Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Cardinal Sodano in his more 'angelic' guise.

The following is an excerpt from Jason Berry's expose of the Legion of Christ. The National Catholic Reporter is running a two part series detailing Berry's extensive investigation of Maciel and the Legion. It is really important that people take the time to read this series if only to compare Berry's work with what will come from the Vatican's investigation. The part I have extracted focuses on the part Cardinal 'Angelo' Sodano has played in protecting the Legion.

....After the ex-Legion victims filed a canonical case in 1998 against Maciel in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sodano as secretary of state -- essentially, the Vatican prime minister -- pressured Ratzinger, as the congregation's prefect, to halt the proceeding. As NCR reported in 2001, José Barba, a college professor in Mexico City and ex-Legionary who filed the 1998 case in Ratzinger's office, learned from the canonist handling the case, Martha Wegan in Rome, of Sodano's role.
"Sodano came over with his entire family, 200 of them, for a big meal when he was named cardinal," recalled Favreau. "And we fed them all. When he became secretary of state there was another celebration. He'd come over for special events, like the groundbreaking with a golden shovel for the House of Higher Studies. And a dinner after that."

The intervention of a high Vatican official in a tribunal case illustrates the fragile nature of the system, and in the Maciel case, how a guilty man escaped punishment for years.
(This is precisely why I maintain Catholics would be totally stupid to trust this system to fix itself.)

"Cardinal Sodano was the cheerleader for the Legion," said one of the ex-Legionaries. "He'd come give a talk at Christmas and they'd give him $10,000." Another priest recalled a $5,000 donation to Sodano.

But in December 2004, with John Paul's health deteriorating by the day, Ratzinger broke with Sodano and ordered a canon lawyer on his staff, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, to investigate. Two years later, as Benedict, he approved the order that Maciel abandon ministry for a "life of penitence and prayer." Maciel had "more than 20 but less than 100 victims," an unnamed Vatican official told NCR's John Allen at the time.

The congregation cited Maciel's age in opting against a full trial. (I wonder how many other cases were purposely dragged out so this excuse could be used to avoid canonical trials.)

An influential Vatican official told NCR that Sodano insisted on softening the language of the Vatican communiqué -- to praise the Legion and its 60,000-member lay wing, Regnum Christi -- despite the order's nine-year Web site campaign denouncing the seminary victims. The Legion's damage control rolled into a new phase with its statement that compared Maciel to Christ for refusing to defend himself, and accepting his "new cross" with "tranquility of conscience."

Maciel left Rome, the scandal seemingly over. Internally, the Legion insisted to its members and followers that Maciel was innocent.

In 2009, a year after Maciel's death, the Legion disclosed its surprise on discovering that he had a daughter. The news jolted the order and its lay arm, Regnum Christi. Yet in an organization built on a cult of personality, the long praise from John Paul suggested a legacy of virtue in Maciel. Legion officials scrambled to suppress skepticism.

Two Legion priests told NCR in July that seminarians in Rome were still being taught about Maciel's virtuous life. "They are being brainwashed, as if nothing happened," said a Legionary, sitting on a bench near Rome's Tiber River.

Thanks to Sodano's intervention, the order clung to a shaky defense in arguing that the Vatican never specifically said that Maciel abused anyone.

How much Legion officials knew about Maciel's other life -- the daughter with her mother in Madrid and three sons with their mother in Mexico -- is a pivotal issue in the Vatican inquiry underway.

How much money did Maciel use to support his families? How much did he siphon off for other purposes behind the guise of a religious charity?

Behind these questions loom others about money in the Vatican. Are envelopes with thousands of dollars in cash given to cardinals when they say Mass, give talks or have dinner in a religious house mere donations? The Legion of Christ raises money as a charity. How does it record such outlays? Does anyone in the Vatican have access to Legion financial records? (Let's be honest here, this isn't just bribery, it's money laundering. We also need to ask who were Maciel's donors. They all can't be little old ladies he bilked out of their money.)

When Dziwisz became a bishop in 1998, the Legion covered the costs of his reception at its complex in Rome. "Dziwisz helped the Legion in many ways," said a priest who facilitated payments. "He convinced the pope to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Legion."
In a book on Maciel published in Spain, journalist Alfonso Torres Robles calls an event on Jan. 3, 1991, "one of the most powerful demonstrations of strength by the Legion ... at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, when John Paul II ordained 60 Legionaries into the priesthood, in the presence of 7,000 Regnum Christi members from different countries, 15 cardinals, 52 bishops and many millionaire benefactors." One can just imagine the envelopes that exchanged hands.)

Maciel had the event filmed and a sequence used in a video the Legion sold until 2006. John Paul was a strategic image in Legion mass mailings and the video shown to potential donors when seminarians accompanied priests to their homes. The Legion no longer circulates the video.

The Legion has a presence in 23 countries, with dozens of elite prep schools, religious formation houses, and several universities.

Maciel's strategy of buying influence unrolled over five decades.


First off I want to say that I truly believe Benedict was not a part of the bribery/money laundering thing which seems to be how the Vatican functions. Unfortunately, for what ever reason, he did not have any influence stopping it under JPII, and it still seems to be part and parcel of how the Vatican operates during his pontificate.

In many respects, the Vatican City States operate as a rogue state. It is not really accountable to any other International jurisdiction and it's treated as an independent state with full diplomatic privileges. This is a situation which is ripe for exploitation by unsavory people and criminal syndicates. All one need do is minimal research into the Vatican Bank scandal to understand how this situation has benefited criminal interests.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that senior clerics take bribes and foster criminal enterprises. There is nothing in Canon Law or Vatican City State law to force accountability. Leaving it to their consciences is no strategy at all as can be seen in the case of Sodano, Rode, and a host of others. Need to launder some drug money, well Catholicism offers multiple avenues for such a conundrum. For instance, I still want to know who the five families were who gave Mother Angelica 50+ million dollars to fund the building of her Temple in Alabama, and this after her vision about it in---Columbia. I can think of five Colombian 'families'.

The point is not that Angelica took drug money, she may never have, the point is we don't know and the secrecy and lack of accountability for such kinds of large donations make it very possible she could have, knowingly or not. This situation makes the stance of the USCCB about the potential of Federal Tax rebates being spent on abortion insurance utterly laughable. Who are they to threaten the health care of an entire nation over an accounting issue when they themselves are utterly unaccountable for how they spend the money that hard working lay faithful donate?

How do they do that? With the same in your face chutzpa of Sodano who calls the global abuse crisis engulfing the Vatican 'petty gossip'. Which means in his mind, I guess, he was accepting 'petty' cash from Maciel.

Kudos to Jason Berry and the NCR for this series on Maciel. Maybe it will give the Vatican the heads up that it can't white wash it's own report on the Legion.


  1. Transparency! That's what's needed. And that's what's missing.

    And whistleblowers! Anyone who kept silent, and that includes the pope, is complicit!

    (I need a break from all this - and am going to take one.)

    Hold the fort, folks!

  2. Have a nice break TheraP. Lot to digest and it's hard to put a puzzle together when you don't actually have the corner pieces--yet.

  3. Berry's article is a much-needed antidote to the drivel we've been getting from the Curia and particularly from Cardinal Sodano. I think that money is the primary reason why Chaput's "investigation" will come out with a whitewash of the Legionaries of Christ. Unfortunately, the lack of financial controls and accountability tends to drift downward into the local parishes. There are a number of cases nationwide involving embezzlement or misappropriation of parish funds. I can think of two instances of financial misappropriation & embezzlement in my archdiocese. One involved the former pastor of one of the largest parishes in the archdiocese. He took money from one of the parish funds without accounting for it, and was removed from the pastorship and required to repay the money, although he wasn't criminally prosecuted. Another incident involved a lay employee at a parish who embezzled $100,000 from the parish. The lay employee was fired, criminally prosecuted, served a year in prison, and placed under an order to pay restitution to the parish.

  4. That's part of my point Khughes. We can get some accountability from folks who steal from parish accounts, but what goes on in the Vatican an in independent religious groups is an entirely different story.

  5. Colleen -

    I agree with you that Ratz is likely not involved personally in bribe/money laundering. But he obviously knew of it & approved of it - either tacitly or overtly.

    As 2nd in command to JPII he most certainly had influence enough to stop this. As he, along with Sodano, was an integral part of JPIIs inner circle which stage-managed most of his pontificate for him. And literally 'controlled' JPII.

    Regardless of the specific details or the mechanics of how this operated, the Legion of Christ was allowed to operate with impunity. The persons named in this article KNEW & allowed this to happen. At the very least via tacit approval.

    I would suggest that one consider that Opus Dei is very much in charge of the Vatican (and has been since JPIIs pontificate). The LC operates as its evil stepchild. While they, in truth, endorse what it is & has done, it also becomes very useful to the Opus.

    Plausible Deniability. The Legion of Christ - regardless of WHAT is true about its illicit & illegal operations - can be used as a clever scapegoat. Note well that nobody is blaming Opus Dei for any of these misdeeds....even though each & every charge leveled at the LC could be correctly pinned on the Opus itself. Opus Dei is coated with Teflon; nothing sticks to it. The Legion of Christ - a virtual mirror image of OD - is allowed to be held up for a 'show trial'.

    If you view the LC as an ancillary operation of the Opus Dei - a very public face with a zillion 'apostolates' of all kinds, globally - then the picture may start to come into focus.

    To try and untangle which entity did what to whom....and who funded what.....and which prelate is primarily in favor of the LC vs a pointless excercise. Because it's all the same. And if a Prelate had to be 'greased' to insure cooperation, that is nothing new in Vatican history.

    The key issue - the nexus from which all begins to unravel - is the Vatican Bank Scandal(s). These even link up to the directly connected Savings & Loan Scandals in the US, which ensnared Sen. John McCain (remember him?). Or do we wish to consider the connectivity of Legatus with Opus Dei? Of the connectivity of Legatus with money laundering?

    ...or with some curious coincidences relating to the Fall '08 collapse of the US economy?

    We speak not of mere 'conspiracy'; we suggest the consideration of reality. That there is a nexus of financial evil linked by various means & entities with the Vatican itself. The key to 'plausible deniability' is in the use of Compartmentilization.

    The goal being to keep the king (or true regime) blameless. It is for this reason that one hires a hit man via fourth party sources, who do not know the ultimate paymaster.

    "All one need do is minimal research into the Vatican Bank scandal to understand how this situation has benefited criminal interests."


    And such research will - if approached objectively - lead one right to the doorstep of the Villa Trevere in Rome.

    Understand the Legion of Christ as the (expendible....) stepchild of Opus Dei, and the door to understanding is opened.

    Also remember: Sodano is one of the key team who foisted the forged version of the 'Third Secret of Fatima' upon the world. Even as a sickly JPII spoke just enough off the cuff that those with Ears might know the truth.

    Anon Y. Mouse

  6. The topic of embezzlement of parish funds is simple:

    Many pastors steal. "Priest culture" views parish funds as 'theirs' to do with as they please.

    If you know of a pastor who is honest & does NOT steal - he is a rare bird indeed! And one whose friendship should be cherished.

    In priest culture, a pastor has three duties in re parish funds:

    1. pay the bills
    2. give the Bishop his 'cut'
    3. try not to get caught.

    The first two are the top priorities. If #3 fails, the degree of trouble the priest actually gets into is directly proportional to his standing with the bishop AND his connectivity with such as Opus Dei.

    The ones who actually go to jail either do not pass these tests, or have created such a public mess that they must be made scapegoats.

    But note well that what happens to the theiving pastor is NEVER as severe as what would happen to laity. Deals are struck with DAs.

    WHY? Because - as with sex abuse - the sticky fingered priest knows enough to have many other priests & even his bishop.....sent to jail.

    Bearing this in mind, one now starts to wonder WHY certain priests 'became dead' either in jail or facing jail.

    Or is the proper term...'suicided'?

    Anon Y. Mouse

  7. I checked out the Columbian connection and according to the

    "On a trip to Colombia, South America, in 1995, Mother Angelica visited the shrine of the Divine Child in Bogotá. Here she experienced a vision in which she claimed a child's voice told her to build a temple and that she and those who helped her would be blessed. She returned to Birmingham convinced that God intended her to build a temple shrine and monastery that could serve as a place of pilgrimage and worship in the United States. An initial private donation of $1 million launched the project. She never raised money for the monastery on the air, but five separate families and a private foundation donated a total of $48.6 million in support. In 1999, the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament was consecrated in Hanceville, in Cullman County."

    according to Mother Angelica herself, on her visit to the Shrine of the Divino Nino of Bogata:

    "In the courtyard of the Church, I saw a bust of a priest, the founder of the Basilica. The priest had a devotion to the Divine Child, and he had a sculpture made. He would talk to the sculpture.

    "One day he told Divino Niño that these people were hungry and there was no one to feed them. ‘If you don’t feed them, they will kill me and smash you into tiny pieces.’ This is a strange type of prayer. Soon carts appeared with food. This went on. Suddenly people came that were not well. ‘Divino Niño, if you don’t heal them they will kill me and smash you.’ ...he went to the Church (his superiors) to get money to build a Church. Instead, the people gave (him money) to build the Church.

    "Father asked me if I would like to see the original statue that the priest had made. We had to walk up a small hill and at that time I was still in crutches. The statue was facing away from where I was standing. So, I just looked up as every one else was doing. Suddenly Divino Niño turned towards me and said ‘Build me a Temple and I will help those who help you.’""

    Bogota is home to Columbia's wealthiest people, including bankers, industrialists, and yes, the famous drug cartels of the 80s and 90s. Even if Mother Angelica never took a dime of drug money, what good did that $50million do for Columbia's millions of poor?

    She was down there to look into working with the Latin American bishops to create a Spanish language EWTN network. It is undoubtedly through them that she came into contact with her wealthy donors.
    Again, so much for a preferential option for the poor.

  8. I know Orlando. I read that story previously and actually posted on it a couple of years ago. Build a "Temple". What Catholic builds temples? Chapels, basillicas, churches, cathedrals OK, but a Temple?

    But the thing that really drove me over the wall was the amount of $ in diamonds which were put in the tabernacle. Lots of diamonds. One wonders if any were blood diamonds. What a nice storage shed that tabernacle would make.

    Her rationale is that Jesus would have something beautiful and worthy of Him to keep Him company.
    I'm like where did He tell us to spend millions on diamonds to keep Him comfortable in a tabernacle?

  9. Colleen, TheraP et al:

    Have you seen Jason Berry's latest article about Cardinal Levada etc.?



  10. Colleen, TheraP et al:

    Have you seen Jason Berry's latest article about Cardinal Levada etc.?



  11. P2p, I did read that article and it is another head shaker.

    I also picked up an article today quoting Sodano:

    "There is by now a cultural contrast: the Pope embodies moral truths that are not accepted and so the shortcomings and mistakes of priests are used as weapons agains the Church."

    "Behind these unjust attacks against the Pope are views of the family and life that are contrary to the Gospel. Now accusations of paedophilia are being brandished against the Church. Before there were the battles of modernism against Pius X, then there was the offensive against Pius XII for his behaviour durng the last world war and, finally, that against Paul VI for Humanae vitae."

    "We are told that we are using the wrong strategy to confront these unjust attacks, that we should react differently. The Church has its own style and does not adopt the methods that are currently being used against the Pope. The only strategy we have comes from the Gospel."

    "It's not Christ's fault if Judas betrayed him. It's not the fault of a bishop if one of his priests has stained himself with serious faults. Certainly the Pope is not responsible."

    (Cardinal Angelo Sodano in an interview with L'Osservatore Romano 6-7 April)

  12. In re Mother Angelica -

    While I DO NOT in any way support nor would I ever justify the building of the Hanceville temple, let's not throw too many stones at Angelica.

    She is not an intrinsically evil person. She has however been very much 'used' & misled. Consider for a moment that since she established her Alabama convent in 1962, she has ALWAYS had Opus Dei & LC types fluttering around her.

    A simple, well intentioned, pious person being used by Opus Dei. Does this not remind you of....John Paul II? Remember, no matter how intelligent you are, you can be fooled & misled.

    That is very easy for 'professionals' who establish themselves as friends & helpers, eventually composing your 'inner circle'. In this mode, Angelica was 'chosen' & mentally/spiritually manipulated - as Karol was.

    Please step back & consider this carefully.

    Her piety & good nature were taken advantage of. The various OD & LC folks who were here 'guests' on her talk show were presented to her as 'the good guys'. As a cloistered nun, in the church business, influencing her thus would be easy.

    I will now speak very plainly: the statue which spoke to her was demonic. Christ would NEVER make such a request - nor promise to 'help' the criminal personas who would donate.

    Before anyone tries to say she was 'all bad' ponder this: why did they 'put her away' before the majority of the sex scandals broke? Before Ratzinger took the Throne?

    Think carefully......and remember that she was not only outspoken, but willing to buck bishops.

    ...and strokes can be induced.

    Anon Y. Mouse

  13. Anonymous:

    RE the article on Cardinal Lavada: I found out the other day that in 1962 two things happened. (1) States started to pass mandatory reporting laws regarding knowledge of abuse of children. (2) The Vatican tightened their own canons (secretly!) so that any investigations of clerical sexual activity had to be kept secret, on pain of excommunication.

    It is clear to me that the Vatican engineered subversion of US law in order to keep sexual abuse of children from being reported to civil authorities as the laws mandated!

    What do I have to say about that? Well, I'm not a swearing person, but I'd like to rent a sailor!!!

    I am taking a break from blogging - but I could not resist answering this question, given the research I did a few days ago. (If you're interested in what I found, just look for my blog at the bottom of Colleen's sidebar - and scroll down to the comments section. The particular links and quotes that substantiate what I've written above can be found in the comments - towards the end. Most of the comments are mine - as I gradually arrived at the conclusions I've reported above.)

    To say that I am disgusted and horrified at what is coming out is an understatement. What worries me even more, given how the Vatican can make canon law and keep it secret, is what we do not yet know! (Again, it's all in the comments there!)

  14. Here is a comment I am lifting from someone named "Little Bear" - directly from a Commonweal article which came up when I googled the link provided by Anonymous (on Levada). The comment, in my view, is outstanding and explains in a way that makes total sense psychologically something that Der Spiegel inadequately explained in its long article on the Pope:

    "In an article published in ARCC LIGHT, (which I first read on in 2008), Dr. Christine Roussel captured an excellent insight into Pope Benedict’s personality. She wrote
    that from Joseph Ratzinger’s childhood his “world was home, religion and study. When the Nazis upset that world (Ratzinger entered the junior seminary at age 12—but the Nazis closed the seminary a year later), he tried hard to avoid them, and then he ran for home, for his familiar world. This is a pattern I see repeated all through his life.”

    Roussel gave a number of instances demonstrating her points illustrating Ratzinger’s personality. While Ratzinger enjoyed the early days of Vatican Council II (with its emphasis on ressourcement—returning to the sources of Catholicism), the mature Council and its liberalism, culminating in “Gaudium et Spes,” which troubled him greatly and he fought it in word and print.

    After the Council, Ratzinger was, through the kindness of Huns Kung, invited to teach at Tubingen (the most prestigious and erudite university in Germany). While Kung was not afraid of the lively give and take of both students and faculty at Tubingen, Ratzinger was disturbed to the point where he had to leave it in 1969. He went to Regensburg, a new university which he had just helped establish. He wanted to create a new generation of docile, orthodox theologians (who questioned nothing that was taught them). As Dr. Roussel points out that when Ratzinger’s “beliefs and his authority were challenged, rather than dialoguing, he ran to what was secure and controllable.”

    (rest is in next comment)

  15. Continued:

    When John Paul II became pope, many believed that Ratzinger was the brains behind the Wojtyla papacy (this is not to diminish Wojtyla’s considerable intellectual gifts, charm and achievements). Both Wojtyla and Ratzinger shared similar traits—arrogant, a narrow-horizon Catholicism, authoritarian, intolerant, convinced of their absolute rightness, and zenophobic. But John Paul II could be more of the Romantic and a dreamer, could have more vision and empathy for the suffering (as he weakened and suffered toward the end of his life), and he lived more by emotion. John Paul II—could feel empathy for the Jews and “Separated Brethern” without worrying that the Church would be weakened while he focused on that. Back home (in the Vatican), Ratzinger the Enforcer kept everyone in place. And when JP II announced that the subject of women priests is closed—and may not even be discussed—Ratzinger chimed in with “And that’s infallible.”

    While Wojtyla the Bishop was able to sign “Guadium et Spes” at the Council, Ratzinger the Enforcer distorted that same document to justify “Dominus Iesus” in order to give form to his vision of the Catholic Church, with a reversal of the reforms of Vatican Council II.

    Another area that troubled Ratzinger’s comfort and control level was the liturgy. He really wanted to have again a single Roman rite. He wanted the Roman rite of the future to be a rite celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the traditiion of the rite translated directly from Latin into the vernacular. When it became likely that Ratzinger would likely be the next pope during the Conclave after Wojtyla’s death, restorationist groups began to prepare for the liturgical and other changes they knew he would make. And voila! We will have a new Roman Missal for English speaking peoples coming to our dioceses in Advent of 2011. Why? Because this is meant to bring the Catholic liturgy back to Benedict’s level of comfort.

    We cannot expect Pope Benedict, himself, to come out with anything to uncover the “something really big” that Henry Karison (and thousands like him) believe is hidden.
    Benedict believes his position must be separate from the “faithful.” He believes that there must be critical distance separating the church from the culture (John Allen’s biography of Pope Benedict, page 90). And if anything disturbs the Pope’s comfort level—it is the current cultural relativism, modernism and yes, Americanism (even if it is seeking to know the truth).

    Finally with so many of the world’s cardinals, arch/bishops, and even parish priests, circling the wagons to protect the psychological home and comfort level of Benedict, we will have to depend upon lawyers, various groups around the world and the media to keep “digging for the truth.”

    Posted as a comment at 10:41 am to the link below:

  16. TheraP

    Thank you for your generous replies. I have been visiting your blog. There's plenty of food for thought there.

    Enjoy your break from blogging. I stopped about 3 years ago when overwhelmed by an enormous injustice here in Canada. We bloggers had the whole thing figured out immediately. There was enormous pushback against us from the police and the government. It was more than I could deal with at the time.

    Thanks again!


    word verification: "cons all" I'm not kidding!

  17. TheraP I certainly hope taking a break from blogging doesn't include commenting.

    I would have to concur with that assessemnt of Benedict. In many respects he's a mommy's boy with a ton of brains put to justifying his own belief structure. Where of course he finds all his truth.

    I think one of the cards that will eventually come out is the use of pedophelia rings in Satanic ritual. This is already documented in material concerning the CIA--especially in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Google Operation Blue Bird.

    However, that's not the only place one finds pedophile rings amongst the high and mighty involving the Catholic Church, the GOP, and American Intelligence operatives:

    "Author Nick Bryant's new book, The Franklin Scandal, sheds light on a specific abusive cult with links to the GOP, the CIA, the Catholic Church, and various DC politicians. The scandal reared its ugly demonic head in 1989, when it was splashed across the pages of the Washington Times. According to the documentary Conspiracy of Silence, the story involved a Nebraska Catholic orphanage called Boys Town, which acted as a source of boys for a pedophile network.

    Lawrence E. King, director of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and a rising black star in the GOP, was in business in the late 80s with Craig Spence, the "pimp" of the operation. Spence and his boy-toys took midnight tours of the White House, thanks to military, intelligence, and Bush White House ties. Spence died a mysterious death in a hotel room just 10 weeks after the first story broke in the Washington Times. Conspiracy of Silence was later pulled from the Discovery Channel, and the Washington Post went out of its way to attack the Washington Times for covering the story. Two Grand Jury investigations in Nebraska convicted no perpetrators, and instead indicted two victims for "perjury," one of whom received the exorbitant sentence of 9 to 15 years."

    Here's the link to the full article.

  18. p2p, pay close attention to word verifications. It's one of the little mystical joys about this site and has been remarked on by at least a half a dozen different commenters.

  19. Anonymous, I love Canada! (Glad you're finding interesting ideas in my blog. I must admit, Cafe regulars are so sorry I'm mostly gone now. But truly, I had nothing more to say about politics. And then I turned the spotlight on the church... and that really was the last straw!)

    This business about Satanic rituals... well... I'm simply not able to go there. I know some MPD individuals have such memories. I know that for a fact. But what that means, honestly I've never delved into. Can't go there. Try to help the person - but don't delve into that stuff. (nevertheless if religious folk are also involved... then that would explain something to me... a fear someone had of a woodcut from a Benedictine monastery - with that person, I literally sometimes met her with a rosary in my pocket!)

    I'm now recalling your comment, Colleen, about not having even the corners of the puzzle yet!

  20. Read this:

    Amazing commentary from someone who apparently is not even Christian. But this guy truly has got this crisis!

  21. An assessment of Ratzginer which paints him as avoiding the Nazis is simply not true.

    A man who began indoctrination into Nazi occult ideology at age 10, guarded slave laborers at Dachau, served in Hungary coincident with the forced transport of Jews to death camps, & then concluded his service at army barracks in not fit to be pope. Much less a theologian....without public repentence.

    It should be noted that the sole military installation in Trauenstein...was a subcamp of Dachau. Truth.

    As to the balance of the Commonweal article - some is true; some it not. No time to go into that now. But much of the appraisal is generally valid, nonetheless.

    Satanic Ritual Abuse? This is not beyond the scope of reality. I would state that it IS true in re certain aspects of the known abuse cases in the Church. It is true both in the literal & direct & in the indirect.

    In another comment I referred to the priest serial abusers as "Manchurian Candidates". At least one of them in Ireland was well known for ties to the occult & threatening those who would speak up against him with placement of spells/curses.

    The more common "Manchurian" would be a priest abuser who is known of & manipulated intentionally. Enabled, transferred to new parishes & dioceses. He is a robot preprogrammed to destroy souls. These were groomed, nurtured & protected by the hierarchy.

    Around 2002 an alleged former victim claimed that Cardinal Edward Egan - along with ranking Chicago Chancery officials & highly placed civic officials - repeatedly raped him in ritual, group settings (in 1969 in Chicago while Egan was Cardinal Cody's right hand man) This even made the papers.

    But no serious investigation was ever carried out by Chicago police; they dropped the case. Egan crowed to the press that he had been 'exonerated".

    We may never know the veracity of this claim in this world. But as the alleged victim had not tried to sue for damages & only persued criminal wonders. Since he did not want money, I am inclined toward believing there could be something more to this.

    Regardless of the exact extent of the "Ritual' aspect of the abuse cases, one thing is certain. When you have an organized, systematic coverup - you are allowing evil to happen, intentionally.

    That is serving Satan. If the Ritual aspect is more widespread then some suspect, this only makes matters worse.

    If so, unlike "the gays did it" or 'blame it on the media', they will not be able to walk away from it.

    Anon Y. Mouse

  22. As to the Egan allegations, I was present when a respected psychologist (from Ohio, I believe) explained that he had interviewed the young man who brought the allegations (and possibly used hypnosis - he was an expert) and that the allegations turned out not to be true and the young man had recanted. This explanation was given in a professional setting and had nothing to do with religion. I had the sense the truth was being told. (but of course I can only vouch for what I recall hearing)

    I do suspect that some victims may have "memories induced" of a satanic nature. I've always considered that abusers might have done so in order to make the victim's recollections seem so bizarre that their mental health would be questioned and their stories doubted if ever they tried to "tell". That's just a conjecture. But it's possible, since abusers use many methods to try and deter any reporting - whether by a child (who grows up) or by any adult who might believe the child.

    I'm not questioning the veracity of abuse taking place. Nor am I questioning that memories can be repressed and later return. Only pointing out that it's also possible for abusers to hypnotically induce false recollections (as a way of making the victim appear either crazy or unreliable as a reporter).

  23. That's interesting TheraP because some of the MPD's from Project Bluebird have stated they didn't know how true their memories of satanic ritual actually were. Some think that the scenes they remember may very well have been staged in order to confuse them.

    Others think the introduction of that kind of fear on top of the sexual abuse was ritual in the sense it consistently worked to disassociate the victims, especially girls.

  24. Thank you, Colleen! It sure fits! I do know one other person who was shown films which must have been Satanic. And that too, for a child, could induce a sense of "being there".

    I'm going to put up a short blog on that great article by the Oxford grad student. I've read it maybe 5 times. What a great writer and thinker this young man is!

    I simply am "grasped" by this - despite my desire to get away from it!

  25. I love the caption "Cardinal Sodano in his more 'angelic' guise."

    word verification: tales

  26. Colleen -

    As to the Egan case....since it has been summarily dismissed (rightly or wrongly) we may never know the whole truth.

    But I find the concept of the abuser using something akin to hypnotism to induce false memories in the abused to be very plausible. Regardless of the precise method used, the purpose is to "mind___k" the victim completely. To confuse him/her, so that he is unsure where reality begins & ends.

    This is mind control - whether of not literal (or psychic) 'hypnotism' is employed. Having dealt with priests, I can say that many of them (even if not abusers) can be skillful manipulators. Since rape is about power more then sex, getting 'voluntary' compliance (and silence) from the victim involves mind control.

    In the Egan case, the 10 year old boy victim was allegedly REPEATEDLY ritually raped by multiple abusers at once. Why would he keep coming back? If such a story was true, then mind control has to have been involved.

    Even if the context of the abuse scenario is not literally a satanic ritual, the use of mind control is....satanic. As you are using devious means to overpower, manipulate & control another human being for your pleasure. Free will of is God; devious control is of Satan.

    And intentionally scrambling the brains of the victim so as to make them appear 'crazy' should they try to report the abuse to law enforcements, is equally Demonic in nature.

    My personal opinion of the Egan case: where there is smoke, there is surely at last some fire. That they victim is not lying (though possibly suffering from mind altering). And that money talks.

    Anon Y. Mouse