#DefundtheUSCCB: And Demand they fire Donna Grimes

I'm not in favor of riots, but this is one building that the rioters and looters are welcome to!

USCCB official 'elated' over Harris, Biden's pro-choice VP pick

Donna Toliver Grimes is the associate director of African American affairs in the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Cultural Diversity in the Church. She said Kamala Harris will make, “policy that is favorable to people on the margins.”

Stop Feeding the Bishops' Evil Bureaucracy

Why didn't we just eat the pork?

The Lepanto Institute headed by Michael Hichborn recently revealed how the bureaucrats at the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) attempted to bribe them with a grant from the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) if they would stop exposing the evil groups the bishops' "charity" funds.

Really? That's what Jesus would do?

Lepanto refused, of course, so they have been the target of a relentless attack to discredit their attempts to get the CCHD, Catholic Relief Services, and Catholic Charities to stop funding evil organizations and programs that promote intrinsically immoral actions like homosexual behavior, abortion, contraception, and other moral evils opposed by Catholic doctrine.

It's more than shocking and it demonstrates the reality that love of money is the root of all evils. Check it out here. The USCCB is a conduit for your tax dollars as well as contributions you put in the collection basket, and if it means they have to commit a little evil to get the dough -- well, the new reality is "Hey, you patsies in the pew, we cooperate with just a little moral evil because we're doing oh-so-much good."

Bishops' Adviser Adresses Pedophile Conference

Did you hear about the pedophile conference that took place in Baltimore on August 17th? Sponsored by a group called B4U-ACT, the conference is promoting changes to the American Psychological Association's (APA) classification of pedophilia. According to LifeSite News:

B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.

Of course not. This is a crusade to topple another barrier against sexual deviance, to foster acceptance of any and all "sexual orientations" as normal and good. What the pedophile community wants is the elimination of laws regarding child pornography and the age of consent. The crusade begins with bogus "research" and the demand to de-stigmatize the behavior.

B4U-ACT currently wants a change to the definition of pedophilia in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which, according to Dr. Judith Reisman, an international expert on human sexuality, has already been watered down making it almost meaningless. She points out that the effort to normalize pedophilia has been going since the 70s.

This entire scenario is deja vu. If you recall, the homosexual community led by gay activist Franklyn Komeny, used the identical tactic to normalize same sex perversion with all its disgusting practices. First they lobbied the APA to remove the DSM designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder, then declare it normal, then shove it down the throat of mainstream America.

Well, the homosexuals are well on the way to universal same-sex marriage, so it's time for the next barrier to go. Watch as they take laws against child pornography and child rape to the chopping block. After all, as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) says, "Sex before eight or else it's too late." And they insist that minors no matter how young can engage in consensual sex.

One of the most sickening thing about this conference is its link to the USCCB through their "expert" adviser Dr. Fred Berlin an abuser enabler par excellence. It was Berlin and his cohorts who advised the bishops that abusers could be treated and returned to ministry. Dr. Reisman has suggested that the bishops should have sued their "experts."

I'll address Berlin and his associates in a later post. For now, let me just provide one quote from the USCCB "expert:"

“Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality,” writes Berlin on the B4U-ACT website, “society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.”

Well, we know what the "mental health solution" was for homosexuality. Define it as normal, promote tolerance, then acceptance, then define it as a positive good equal to any other "sexual orientation." We are moving in that direction on an entire smorgasbord of sexual disorders including pedophilia, polyamory. and polygamy. Watch for articles telling how good the attention is for children.

Bishop Kicanas Clarifies...Or Does He? Pray the Bishops Just Vote No on this Homosexualist Bishop

Homosexualist:  One who, while he may not be homosexual himself, enables the homosexual agenda.

Bishop Kicanas is not happy with the article that appeared recently in the National Catholic Register questioning his actions as seminary rector of Mundelein in Chicago where he approved the ordination of future serial sex abuser Daniel McCormack despite knowing he had three homosexual encounters in college including one with a minor. Since the bishop is up for election as head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) this week, he is obviously in damage control mode which begins with saying he was misquoted in the November 2007 Sun Times article. Here's the quote in question:

It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained [Daniel McCormack]. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that. I don’t think there was anything I could have done differently.

The bishop took no action to correct what he now calls, three years later, an inaccurate, out-of-context quote. It's hard to imagine a context that would make the statement more acceptable. Considering that the quote also came up in a deposition with Cardinal George over McCormack's abuse, correcting it would seem to have been imperative. Cardinal George treated the quote as accurate when he responded to questions about it. But Bishop Kicanis now says the newspaper got it all wrong. Here's the spin he puts on it in an interview with the National Catholic Register:

I do take exception to that quote. It does not accurately reflect what I said and was put into a context that is not accurate. [If he didn't say it, how could it be out of context?] For instance, I would never defend endorsing McCormack’s ordination if I had had any knowledge or concern that he might be a danger to anyone, and I had no such knowledge or concern. At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him. [What about consensual sex encounters with  adults? Kicanas did have details about three sexual incidents that occurred while McCormack was in minor seminary, one involving an underage youth  during a trip to Mexico. It concerned a fellow seminarian enough to report it. Why didn't it concern his superiors including Kicanas? Perhaps Mundelein's reputation as a gay friendly seminary explains it]

The Register interview is fascinating and the Catholic Culture website pointed out the careful legalism in the bishop's responses:

In comments to the Register, Bishop Kincanas says that he would never have advocated McCormack’s ordination if he knew that the man would be accused of molesting dozens of boys. Well, yes. But did he have any reason—back when he was rector of Mundelein seminary—to suspect that McCormack might have troubles with sexuality?

At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him. I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.

Right. Understood. At the time, he was not a certified abuser. But was he troubled?

I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.

The Register correspondent, Tim Drake, poses the obvious question in an interesting way:

You said, “I was more concerned about his drinking.” You were more concerned about his drinking than what? Your statement seems to indicate that there were other problems/issues, more than just McCormack’s drinking.

No response.

Finally, after roughly 1,000 words, Bishop Kicanas divulges the information that there were concerns about McCormack’s behavior. There were reports of—can you guess?—consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking. Thus the rector was concerned about the young man’s alcohol consumption. But there was never a hint that McCormack would be unfit for the priesthood, because—let’s hear it one more time--

While he was at Mundelein, no allegation or report or concern of sexual abuse of anyone was ever made against McCormack.

Bishop Rene Gracida, retired bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi has collected a wealth of material on the Kicanas affair. Visit his blog here.

A little additional background puts Bishop Kicanis' denial in perspective. Prior to becoming rector at Mundelein he was rector, principal, and dean of formation at Quigley Preparatory Seminary. He became rector at Mundelein in 1984. Allegations about McCormack came out in 1992. In 1995 Kicanis was named an auxiliary bishop for Chicago. According to his bio on the Tucson Diocesan website, Bishop Kicanas has over 25 years experience in seminary education. Remember that this time frame of seminary activity coincides with the massive infiltration of homosexuals into the seminary and the persecution of good men applying to the priesthood. Michael Rose describes it in detail in his book Goodbye! Good Men published in 2002. Rose spoke to a number of men with experience at Mundelein who described the gay subculture including special treatment for gay seminarians, blackballing of orthodox students, and sexual relationships among seminarians and between faculty members and seminarians. Some of these students began their tenure at Mundelein while Kicanis was rector and continued there under Fr. John Canary who succeeded him.

Another sex abuse case that involves Kicanis is that of Fr. Michael Yakaitis who, in 1990-91 abused a seminary student at Niles College, the same minor seminary Daniel McCormack attended prior to entering Mundelein. The abused student, who self-identified as homosexual, applied to Mundelein in 1993 describing the abuse he experienced at Niles, but expressing his desire to continue seminary training. Kicanis recommended he take two years off for therapy to resolve his issues of anger over the betrayal of trust before reapplying. The abusive priest, however, remained in ministry until 2005 and, in fact, was assigned to Calvert House, a student center, in 2001.

Despite Yakaitis' history of abuse being well known to a number of highly placed clerics, it took SNAP exposing it that finally led to the priest's resignation. Kicanis wasn't the only one who knew of the abuse according to SNAP. In their February 8, 2005 letter to Cardinal George, SNAP wrote that the "victim subsequently reported the sexual abuse to at least seven church officials including Fr. John Canary, current rector of St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, Mundelien; Fr. Gerald Kicanis, now bishop of Tucson, and Fr. Larry McBrady, a former Vicar for Priests under your administration....Fr. Canary confirmed meetings between the victim and numerous church leaders as well as the victim's account of Fr. Yakaitis' misconduct."

So what happened following revelations of serious misconduct, i.e., faculty abuse of a student? Fr. Yakaitis was moved to a parish for a few years and then assigned to another school, an example of the typical cover-up of sex abuse which helped fuel the sex abuse crisis which came to a head at the bishops' Dallas meeting in 2002.

One conclusion from all this is that Bishop Kicanas is soft on homosexuality, but he's also soft on abortion and pro-abortion politicians, as well as soft on heterodoxy. In fact, writer Tom Bethell reporting on a talk by Fr. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit magazine, America, who was forced out by the Vatican for his lack of fidelity to Church teachings, called Kicanas "the leading liberal hope" among the bishops and "in the Bernardin mold." Such praise, is well earned. Kicanas is the darling of the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), the mouthpiece of liberal dissent. NCR called the Register article "character assassination," an ironic accusation in view of their regular attacks on the pope and orthodox leaders.

It's not surprising that the pro-abortion Catholics at NCR love Bishop Kicanas. Not only is he silent when pro-abortion politicians use his diocesan churches to proclaim their "pro-choice" positions, he championed Notre Dame's decision to honor the most pro-abortion president in history. Since Fr. Jenkin's disgraceful action, Bishop Kicanas, according to Thomas Peters at the American Papist blog, has "doubled-down in his support of the institution." The fact that over 100 bishops protested Notre Dame's betrayal of the faith underlines Bishop Kicanas' treachery.

As for orthodox Catholics in the pew who are watching the bishops' meeting with concern, a Kicanas' victory will prove that it's business as usual at the USCCB where liberal committees put out questionable documents and money from national collections is diverted to organizations that support abortion and help put pro-abortion politicians in office. No matter what happens at the meeting, however, one thing is certain; the laity are no longer asleep in the pew. And, judging from Bishop Kicanas' response to criticism, it's scaring the liberal bishops to death.

USCCB Scheduled to Elect Bishop who Enabled Sex Abuser

For God’s sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition.    - St. Peter Damian, 1049

The USCCB will hold its semi-annual meeting in a few weeks. One of the items on the agenda is the election of a new president. If things go as expected the vice president, Bishop Gerald Kicanis, will move up. And what a fitting appointment he is for the bishops' vile bureaucracy. One of Bishop Kicanis' claims to fame is his enabling of mega-sex abuser, defrocked and jailed priest, Daniel McCormack.

Kicanis was the rector of Mundelein Seminary in the 1990s when McCormack was a seminarian there and knew of three cases of "sexual improprieties," one involving a minor. Kicanis recommended McCormack's ordination anyway. His assessment even after McCormack's history of child sex abuse was,  "It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that." Sexual activity with a minor is part of the "developmental process?" Please!

So 23 youngsters (at least) were sexually abused and psychologically damaged because it was "unfair" to recognize McCormack's homosexual depravity for what it was and refuse him ordination. To see exactly how horrible McCormack's actions were go here and read what one father only recently learned about the homosexual rape of his young son over a three-year period. He can thank Bishop Kicanis for helping it happen.

How many "sexual improprieties" involving minors are necessary, Bishop Kicanis, to know someone shouldn't be ordained? Current USCCB head, Cardinal Francis George, was also involved in promoting and enabling McCormack. He kept him on even after his own review board recommended action and after McCormack was arrested on charges of molestation.

McCormack went to jail in 2007 but the men who enabled him were elected by their brother bishops to run their national group. And now Bishop Kicanis, who could have stopped McCormack at the outset from having access to kids, is positioned to move into the top slot.

God help us.

For an interesting article on the liberal Bishop Kicanis go here.

Almost 50 CCHD Grantees Engage in Activities Opposed to Catholic Teaching

The bishops continue to stonewall about the scandal of using money collected from trusting Catholics to fund organizations promoting decidedly un-Catholic activities: abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, etc. It's important to let your Catholic friends know that a dollar for CCHD may fund abortion lobbying. A handful of bishops have stopped participating in the collection but most are silent enablers who continue to promote the fantasy that CCHD serves the poor. Read more here....

Thank the Bishops for the Health Care Bill: They Let the Catholic Heretics Flourish

"'All the evil in the world is due to lukewarm Catholics.'...All the evil in the Church is due to lukewarm bishops."

With all the bad things coming out of the USCCB, This Post Asks a Serious Question

Is the USCCB an Intrinsic Evil?

The USCCB Gestapo Strikes Again

We call our bishops shepherds because they have the responsibility to protect the flock from "the world, the flesh, and the devil." They are the primary teachers of the faith in their dioceses and, as a body, they reflect to the world the face of the Catholic Church in the United States. As such, one would expect them to revel in presenting themselves as Jesus did -- open and available to hear the cries of their people. Is that the experience most of us have of our bishops, particularly as a body, -- welcoming us with open arms like Jesus, never too tired to heal the sick and touch the outcasts? Unfortunately no.

In fact the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) leadership and staff go out of their way to protect the bishops from the flock. The June meeting that just took place in San Antonio gave us one more bizarre example. American Life League (ALL) ran an ad in USA Today the first day of the bishops' meeting urging the bishops (once again as in former years) to deny Communion to obstinate public sinners like pro-aborts Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. ALL chose USA Today because the hotel delivers a complimentary copy to every room. Well, the hotel ordinarily delivers it to the rooms, but the bishops' staffers had instructed that the New York Times be delivered instead. When the on-site member from ALL contacted the desk, he offered to pay for USA Today to be delivered to the bishops' rooms. The clerk was agreeable but when the ALL member called back later the clerk referred him to the hotel contact person working with the USCCB which would not allow it. They had approved only the Times for the meeting. God forbid that the bishops should see the face of that little pre-born baby and be challenged by the words of St. Matthew: "Whatever you did not do for these least ones, you did not do for me." They must be protected at all costs from seeing and reading:

It is a duty in charity to warn not only pro-abortion Catholic politicians not to receive Communion, but to instruct priests and extraordinary ministers not to give such people Communion. We must, as St. Peter said, obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

If you won’t enforce Canon 915 for the sake of the least of these babies in the womb, do it for your politicians and friends who are “stumbling to the slaughter.”
(Proverbs 24:11)

The past is prologue to the future. The USCCB nonsense is nothing new. Two years ago, the Catholic Media Coalition had a hospitality suite during the bishops' November meeting in Baltimore. Twelve bishops visited and a few even stayed for prolonged conversations about diocesan touching programs and spreading devotion to Our Lady of America. No bishop was forced to come. They were welcomed with open arms. But in 2008 when we attempted to repeat what we thought was a very successful and positive effort with the bishops, we found that the USCCB staff had reserved ALL THE SUITES. (At a pretty cost, I can tell you. We spent close to two thousand dollars for a suite for two nights.) It was clear that the staffers and USCCB bosses wanted to make sure the sheep had no contact with their shepherds during the meeting that they could not control. There's more to the pathetic story, including a threat of arrest, which you can read in my article The Devil's Triple Play.

While USCCB staff successfully blocked us (and others who might be tempted to do the same thing) from having a hospitality suite, they couldn't prevent another effort. We joined with ALL to hold a prayer vigil outside the hotel on the Harbor concourse. We had about 50 people join us in prayer and song. Although we sent invitations to selected bishops before the meeting and made some personal calls none braved the chill to join us for the rosary and rally.

Despite the on-going hostility of the bishops' bureaucracy toward faithful, orthodox Catholics, we remain undaunted. The Catholic faithful, under Canon Law, have a right to express their concerns to their bishops, and our shepherd-fathers have an obligation to listen. Like the widow before the unjust judge we will continue to seek justice for the unborn and proclamation of authentic Catholic doctrine - always respectfully, always undergirded by prayer. Those bishops with ears to hear will listen. The others will answer for their dereliction of duty in the end. As for the bishops' bureaucracy, the old saying applies: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"