our day have been caught sodomising children, mostly adolsecent boys. When did that happen in the 1920s, the 1840s, the 1380s the 590s?

Something is cosmically wrong, Cosmos, and it is connected to Vatican II and to the revolution in the secular culture which accompanied that Council. Moderate men don't need a smoking gun to connect cause and effect. Moderate men are reasonable men.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Michael R. writes:

"The bishop was being blackmailed so. unlike Bishop Weakland of Milwaukee, he went to the authorities and told them what had happened, instead of trying to buy his blackmailers' silence with Church funds. He deserves some credit for that."

No, he would only deserve some credit if he had *also* submitted his resignation to the Pope. Perhaps he will do so upon request but he shouldn't need to be asked.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

I'm a little tired of the assumption of innocence in the men who shaped VII. I think the rot that came after was in the mix at the time. I think many homosexuals and communists had already been planted and had positions of power, and took advantage of naive and weak intellectuals like our current and previous popes. Yes, they were in the church before VII, but that was the revolution which brought them to power, and the shoving of the ancient mass into a closet was a necessary evil to fostering greater evils upon the faithful. Have you noticed that as soon as a liberal gets into a hiring position, nobody but liberals will be hired thenceforth?

Under JPII, these guys were swept under the run, moved around to do more damage, and sometimes promoted. I hate to say it, but there's a 50/50 chance that this guy is going to be a functioning priest for some time somewhere, if only while staying at a residence provided by the church so he and his ilk can coordinate a defensive strategy. If Pope Benedict XVI takes more than about ten minutes to tell this guy to pack his bags and get off of Catholic property, then he's a serious part of the problem, just as his predecessor was. This is an easy one. VII, that's harder. If you can't even handle the easy pitches, ...

Anonymous said...

A great good that can come out of this is the early appointment of a replacement for this bishop. The next great good is that his replacement could be holy, or at least orthodox.

Joseph

Paul Haley said...

A great good that can come out of this is the early appointment of a replacement for this bishop. The next great good is that his replacement could be holy, or at least orthodox.

Joseph

How about Tissier de Mallerais or Alfonso de Galarreta? They are holy and orthodox and have no canonical position to interfere with their appointment. I can assure you they will clean up the mess. Oh, I see, they are still under suspension. What a diabolical disorientation! Holy Mother of God crush the head of the Serpent.

Anonymous said...

Pius XII, shortly before his death quoted the late French Queen Marie Antoinette. When the bishop quieried the Pope as to what he thought would happen after he )Pius XII) was dead, the Pope smiled and said knowlingly "Apres moi, le deluge.." (After me, the flood.." Meaning after him, the disaster, the torrnado, the earthquake, the flood in the Church.
He KNEW these people were coming. But unfortunatly, they had begun to manifest themselves when Pope Pius started to become quite ill (after 1954), and his vigor and strengh was not much to tackle the liberals before they scored their touchdown (as they mapped their agenda which hijacked the Church at and after Vatican II).
John XXIII who succeeded Pius XII and called Vatican II isn't the bad man that many traditionalists point to as the root of the trouble. He was in large measure an optomist, a naive innocent who trusted people-the wrong ones-too much. By the time he caught on and saw the wrong direction the Council was taking, he was dying.
Paul VI was reported to have said two or three days after his election regarding the Council that he was now "like a train conductor called on to steer the train on a course We would not have chosen.." In other words, Paul VI would not have called a Council had he already been the Pope. But he supported John XXIII, and had liberal leanings.
Still, he agonized over much of the Council. He agonized over "Humanae Vitae" but made the correct choice, and he agonized over the "Novus Ordo". He made the wrong choice with that.
Towards the very end of his life (within 2 weeks), he told a French philosopher who was a guest at Castel Gandolfo that basically he had been very wrong about much of Vatican II and his decisions.
Whereas John XXIII can't be blamed for the disaster in the Church, Paul VI can by his weakness and the people he listened to and promoted.
The real person at fault in all this, is John Paul II, who actively supported everything of Vatican II, and who actually promoted to Cardinal (Congar, de Lubac), men who had been condemned by Pius XII and John XXIII . He did things that Pius, John, or Paul would never have dreamed of in a million years ( kissing the Koran, praying at the Wailing Wall like a Jew, hosting interreligious meetings at Assisi, circuslike Masses, altar girls, etc.).
Paul VI, but more so John Paul II actively put into powerfull offices in the Vatican, and in dioceses known radicals.
If John XXIII had lived even just till the end of Vatican II in 1965, I think we would have had a much different Church not much different than that of 1955. And these problems and scandals of today might not have happened.
The blame for it all seems to weigh the heaviest on John Paul II.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was Louis XIV who said, "Apres moi, le deluge." The deluge certainly did not wait until after poor Marie Antoinette was gone.

Michael R.

Bernadette said...

Long skirts poetry fits in very nicely I think... quite original in my opinion...

Anonymous said...

I do not believe it mattered much who was Pope after Pope John XXIII refused to consumate Our Lady's requests. Isn't it odd that the only potentially threatening effort to change the status quo is coming from a society of religious men and women that the Body of Christ refuses to fully accept.

To those who do not accept the Fatima and related apparitons and messages as authentic I would ask. Why was the greatest miracle since the Assumtpion of Our Lady also be
conducted by our Lady? As She said
She would send a sign so that the
children would be believed.

In the early thirties the Portuguese Bishops consecrated their nation to Our Lady and the Masonic Government was overthrown
in favor of Antonio Salazar. Small wonder that Portugal has been spared so many problems.

A.M. La Pietra

Pablo said...

...But, you see, I am a product of military training and background and the Pope clearly is not. Did I hear someone say: "Thank God for that...."

It was the military that comprised the firing squads that murdered Catholic Priests in Mexico... it was the military that enforced the French Revolution... it was the military that was assigned to arrest our Lord.

The best training in the world comes from Catholic Seminaries and good Catechisms.

No military will ever 'straighten out' our Lord's Bride.

Pray for the Holy Father and all his priests. Many have fallen victim to Satan.

Have some mercy and pray for them.

May God our Lord in his infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us his abundant grace, that we may know his most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.

Anonymous said...

"I thought it was Louis XIV who said, "Apres moi, le deluge." The deluge certainly did not wait until after poor Marie Antoinette was gone.

Michael R.

No, it was Marie Antoniette. She and her husband, King Louis XVI were executed by leaders of the French Revolution in the late 1780's. She knew the revolutionaries for what they were, and knew what was coming. Then there were the mass executions of priests and nuns, the confiscation of Church property, the secularization of the government and the persecution of the Church not seen again till the days of Lenin and Stalin.
What is sad is that at least 40 religious Orders in France (both small and large), which had survived since the Middle Ages (The Grammontine monks, the Cluniacs, Victorine Canons, Celestines, and others) were all disbanded, executed, and their property destroyed during the French Revolution.

Anonymous said...

"Small wonder that Portugal has been spared so many problems."

Has it really? I don't think so.
The crisis in vocations for priests, brothers, monks, friars, nuns and sisters is as seriouos in Portugal than anywhere else. The dissent in seminaries and discarding of Catholic tradition is as common there than anywhere else.
Radical liberal bishops and priests (the late Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon-I think his name was Ribeiro, the present Patriarch of Lisbon, the rector of the Shrine of Fatima (maybe he's dead by now), who allowed the Jesuit heretic Fr.Dupuis (deceased) to preach and host a seminar at Fatima (a gathering similar to John Paul II's interreligious love-fests at Assisi)about 10 years ago, and who allowed Hindu ceremonies at the Shrine.
Mass attendance at the Novus Ordo in Portugal is as low as any other European country.
The Bishops don't allow the Tridentine Latin Mass.

So I don't see how anyone can claim Portugal has been spared anything. The statistics and the recent events in the Church there and the people in charge there show otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"Apres moi, le deluge."

These were the words of Louis XIV, the Sun King, not Marie Antoinette.


Phillip C. in S.F.

Bill Scott said...

Don't blame Vatican II or any one pope. It's been going on for years, probably centuries, it was just better covered up in the past.

Paul Haley said...

Pablo said:
"It was the military that comprised the firing squads that murdered Catholic Priests in Mexico... it was the military that enforced the French Revolution... it was the military that was assigned to arrest our Lord.

It was also the military who countless times throughout history gave freedom back to the people who had been subjugated by tyrants. It was also Our Lord who fashioned whips to drive the moneychangers out of the Temple and countless brave soldiers who following the call of Popes like St. Pius V defeated the enemies of the Church in the crusades, including by the way, praying for the intercession of Our Lady to assist them.

So, if you want to draw parallels, the very least you could do is be fair when doing so. To think that I would advocate the use of military force other than to protect the requirements of the natural and moral law is ridiculous to the extreme. It bespeaks a bias that has no place in today's world run amok.

Anonymous said...

On Portugal,
I have to wonder about the Orthodoxy of Portugal as well. We have read and heard that the new Fatima shrine is a modernist monster. The Fatima apparation site (and all Marian sites going forward) is now marketed toward inter-religous ecumenism - and not for their conversion.
I haven't been there but they say that you would be hard pressed to find the sanctuary lamp and the tabernacle.
Perhaps it is as Pope BXV1 said, Fatima is a message of the past. When Catholic meant Catholic.
I don't really believe that Fatima is meant for the past....something doesn't add up re: Fatima.

Dompors

Louis E. said...

"Apres moi,le deluge" is a quote from Louis XV (died 1774).Not Louis XIV,in whose time no one saw the deluge coming,nor Marie Antoinette,in whose time it was already there.

Anonymous said...

While there has been much concentration lately on sexual inversion in the Church, I hope that nobody forgets, at the same time, the annulment abusage, which has made annulment into 'Catholic divorce' in the U.S.A. and some other countries, including my own. This completely undermines marraige and undermines the formation of relationships among true faithful. Let us say that a good Catholic wants to get married. But he or she knows that his spouse must share completely his absolute commitment to marriage because, at the first sign of trouble, the spouse can simply seek annlument and tell lies to the tribunal.

This is a real deterrent for good Catholics. Some will look long and hard for a 'safe' spouse and never find one. Then the good Catholics remain unmarried and don't bear good Catholic children, while the bad Catholics have several children who end up even less Catholic than they are.

John Paul II spoke good words against the annulment abusage in some countries. But his words were ignored. Why didn't he insist on compliance? Here are some possibilites:

1. He feared that enforcement would result in worse evils, not exclusing, perhaps, even his own murder. Remember John Paul I?

2. He feared that all his subordinates would simply ignore his commands, thereby undermining his authority.

3. He was a hypocrites, &c. or some other bad sort. No need to go there.

I think that it was Number One above, which is why the work to be done in enormous. I'm not saying that the Pope might get killed in such cases. I have no idea about that. But I do think that he fears retaliation. Most of his middle management are against him. And, since most secrets are kept in diocesan chanceries, the bishops have lots of dirty little secrets they could release to the press to bring down the Church.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Portugal being spared many problems:

What other Catholic nation except Spain was spared the number of problems associated with World War II? Though Spain was spared the same war it suffered greatly in its civil war. Also, Our Lady said that in Portugal the Faith would never be lost. I always took that to mean the common people and not the hierarcy.

A.M. LaPietra

Joe B said...

Two of the three explanations involving fear, I don't think that was the reason for the 'failure' of JPII. His motto was "Be not afraid" and his life did not demonstrate the weakness of fear. I think he was an intellectual and not a man of hard work, and much of the work he saw needing to be done simply overwhelmed him, so he simply walked away from the difficult jobs and took on the role of populist.

In general, it seems that most of the great popes and saints had incredible energy for boots on the ground leadership involving hard work, fortitude, and taking setbacks in stride, knowing the victory would not be without significant setbacks, which would have to be dealt with patiently. It seems to me he was long on personal sanctity but short on fortitude. He simply wasn't the right man for the reform. The current Holy Father seems better disposed for it, although it's hard to tell yet whether what appears at times to be conciliation is just patient maneuvering.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Paul VI, but more so John Paul II actively put into powerfull offices in the Vatican, and in dioceses known radicals."

How times change.

I still remember the days when "Paul VI bishop" was a byword for radicalism and "John Paul II bishop" meant a conservative one.

Of course, neither generalization was true.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Also, Our Lady said that in Portugal the Faith would never be lost. I always took that to mean the common people and not the hierarcy."

Doesn't it strike you as rather odd that Portugal also has the smallest TLM movement in Western Europe? Just one regular PRIVATE TLM by the FFI plus the SSPX's Mass.

Anonymous said...

Carlos,

Did you notice that Portugal is perhaps the smallest of Catholic nations in Europe, not counting the postage stamp republics? I believe the SSPX was first in returning the Traditional Mass there. If they send more priests, I would be surprised if they are not successful.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

It represents an entirely unrealistic view to say that the SSPX will some how solve the problem of sodomites in the clergy of the Universal Church, because they have also had their cases of sodomites and paedofiles, and several very scandalous events at their boys only schools.

The problem is not solved by the TLM, but by solid traditional Moral Theology of the type of St. Alphonsus, which according to my visits to their houses of formation, the SSPX do not follow. So like the modernists who also do not follow St. Alphonsus, they suffer from the same inability to nix the problem at the beginning, when the perverts present themselves as candidates.

Anonymous said...

"Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it".(Ps:126). http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=126&l=1&f=s#x Do the Consecration of Russia, as prescribed by the Queen of Heaven and Earth, and let's see what happens. How bad do things have to get before God's ministers obey? (I'm afraid we're going to find out!)

LeonG said...

"Also, Our Lady said that in Portugal the Faith would never be lost.'

In spite of merciless persecution and the absence of priests for many years, the Catholic Faith survived in Japan which today has only a very small traditional Catholic representation. One might imply it has not been lost there either. Judging by some of Our Blessed Lady's statements in The Gospels we have to contemplate them for their deeper significations. I am sure the true Faith will not be lost in Portugal as the future will surely reveal. Remember that She was talking to a Portuguese about her own country so it would have been somewhat bemusing to state in this case that in USA the Faith would not be lost. It could sound oblique but in essence She is reassuring. Even more so when She says that ultimately Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. The mystery from the situation as it stands at present is the manner in which this will come about. Thanks be to God.

LeonG said...

How dysfunctional is the progressivist mind: yet another NO bishop enmeshed in scandal that serves only to undermine faith and mislead an already immensely disorientated world.