(Continued from page 351)The Anglican cult in the UK has recently been found guilty of 'relatively few' examples of abuse and paedophilia!
'Disgraced bishop who Charles refused to abandon'
The corruption in the Anglican cult in the UK has been exemplified in the past few years by 'relatively few' examples of abuse and paedophilia. One example was reported (The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd., Thursday, 8 October, 2015) under this headline:
How Prince, ex-Cabinet ministers and former law chief 'supported' bishop jailed yesterday for crimes against boys: Charles and a REAL VIP sex abuse scandal (By Tom Kelly and Rebecca English - excerpts) under the sub-heading 'PRINCE Charles was last night sensationally linked to Establishment support for a predatory bishop that led to a cover-up of his crimes':
'The heir to the throne was forced to deny interfering in the legal process to help Peter Ball escape sex abuse charges as the 83-year-old was finally brought to justice yesterday over offences against boys dating back 40 years. Charles' dramatic intervention came after the Old Bailey was told a royal had written in support of the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester when he was first investigated. The prince is understood to have been among MPs, cabinet ministers, public school headmasters and a former lord chief justice all said to have assisted Ball. ... Ball was jailed for 32 months at the Old Bailey yesterday. But in 1993 he was let off with a caution after admitting gross indecency against a boy of 17. The royal who wrote to support him was not named in court, but Ball counted Charles as a 'loyal friend' and publicly thanked him for providing him with a Duchy of Cornwall home following his criminal caution. Ball also read the homily at the funeral of the father of Camilla Parker Bowles in 2006. A spokesman for Charles insisted: 'The Prince of Wales made no intervention in the judicial process on behalf of Peter Ball.' However he failed to deny there had been a letter in support of Ball. In sentencing it was revealed that the former bishop: 'Trawled schools to hand-pick vulnerable teens for abuse; Promised a teenage monk he would one day become a saint if he accepted his advances; Convinced another teenager that he could treat his problems with sexual acts; Obstructed the career of a young priest who had spurned him.' Allegations against Ball were first made in 1992 by novice monk Neil Todd, one of many boys abused at the bishop's house at Litlington, East Sussex. Bobbie Cheema QC, prosecuting, said the teenager had been introduced by Ball to what he called 'penitential psalms'. This involved saying prayers naked at night in a chapel before Ball watched the teenager taking a cold shower and pulled down his underpants. Ball, who called the youngster 'love' and 'gorgeous', went on to suggest he be beaten with a stick or whipped so his body could 'bear the marks'. The abuse emerged after he tried to commit suicide in 1992. Gloucestershire Police launched an investigation, prompting more victims to come forward. But Ball was let off with a caution after the police received dozens of supportive phone calls from MPs, former public school headmasters, JPs and even a Lord Chief Justice, the Old Bailey was told. The defence claimed to have more than two thousand letters of support 'including letters from cabinet ministers and Royal Family', said Mr Cheema, 'It is impossible to say whether those letters were encouraged and it is unlikely that those who wrote were in possession of the full facts. Richard Scorer, of Slater and Gordon, a law firm representing some of Ball's victims, said: 'The way in which senior clergy and establishment figures - including MPs, Cabinet ministers and members of the Royal Family - closed ranks around him has only compounded his victims' anguish. This has reinforced the impression their abuse was inflicted upon them with the institutional backing of the Church.' Earlier this year, Mr Justice Sweeney refused to dismiss the case on a legal technicality after it emerged that Ball and Lord Carefully, then the archbishop of Canterbury, had been assured in 1993 that there would be no future action. Giving evidence, Ball recalled being told by a police officer - 'Bishop, it's all over' when he asked for a guarantee that his caution would include all other offences 'of the same nature'. Despite quitting in disgrace, Ball was also allowed to return to the Church two years after his caution and officiated in the diocese of Bath & Wells until 2010. And he launched a shameless attempt to have his caution overturned, accusing his victim of 'malice'. After his second arrest in 2015 he claimed his victims had been 'spiritually uplifted' by his treatment of them. Ball changed his plea at the last minute and admitted to offences against 18 teenagers and young men between 1977 and 1992. The Church of England yesterday apologised to the former bishop's victims and insisted Ball had also 'abused the trust placed in him by the Church'. Sources close to the prince were keen last night to point out that no evidence that such a support letter had ever been written had been produced in court. A Clarence House spokesman also made clear that the Duchy of Cornwall home had been purchased by the estate, not by Charles, and was rented in the 'normal manner'.
A further article appeared in the same newspaper (The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd., 8 October, 2015) under the headline:
By Rebecca English, Royal Correspondent
Bishop covered up vicar's sex abuse
[The article was preceded by a picture of Peter Ball and Prince Charles in 1992, months before his arrest, and then one of Ball arriving at court]
'When the Duchess of Cornwall lost her father in June 2006, Bishop Ball was invited to deliver a homily at his funeral. His inclusion at such a high-profile event - attended by Prince Charles and his sons William and Harry - was a clear indication of Ball's status in royal circles. Yet 13 years before the funeral, he had been forced to resign after being cautioned by police over a sexual assault on a teenage monk. Ball was even renting a house from the Duchy of Cornwall - the private estate which funds the heir to the throne. He had moved in shortly after his very public disgrace. Sources close to the prince were last night unable to confirm whether he had ever written a letter in support of Ball. And they were keen to point out that even lawyers involved in the case are unable to give details. At the time of Bruce Shand's funeral at Holy Trinity Church in Stourpaine, Dorset, Ball was still working for the Anglican Church. A royal source insisted last night there was nothing untoward, adding: 'It's wholly unfair for the prince to be dragged into the centre of a sexual abuse case.' And yet Charles and his advisers could not fail to have been aware of what had happened. Ball's arrest in December 1992 was major news at the time, not least because he was one of the church's best known characters, refusing to wear the ceremonial purple of a bishop in favour of simple, monastic robes, sleeping on the floor and taking vows of celibacy. He had been Bishop of Gloucester for just eight months and Charles was among the guests at his enthronement. His decision to accept a formal police caution for the offence in March 1993 involved, said Gloucestershire Police, a 'clear admission of guilt as a pre-requisite of being cautioned'. And yet within weeks he had moved into a pretty Duchy property, Manor Lodge in the village of Aller, Somerset. It is claimed that Princess Diana had banned him from visiting Highgrove. At the time Ball said controversially: 'He [Prince Charles] has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a Duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him. He has been through horrific times and is a great person.' It has been claimed, not least by one of Ball's other alleged victims, that the house was 'purchased' for him by the estate as some sort of gift - a claim Clarence House has angrily rejected. A spokesman explained yesterday: 'The property [Manor Lodge] was purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall, not by the Prince of Wales, and was tenanted in the usual manner.' The Duchy of Cornwall owns over a thousand residential properties across the UK. The Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, holds the legal title to these properties; the Law requires that his name appears on the deeds.' Asked what the 'usual manner' was and how long Ball had lived there for, the spokesman added: 'While Bishop of Gloucester, the diocese which contains Highgrove, Peter Ball rented one of these properties from the Duchy of Cornwall. Mr Ball vacated the property before his arrest in 2011. It was subsequently re-let to another tenant. The Duchy of Cornwall eventually sold the property in 2015.' One royal source acknowledged that Ball was known to the prince, although they played down suggestions of a close friendship, saying: 'Peter Ball was, until his resignation, the Bishop of Gloucester, which is of course the diocese where Highgrove [Charles's private country home] is. The Prince of Wales knows a number of senior members of the Anglican Church.' In 1998 the mother of the trainee monk sexually abused by Ball, 17-year-old Neil Todd, expressed her outrage in a tabloid newspaper that he was still living in a Duchy property. Mr Todd left the Church after telling how Ball forced him to perform sex acts as they lay naked in bed together, take ice-cold, early-morning showers while reading the Bible and stand side by side naked reciting psalms in front of a figure of Christ. He apparently tried to take his own life three times before committing suicide in 2012. His mother said: 'This man ruined my son's life. He is pure evil, a beast, and he's hiding behind God. This is quite unbelievable. I don't know what Prince Charles thinks he is doing. The man ruined my son's life and should have been locked away. Instead he now lives in luxury on one of the finest estates in the country. I don't feel Ball was ever properly punished - but the fact that the prince has given sanctuary to this pervert is staggering. I believe in the royals and support what they do, but Charles needs to look at the facts before housing someone like that. This is staggering and unreal.'
These articles are totally clear and describe the same kind of vile abuses perpetrated by the Papal Roman Catholic cult - but we have no evidence that they occur, or have occurred previously, in anything like the number committed by the popes and their minions! Is it possible that the Anglican cult is better than Papal Rome in covering up abuse they have inflicted on the unwary? Yes, but it is unlikely because the highest authority in the Anglican cult in the UK - the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 'Royal Family' - cannot even hide their own misdemeanours as 'druids' or in extra-marital affairs (as the death and subsequent exposure of Princess Diana's life in the 'Royal Family' illustrated so clearly)!
A few weeks after this rare report a related exposé revealed in the same paper (The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd., Wednesday, 28 October, 2015) - under this heading:
By Jessica Fleig
Pope Francis claims: 'In the Curia, there are holy people ... but there is also a stream of corruption'!
A paedophile vicar is finally facing jail decades after his sexual abuse was covered up by a perverted Church of England bishop who was friends with Prince Charles.
'Vickery House, 69, was yesterday found guilty of a string of attacks against four victims in the 1970s and 1980s while he was working as a curate and vicar in Devon and Sussex. His crimes were hushed up by sex abuser Bishop Peter Ball, 83, who avoided justice until this year. Ball wrote a letter of apology to a teenager who complained of being groped by House, assuring him it was being 'looked into' and 'would never happen again'. The boy did not contact police until 2012, when he told how Ball had hidden the allegation. House was found guilty of five counts of indecent assault at the Old Bailey yesterday. He was acquitted of a further three counts of the same charge. Judge Christine Henson QC warned him that prison is 'inevitable' when he is sentenced tomorrow. Some of the victims were also groomed by Ball, who was handed a 32-month jail sentence earlier this month for 15 years of abuse against novice monks. The court heard how the pair targeted young men seeking spiritual instruction on the Bishop's 'Give a Year for Christ' scheme. House, of Handcross, West Sussex, assaulted a 14-year-old grammar schoolboy in 1970 when he gave him a massage as he lay in bed during a trip to Devon. The father of two, originally from Seattle in the US, struck again when the boy was 15, but the victim escaped after they were interrupted by the doorbell ringing. Another of House's victims who was attacked in the early 1980s was also molested by Ball.
One paedophile in the Anglican cult wielding considerable influence was responsible for not inconsiderable abuse - but there is no evidence of the power of Papal Rome threatening an eternity in Hell for the abused who exposes their abuser, or of the colossal scale of abuse exhibited by your revered popes - which we have exposed on these pages!
All men and women are sinners (Romans 3:23; NASB: '... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ...'), but Papal Rome's un-Scriptural celibacy has led to this disastrous situation and no amount of unproven mud-slinging by Papal Roman Catholics can change that fact.
A long time ago, as we investigated the massive number of abusive cases and exposure of the homosexual hierarchy within Papal Rome, we came to the conclusion that the 'surprise' resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was not for the reasons announced publicly. Benedict has long been known to have been involved in cover-ups of this nature and there are only two reasons that led to his 'retirement': either he was sincerely embarrassed about this fact - or he was threatened with worldwide exposure of his clear involvement with these horrendous acts unless he resigned so that a more 'appealing' pope (presumably also, at least, fairly uncontaminated by this filth!) could be inserted in his place. Anyone knowing the Word of God will not be fooled by the front that Pope Francis attempts, for he has clearly been installed to present to the world 'a new and trustworthy face' - that only 'the ignorant and unstable' (2 Peter 3v16) will be fooled by!
Popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests without number have been habitual reprobates for centuries!
To ensure you do not try and waste our time with more moronic cop-outs we point out the admission by Pope Francis that a "gay lobby" exists in the Curia, the power structure of Papal Rome. In a meeting with leaders of Catholic communities of priests and nuns from Latin America, the pope said: "In the Curia, there are holy people. But there is also a stream of corruption. The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there. We need to see what we can do" ("Pope Francis," CNN Belief Blog, June 11, 2013). The pope was referring to reports that appeared in Italian newspapers in 2012 based on leaks to journalists from Vatican insiders. La Repubblica said there are "high-level Vatican clergy involved in homosexual affairs." Of course, this was not news to anyone used to the ways of Papal Rome. In 2003 the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland agreed to pay $110 million to avoid further sex scandal litigation after about 3,000 sex abuse victims came forward. In the USA, the Catholic Church had already paid out more than $1 billion to settle lawsuits against their pervert priests. The 'Bishop Accountability' organization had already admitted that more than 4,000 priests had been accused of abusing children ("US Church to Pay 12.6 Million," AFP, Aug. 11, 2008) which represented about 10% of the Papal Roman Catholic priests in the USA - and those statistics only included those that had been formally accused. A conservative Catholic organization documented this whole sorry business in the fall/winter 2002 issue of the magazine Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (the name is based on a phrase attributed to St. Ignatius the founder of the Jesuits - Ad majorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem - "for the greater glory of God and the salvation of humanity") observing: "… the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church - about 90% - involve homosexual priests preying on teenage boys. The major media and the U.S. culture at large want to deny or spin the homosexual factor out of the scandal."
The gross immorality among Papal Roman Catholic clergy is clearly not confined to the recent past but has obviously been a part of this cult for centuries, since celibacy was forced upon men and women in direct opposition to Biblical teaching. Such wickedness was rare and a cause for excommunicating the offending party in the days of the apostles and the faithful were instructed to even avoid association with fornicators (1 Corinthians 5:8-9) who claimed to be Christians, so the world would know that such conduct was condemned by the church and all disciples of Christ. The sexually profligate man at Corinth was not to be tolerated and his sins hidden but, instead, Paul wrote to the church: "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Corinthians 5v13).
What about the many women forced into immorality by Papal Rome's 'celibate priests'?!
Popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests without number have been habitual fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, mass-murderers, and ruthless reprobates who pursued their degenerate lifestyles immune from discipline. Far from being excommunicated, past popes of this evil ilk remain proudly displayed on the list of past "vicars of Christ." As the evidence clearly reveals, contemporary priests who engage in sexual misconduct are rarely expelled from the priesthood or excommunicated from the church. Instead, they are reassigned to another church or hidden in a monastic situation - and perhaps given psychological counselling. As we have already mentioned, secular psychiatry and psychology are largely derived from the occult and, whether the fake Christians of Papal Rome or secular bodies are employing the 'science', the results have repeatedly been shown to give false readings of the patient and often lead to further dangerous and depraved acts. Priests pronounced cured by such treatment centres (for example, Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico) have been reassigned to parishes only to abuse more victims (ref. Our Sunday Visitor, February 27, 1994, p5; National Catholic Reporter, January 7, 1994, p9). If a sinner of this nature claims to be working for Almighty God yet continues to sin after claiming to have repented (and not just expressed fake remorse of the kind exhibited by Judas who went and hanged himself - Matthew 27v1-10) he has shown that he does not 'fear the Lord' and should obviously be dis-fellowshipped until genuine repentance is observed (1 Corinthians 5) - and, even then, he should never hold a position of any authority or trust again (Acts 14v23; 20v17, 28; 1 Timothy 3v1ff; 1; 1 Timothy 5v1, 17; Titus 1v5; 2 Timothy 2v14; 2 Timothy 3v1-7; Tit. 3 v 9).
Commit the 'sin of marrying' & never function as a priest again - but sexually abuse children - and Rome protects you forever!
Papal Rome officially condemns fornication while thousands of its priests flout this man-made 'law' and many remember the National Catholic Reporter detailing:
"Seven French women ... companions of priests who ... are forced to 'live clandestinely, for a lifetime, the love they shared with a priest' [and who] represent thousands of women in similar relationships ... arrive at the Vatican August 20. [They] asked the pope to ... look into the reality faced by 'thousands of priests' companions who live in the shadows, often with the approval of church superiors, and by the children who ... are raised by their mother alone or are abandoned" (National Catholic Reporter, September 3, 1993).
Former nun Patricia Nolan Savas, who wrote 'Gus: A Nun's Story', writes:
"During my ten years as Sister Augusta ... I witnessed situations that ranged from compromising to aberrant. ... In theory, we were forbidden by the Rule to ever touch another person, male or female. 'Particular friendships,' considered serious violations of the vow of chastity, were to be avoided at all costs. And the cost of imposed asexuality and corporeal denial was always high and often tragic.'
"With the exception of a few select eunuchs, many of the priests and nuns I knew eventually rejected that intolerable burden and either abandoned the religious life altogether or formed liaisons with their fellow clerics or with outsiders.'
"There were the valiant ones who continued in their sincere attempts to murder the flesh and often fell victim to serious psychogenic disorders. Some still remain seriously damaged in mind and body, sequestered in institutions referred to as 'retreats' or other such euphemisms. A tragic number became alcoholics and quietly drank themselves to death.'
"A major cause of this appalling waste of lives? Celibacy - a virtuous state when freely entered into but an overwhelming millstone when imposed as dogma on the entire clergy, as it was by the Roman Catholic Church nine centuries ago" (Patricia Nolan Savas, "Misconduct by clergy is no surprise," USA Today, December 8, 1993, p17A).
The example of Apostle Peter repeatedly proves the false view of marriage held by Papal Rome!
Early in 1994, "Terence German, 51 [former Jesuit priest], filed a $120 million lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against the Church, Pope John Paul II, and Cardinal John O'Connor."
He accused them "of turning a blind eye to his repeated reports of other priests' sexual misconduct and misuse of church funds." German's formal complaint was based on his claim that:
"he gave up all of his 'worldly goods' when he took his vows in 1964 in exchange for a promise that the church would care for him until his death. The underlying assumption was that he would `live a life guided by the established principles' of the Roman Catholic Church. ...
"`The church - by acquiescing to pervasive sexual and financial misconduct - broke its part of the established principals. ... The Church wasn't enforcing its own rules, so [I wasn't] able to live according to the Church's rules ... with people stealing and in sexual alliances with small boys'" (Times, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 11, 1994, p. 3A).
German, a Vatican troubleshooter from 1978 to 1981 at Rome's Jesuit headquarters, claimed that "the pope turned a deaf ear to his complaints of sexual improprieties" and, when the facts could no longer be denied, the pope tried to say that such things were only occurring in the United States. "But that's hogwash," says German. "Its going on right in Rome, and he knows it" (Times, op. cit.).
Again, the astonishing hypocrisy of Papal Rome is seen in their acceptance of "celibate" fornicators, paedophiles, and perverts - and the disgusting fact that almost all the perpetrators were protected by being quietly transferred. In their new parishes they continued to celebrate mass and to perform 'priestly functions' amongst the unwary laity - until, as so often happened, they reverted to their vile sins. As Scripture states (2 Peter 2:22):
' But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire'.
What should wake up any person with normal reasoning is the fact that, if a Papal Roman Catholic priest committed the 'much more serious sin of marrying', he would be forbidden from ever functioning as a priest again - but sexually abuse children and you will be protected by Papal Rome forever!
Organizations such as ten-year-old 'Good Tidings,' which helps priests and women who are sexually involved, have sprung up around the world. 'Good Tidings', headquartered in Canadensis, Pennsylvania, has branches in Canada, Australia, and England. It is "developing ties with similar organizations in other countries, hoping to create a federation that can present a united front to the Church of Rome, which has dismissed sexual liaisons between priests and women as merely an American problem." Many priests "develop patterns of repeated involvement with women." Some of the priests' lovers consider themselves married, "in heart if not legally," and some relationships amount to "common-law marriage ...[but] when the responsibility of a child comes, the priest is gone" (National Catholic Reporter, Janaury 7, 1994, p5).
Perhaps these pathetic, fake priests, believe they are following the words of Jesus when they abandon the family they have created by going against the Word of God and embracing celibacy before breaking their vows to a false cult leader and following their lusts - until they turn yet again, perhaps quoting:
Matthew 19:29 - And everyone who has left houses, brothers or sisters, father or mother, children, or fields because of My name will receive 100 times more and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
Does Jesus advocate abandoning families and domestic responsibilities in order to serve the kingdom? Jesus has previously mentioned the separation that will occur between some family members because of the decision to follow him (Matthew 10:34-39; cf. 8:21-22). But Jesus did not come to abolish the family, for he upheld the law that demands children to honour their parents and rebuked those who developed traditions allowing them to circumvent family obligations (Matthew 15:3-9). Instead of abolishing or rejecting family, Jesus demonstrated the pre-eminence of a disciple's commitment to him and the kingdom of heaven. This forms a new spiritual family in relationship to him and to the Father in which the central feature is doing the Father's will (Matthew 12:46-50) 'will receive 100 times more and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first' (Matthew 19:29-30).
John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor condemns "intrinsically evil" behaviour which a high percentage of Papal clergy practice!
Anyone claiming that Jesus is giving a material incentive for following him is clearly incorrect for, in fact, he shows that serving him for the primary purpose of receiving rewards and prominence is the least noble of motivations for a disciple. Those who serve for the purpose of gaining rewards will be last, but those who have served only for the motivation of responding in obedience to Jesus' summons will be first (cf. Matthew 20:1-16). Peter's response shows that he too was driven by a less than pure desire for treasure in heaven (Matthew 19:23-30). When the rich, young ruler refused to exchange his wealth for following the Messiah, Jesus then warned his disciples about the danger that riches pose to a person's eternal salvation. Peter then flaunted the sacrifice that he and the other disciples had made to follow Jesus (Matthew 19:27 (NASB) - 'Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?'), but his question revealed a wrong motive. While Jesus acknowledged Peter's sacrifice and said that he will be rewarded, He also made it clear that this is the least noble of motivations for a disciple.
Notice also that Peter had temporarily left his wife to follow Jesus and the three Synoptic Gospels recount how Peter's mother-in-law was healed by Jesus at their home in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-18; Mark 1:29-34; Luke 4:38-41) clearly depicting Peter as being married. From Paul we learn that Peter's wife accompanied her husband on some of his missionary journeys:
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NASB) - 'Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?'
Papal Rome's insistence upon the unnatural and unworkable rule of celibacy has led to a (Scripturally false!) priesthood of hypocrites who profess one thing and live another for, as the National Catholic Reporter admitted: 'about 10 percent of priests report a sexual approach from a priest while they were in training. ... Spiritual directors, novice masters, seminary professors often introduce sexual contact in the context of their spiritual office' (ibid., September 17, 1993, p7).
Bishops from western Canada, visiting Rome in September 1993, asked the pope in a series of meetings to "grant an exception on cultural grounds and allow married priests among the Inuit and Dene peoples of northern Canada." The pope was polite but unbending. Fifteen centuries of "infallibility" can't be changed that easily (ibid., October 1, 1993, p7).
At Vatican II Paul VI used the dogma of papal infallibility to take out of the Council's hands critical issues such as celibacy and birth control, upon which he pronounced his own opinions. He demanded that all priests renew their vow or celibacy on Holy Thursday in 1970. Rome can't possibly reverse itself on celibacy without admitting that its infallible popes and councils have been wrong on this point, out of touch with the Scriptures and Holy Spirit for centuries, while those in the supposedly 'separated brethren' are proven to have been right all along!
Note: 'separated brethren' is the 'kind' way Papal Rome expresses its barely disguised contempt for 'Protestants' - and the many groups who were never in Papal Rome in the first place and therefore have never been 'Protestants' - such as Baptists and the survivors of the massacres perpetrated by the popes through many centuries.
AND this pope certainly knew it - for he was 'infallible'!
Another result has been a large number of AIDS cases among the priests of Papal Rome!
Papal Rome's hypocrisy is monumental. She continues to lecture the rest of the world on high moral standards and to pose as the arbiter and paragon of virtue, while tens of thousands of her clergy violate the very morals they proclaim. Consider the 179 pages of Veritatis Splendor, produced by John Paul II over six years and published late in 1993. This weighty 'theological treatise' condemns contraception, illicit sex, and homosexuality as "intrinsically evil." Conspicuous by its absence, however, is any admission that a high percentage of the Roman Catholic clergy practice all three.
Catholic theologian Hans Jung echoed the belief of the majority of Papal Roman Catholics when he called John Paul II's entire pontificate too "hard line" on sexual morality and suggested that such hardness, rather than preventing sexual misconduct, actually contributed to it - which demonstrates what an evil, heretical fool he is too! Kung, who was severely censored years ago after he rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility (as a result, he was no longer officially allowed to teach Catholic theology, although his priestly faculties were not revoked but he had to leave the Catholic faculty in 1979 and remained at the University of Tübingen as a professor of ecumenical theology, serving as an emeritus professor since 1996), called Veritatis Splendor (which church leaders hail as "a call to holiness") "the testimony of his [John Paul II's] failure. Wojtyla's point of view, after having been voiced in hundreds of speeches all over the world, has fallen on deaf ears. This is the crowning fiasco of his 15-year-old pontificate" (Inside the Vatican, November 1993, cover story, "After the Encyclical: Ratzinger", p4).
Chicago's Joseph Cardinal Bernardin boasted that Veritatis Splendor "reaffirms the moral vision that has sustained the Catholic community since the time of Christ" (Dallas Morning News, October 1993), thus revealing his astonishing ignorance of both the history and current conditions of Papal Rome!
Rome is beyond question that city which is the "Mother of Harlots" of Revelation 17, having created them around the world and down through history literally by the millions. No other city on earth even comes close to rivalling her in this regard.
Many books have also documented these issues, including:
Pedophiles and Priests by Philip Jenkins (1996);
Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children by Jason Berry (2000); A Gospel of Shame: Children, Sexual Abuse, and the Catholic Church by Frank Bruni (2002);
Religious Life without Integrity: The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church by Australian Catholic historian Barry Coldrey (2001);
Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church by the investigative staff of the Boston Globe (2002);
Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda by Paul Likoudis, editor of The Wanderer, the oldest independent Catholic newspaper in the U.S. (2002).
For an interesting Papal Roman Catholic view of Likoudis' book go to:
where Joseph F. Wilson, who wrote the foreword to the book, gives a revealing synopsis of the work. We include major parts of the web-page for readers who have problems going to the page themselves (and it may be taken down):
'These past four decades have been quite a ride. We went through a liturgical reform which was to have renewed the Church; a sixty percent decline in Mass attendance over thirty years resulted. There was a catechetical revolution, myriad new textbooks, methods, programs and approaches replacing the tried and true Catechism: forty years later religious ignorance abounds to such an extent that two-thirds of Mass-going Catholics cannot identify the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist when it is presented to them. The Religious communities which were such a vibrant part of the Catholic scene before the Council underwent "renewal" and have been staggering towards the grave ever since. Even if one were willing to concede that the Catholic Church of the 1940s and 1950s could not possibly have been as solid as it had seemed given the turmoil which swept through it beginning in the 1960s, the turmoil and decline since the Council has been stunning, and there has been an unfathomable aspect to it as well: the aspect of the denial of reality. Why has it been that the leadership of the American Church has stubbornly continued to speak and act as though we were in an age of renewal even in the face of this disaster? Why is it that, even after forty years, there has not been an attempt at an honest, thorough re-assessment of the path we have trod?'
'Can it be that, carefully as Msgr Kelly chronicled the problems, there is something far deeper wrong with the Church -- that as serious as were the irregularities and scandals he described, they were but the symptom of something far more serious?'
'Over the course of a couple of weeks, as I prepared to write the Foreword Paul had requested, I re-read the draft of the book several times, and I was conscious of two distinct reactions within myself. On the one hand, it was genuinely appalling to see the material he had assembled. For page after page, he recounts irregularity after irregularity, scandal after scandal occurring in different parts of the American Church over the last fifty years. To find such a chronicle assembled between two covers of a book is a disturbing experience.'
'But on the other hand, there was a reaction even more disturbing -- recognition. Most of this book cannot be classified as expose, because most of the stories set forth here are already known, and have been for years. They have all appeared in print. Paul relies upon his own reporting in his years as news editor of the Wanderer, and he relies upon the reporting in secular and church media. I have been a Wanderer reader for decades, and most of these stories I had seen before. As appalling as the stories are, as disturbing as it is to see them gathered in one place, far more appalling is it to realize that these things have all been known, have seen the light of day for years, even decades. And nothing has been done.'
'One reads, for example, of the Bishop who agreeably gave a professor of a secular university an absolutely free hand to come into the Catholic elementary schools of his diocese and conduct a sexuality study designed to modify the children's attitudes towards homosexuality, with a view towards studying the impact this would have on their parents. In the grant proposal the professor presented to the National Institutes of Health, he stressed that this was a valuable and unique opportunity, as he was being provided with access to a "hitherto shielded sample" of the population (Catholic elementary school children!!), and given "the freedom to employ treatments as progressive as any used anywhere in the country, in any type of school system, public or parochial." And he was quite correct -- in fact, the study he would carry out would have been illegal in the state's public schools.'
'Yet the diocesan bishop had committed himself not only to allowing the program to run its full three-year course, but to exercising no veto over the subject matter. Parents, it soon became clear, had at best the vaguest idea of the content of this program, which had been presented as an "AIDS curriculum." As a result, eighth graders were learning about anal sex and bestiality in their Catholic school classrooms! And, as the full dimensions of the situation dawned on the parents, they found the diocese extremely unwilling to listen to their objections.'
Now, undoubtedly, that story will sound utterly bizarre to you, and you will be thinking, "But, good Lord, that must be a total aberration." This is why you need to read "Amchurch Comes Out." I believe that, in its two hundred sixty pages, Paul has offered a compelling, credible answer to the mystery of the past forty years. Why have the multiple crises in the Church's life been so studiously ignored? Why have laity so often found it impossible to obtain a hearing from the hierarchy over abuses? What is really wrong here?
The answer Paul offers confirms the suspicion that the abuses chronicled by Msgr Kelly in 1979 were indeed merely symptoms, not the disease. The disease is much deeper.
Paul contends that in the decade from the mid-1950s through the 1960s, there were promoted to the episcopate and other leadership positions within the Church a number of highly unsuitable candidates, unsuitable because of their perverse sexuality. From the mid-1960s on, the establishment of the bishops' conference and the mushrooming growth of its bureaucracy offered all the more opportunity for such persons to move into administrative positions. Once entrenched, these men naturally sought to further the careers of others of like mind, and furthered as well a revolution in sexual attitudes which most Catholics never saw coming. In 1992, Paul Likoudis coined the phrase, "Amchurch," as a shorthand referring to a deeply entrenched, dissident faction within the American Church's hierarchy and its bureaucracy. This book describes how Amchurch 'came out.'
Those whose immediate reaction to this thesis is to dismiss it need to stop and consider carefully what we have been through in these five decades. Why is it that it was so important to completely revamp religious instruction, the liturgy, the structures of Religious life, and then, when the experimentation had disastrous results, why was no attempt made to correct the situation?
As I was writing the preface to "Amchurch Comes Out," a lay theologian offered a thought on this subject which I found so illuminating in its simplicity, I asked his permission to quote him. He said, "Years of watching the situation carefully have convinced me that it really IS all about sexual autonomy. People don't turn institutions upside down because they'd rather hear the Mass in English. You can do that without destroying buildings and the structure of religious life, and catechesis. You turn institutions upside down to support a 'complete change in teleological purpose' in your life -- and eliminate unpleasant reminders that maybe your new purpose, sexual autonomy, isn't such a great idea."
And the more I thought about it, the more sense that made. Perhaps you'd prefer to say simply, "personal autonomy," rather than "sexual autonomy" -- although you might revisit that after reading Paul's book. But I think my theologian friend hit a bull's-eye. If sexual autonomy is one's goal, one will not want the traditional Mass as the central symbol of the Faith, for the very form it takes will always seem a reproach: one will want a pliable liturgy, something one can shape to one's whims. One will obviously want to deconstruct Religious Life as well, that living image of the words of the Lord Jesus, "Seek first the Kingdom of God." And as for catechesis: well, why else would one promulgate religion textbooks that avoided subjects such as commandments, precepts of the Church, original sin; why else would one find situation ethics attractive -- unless one were anxious to usher in a new religion, one much more amenable to one's whims.
The elimination of everything which reproaches our constant search for gratification goes a long way to explaining the post-conciliar crises.
Paul's book is the most comprehensive, compelling and plausible explanation for the battering of our Catholic Church over these forty years. It is a disturbing interpretation of disturbing facts, but those who love the Church need to consider these things. As copiously illustrated as it is with examples of the perverse Amchurch agenda -- incidents which grew ever more brazen as the years passed -- the book offers a still greater service by tracing the interconnected clerical careers of the architects of this ecclesiastical train wreck.
As troubling as the public finds the stories of priests accused of sexual abuse, many are unaware of the extent to which such incidents have directly touched the American hierarchy. In recent years, we have seen the Archbishops of Atlanta and Santa Fe resign their sees due to affairs with women; two bishops of Palm Beach in succession resign under accusation of having abused young men; a bishop in Santa Rosa CA resign after credible accusations of having sexually abused one of his priests, and having bankrupted his diocese; a bishop in Springfield IL resign under accusations of homosexual promiscuity; an auxiliary bishop of New York die of AIDS after years of intermittent drug rehab; another auxiliary bishop of New York resign after admitting to affairs with women; an Archbishop of Milwaukee resign suddenly after a $450,000 payoff to a younger man came to light; a bishop of St Petersburg concede that a $100,000 settlement was made to an employee who had accused him of sexual harassment (and that bishop is still in office). I typed these cases out from memory, without referring to notes; obviously, there are others.
If you stop for a few moments and quietly ponder the fact that the percentage of bishops whose names have been linked with sexual incidents is appreciably larger than the percentage of priests, it begins to seem less mysterious that so many sexual offenders in the priesthood were tolerated by their bishops.
And, with all of these things to worry about, there remains a fact about which I am convinced we cannot possibly pray, think, and speak too much: the clergy sexual abuse problem is not an isolated cross we bear. We don't have ONE crisis: we have at least TWELVE of the damned things, and we have had them for Forty YEARS, and no one seems to be doing a blessed thing about them. Our Liturgy is a risible shambles in most places; our catechesis woefully inadequate; religious life, seminary formation, family life, moral theology, scriptural studies... Crisis after crisis after crisis. Why is it that, over the years, the persistent cry of the Faithful about these things has gone unheeded?
The current state of the Catholic Church in the United States of America is rendered much less mysterious by a careful reading and pondering of this book, by which Paul Likoudis has rendered a signal service to us all. To order it you do things like going online at www.rcf.org. Do NOT pass up the book figuring that you'll see the movie when it comes out -- your Mom won't let you see this movie in a million years.
Get the book...'
The link at the bottom of the page failed to work..........
April 2012 - first Roman Catholic official accused of protecting abusive priests by moving them from parish to parish?!
In 2000, the Kansas City Star newspaper published a book-length series of articles documenting that "Catholic seminaries in the 1960s joined in the sexual liberation frenzy of the decade; that many seminarians and priests embraced an active homosexual lifestyle in and out of the seminary; that many of these homosexual seminarians went on to ordination and were groomed for and entrusted to high positions by their superiors." One result has been a large number of AIDS cases among Catholic priests.
A trial in Philadelphia in early April, 2012, was the first case of a Roman Catholic official accused of protecting abusive priests by moving them from parish to parish. Monsignor William Lynn, who was charged with conspiracy and endangering the welfare of a child, served as vicar of clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004. "A grand jury alleged that he knowingly allowed priests accused of abuse to continue in the ministry in roles in which they had access to children, according to the district attorney's office. Lynn 'acted as if his job was to protect the abuser, never the abused,' a January 2011 grand jury report concluded.
The grand jury investigation eventually led to a guilty plea by priest Edward Avery and the related trial and conviction of Monsignor William Lynn and a mis-trial on charges against Rev. James J. Brennan. In 2013, Rev. Charles Engelhardt and teacher Bernard Shero were also tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Lynn was the first official to be convicted in the United States of covering up abuses by other priests in his charge and other senior church officials have been extensively criticized for their management of the issue in the archdiocese.
The Lynn case had reverberations across the country, including the October 2011 arrest of Bishop Robert W. Finn in Kansas City, Missouri, on charges that he failed to report suspected child abuse by a priest. Finn pleaded not guilty" ("Philadelphia Priest Abuse Trial to Open," CNN Belief Blog, March 25, 2012):
Report from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Finn_(bishop) :
'The Kansas City diocese waited five months to inform police that inappropriate pictures of children at a diocesan school were found on Fr. Shawn Ratigan's computer. During that time, the diocese did not inform the community of this discovery and Ratigan took more inappropriate pictures of children he knew through church contacts.
The indictment charged Finn with failing to inform police about child pornography found on Ratigan's computer. According to the indictment, the diocese was made aware of those images on December 16, 2010. Rather than reporting it, Finn ordered Ratigan to undergo psychiatric evaluation, then sent him to a convent under orders to have no contact with children. Without Finn's approval to do so, church officials reported Ratigan's actions on May 11, 2011 after learning that he had continued to take lewd pictures of children. Ratigan eventually pleaded guilty to five counts of producing child pornography and was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison.
On October 14, 2011, a county grand jury indicted both the Diocese and Finn personally for failure to report suspected child abuse, a criminal misdemeanor. While other bishops had been charged with directly perpetrating abuse, Finn was the first U.S. bishop to be charged in his role as a supervisor of priests, the first criminal case against a sitting bishop in the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Finn was convicted on one charge in September 2012 and sentenced to two years of probation. All charges against the Diocese itself were dropped.'
In 2007 alone the Catholic Church in America paid $615 million to settle abuse cases!
The sex abuse cases should be no surprise since Papal Rome was built on nothing but lies!
In case any fool tries to argue that the problems of Papal Rome exist predominantly in the USA note that, in July 30, 2010, there were further revelations concerning Papal Rome's homosexual priests when Italian magazine, Panorama, published an expose on "the double life of gay priests in Rome." The magazine, owned by Italy's notorious prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, used hidden cameras to capture priests visiting homosexual clubs and bars. A former Italian MP said, "If all the gays in the Catholic church were to leave it at once ... they would cause it serious operational problems" ("Catholic Church Embarrassed by Gay Priests Revelations," The Guardian, July 24, 2010). Even within Papal Rome insiders were quoted as claiming that the proportion of homosexual priests in Rome is "98%" while a 2002 report in the USA concluded that 'between 25% and 50% of seminarians and priests there are homosexual.'
Two U.S. federal appeal courts, the 9th and the 6th, even ruled that the Vatican can be sued for clergy abuse in America. But Papal Rome has so much power and financial resources that they will continue as they have done since the days of Constantine and buy people off or threaten them with punishment on earth or in the afterlife (if they are Papal Roman Catholics!). The recent ruling by the 9th circuit court was in favour of an Oregon man who alleged that he was molested in the 1960s by a priest at a Catholic school. The priest, Andrew Ronan, who died in 1992, was transferred by Papal Rome to America after being accused of molesting children in Ireland (Los Angeles Times, Mar. 5, 2009). In November, the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled in favour of three men who also allege that they were abused by Catholic priests with their lawyer seeking class-action status for "thousands of victims nationwide."
The following is excerpted from "Catholic Church Stung by Autobiography" (The Independent, London, Feb. 20, 2009): "A former nun's tell-all story which details illicit relationships, sexual harassment and bullying in the convent where she spent three decades is causing ructions in the Catholic Church in the south Indian state of Kerala. In 'Amen - an Autobiography of a Nun,' Sister Jesme says when she became a nun she discovered priests were forcing novices to have sex with them. There were also secret homosexual relationships among the nuns and at one point she was forced into such a relationship by another nun who told her she preferred this kind of arrangement as it ruled out the possibility of pregnancy. 'I want to express my feelings and to explain what happened to me... I want people to know how I have suffered,' she told The Independent last night, speaking from the town of Kozhikode. ... Sister Jesme, who quit last year as the principal of a Catholic college in Thrissur, alleges senior nuns tried to have her committed to a mental institution after she spoke out against them. ... Last night, a spokesman for the Syro-Malabar order of the Catholic Church, Dr Paul Thelakkat, dismissed Sister Jesme's allegations as a 'book of trivialities.' 'It's her experiences, but these are things that might creep into a society of communal living,' he said. Asked if the church would be shocked by the allegations, he replied: 'Absolutely not. The church knows about these things"'.
The following is excerpted from "Holy Mess," IrishCentral.com, Sept. 25, 2009: "A new survey shows 34 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, say they have no religion. Even more significant is that one-third of those, about 11 million people, are Irish Americans. The survey by professors at Trinity College in Hartford, CT, does not explain why Irish Catholics are by far the highest number of people who are losing their religion every year in America. ... Why are so many Irish Catholics leaving the faith? The obvious reason to me is the church sex scandals. They disproportionately affected Irish Catholics and most of the abusers we read about were Irish Catholic priests. Certainly, based on evidence from Ireland where hundreds of thousands have fled the church and vocations have plummeted after the church scandals there, America with a similar experience is unlikely to be any different."
But Francis builds on the same!!!
Since Pope Francis heads an institution founded on lies, it is little surprise that his messages during the recent 2015 trip to America were filled with the same. Papal Rome's lies include the papacy itself, the priesthood, the sacraments, Mariolatry, purgatory, and "holy relics." There is not a hint in Scripture that Peter had "supremacy" over the apostles or that he was otherwise any kind of "pope." It was a wretched lie from its inception. For hundreds of years, the popes used forgeries such as 'the Donation of Constantine', a shameless lie claiming that Constantine gave the bishop of Rome supremacy "over all the churches of God in the whole earth," granting him a crown, and donating to him "the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions." Pope Hadrian I (778) used this lie in his dealings with Charlemagne and it was used by other popes until it was publicly exposed as a lie during the Reformation. Then there were the 'Decretals of Isidore', used by Pope Francis' predecessor, Nicholas I, to claim that popes "hold the place of God on earth." These ancient lies have never been renounced by the papacy. By holding the office, regardless of how "humbly," Francis agrees with its foundational lies, so it is no surprise that his messages are filled with more lies. When he spoke at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City (September 25, 2015) he first of all whitewashed the Catholic Church's "clergy sex abuse scandal" by addressing his fellow priests in these terms: "[Y]ou suffered greatly ... by having to bear the shame of some of your brothers who harmed and scandalized the Church in the most vulnerable of her members." You suffered greatly!!! And the "some" actually amounts to thousands of priests who used their positions of trust to commit filthy acts with children, mostly boys.
In this speech Pope Francis could also have been accused of lying - had he been speaking as a genuine Christian leader - because, in his address he addressed Muslims as "brothers and sisters" (although one anti-Christ cult sucking up to another is probably fitting in the kingdom of Satan that they both inhabit). Muhammad blasphemously denied that Jesus is the Son of God who died for man's sins. The Qur'an states (Surah 18:4): "Warn those who say, 'Allah has fathered a son.' They do not have any proof about that and neither did their fathers. It is a terrible thing that comes from their mouths. They say nothing but lies". This is the false prophet who spawned the doctrines of cunning lying (taqiyyah and kitman etc.) that are essential to Muslims in life.
Apart from the abundance of articles on Papal Rome's perverts in newspapers, on web-pages, and in the many books written (such as those just listed) by those who know the truthfulness of the accusations, when we read your foolish assessment of Rome and ludicrous accusations against every other religion, we decided to use the Google Alert system which supplies regular updates to an e-mail address. Just typing in the following variety of key words to ensure article links were forwarded to our e-mail addresses we received thousands of reports. We list below the key words/phrases that proved that the reports and court cases continue to pour in, year-after-year, despite the massive payouts your cult has already been forced to handover to try and recompense victims:
sex abuse, # sex abuse, sex abusers, # sex abusers, sexually abused, # sexually abused, paedophile pastor, # paedophile pastor, paedophile priest, paedophile priests, paedophile # priests, paedophile # priest, paedophile bishop, paedophile bishops, paedophile Bishop, paedophile Bishops, paedophile # Bishop, paedophile # bishop, paedophile # bishops, paedophile # Bishop, paedophile # Bishops, paedophile cardinal, paedophile cardinals, paedophile # cardinal, paedophile # cardinals, paedophile # Cardinal, paedophile # Cardinals, paedophile archbishop, paedophile archbishops, paedophile # archbishop, paedophile # archbishops, paedophile # Archbishop, paedophile # Archbishops, etc.
By inserting the titles of each religion in place of the # (i.e. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, Evangelical, Jewish, Rabbi, fundamentalist, pagan, man, woman, teenager etc.) and, in every case, the alternative spelling 'pedophile' with every variation, we gathered thousands of reports. When we compiled the final list and tabled the results (see below) we were not very surprised by our findings: