What People Are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ouellet vs Vigano & San Diego Catholics
SSPX
I was wondering what your take on the SSPX was.
Cheers.
T.F.
______________________
TIA responds:
Hello T.F.,
Please, read this page.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
______________________
Women’s Ordination Protest
Below you can see a few women asking the Pope and Bishops who are meeting at the Synod in Rome to approve women’s ordination.
I wonder whether this “protest” was orchestrated by the same progressivists who are directing the Synod to give them a pretext to go forward on other points. Then, they could say: “Look, we denied the ordination of women, which shows we are impartial. But now, let's take a 'pastoral approach' and allow youth to contracept and have pre-marital sexual relations.”
Let's see what comes from this new circus.
E.J.
Members of the women's ordination conference stage a 'singing' protest on the occasion of the opening of synod, at the Vatican, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2018. (Credit: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia.)
______________________
Lay Catholics React in San Diego
For Immediate Release: October 5, 2018
SAN DIEGO, Calif. - "Acting with urgency and with purpose," local Catholic lay leaders have launched Concerned Catholics of San Diego (CCSD), a grassroots initiative spearheaded by attorney Charles LiMandri. The first order of business: Seek "truthful answers" from San Diego Bishop Robert W. McElroy about the sex-abuse crisis.
"The Catholic Church, including here in San Diego, is facing an unprecedented crisis," said LiMandri. "We believe the time is now to mobilize the lay Catholic community in San Diego to bring renewal to the Church."
In a detailed letter delivered to Bishop McElroy today, CCSD members sought answers, for example, about what concrete steps will the Bishop take "to meaningfully include the laity in the process of purification and reform of the Church hierarchy that will include accountability, transparency and an emphasis on maintaining clerical celibacy."
A particular concern is a 2016 letter Bishop McElroy received from A.W. Richard Sipe, a leading researcher of the sexual and celibate practices of Catholic bishops and priests. In the letter, Sipe tells McElroy: "Sooner or later it will become broadly obvious that there is a systemic connection between the sexual activity by, among and between clerics in positions of authority and control, and the abuse of children."
McElroy never acted on Sipe's warnings.
CCSD has also launched a petition drive to publicly demand that Bishop McElroy answer the questions in the group's letter.
"We are devastated by the evil that has spread throughout the Church," LiMandri said. "But we are also hopeful that this tragedy will bring about an extraordinary spiritual renewal not only among the clergy but the whole Church."
Concerned Catholics of San Diego is a grassroots coalition formed to mobilize the lay Catholic community to seek change and accountability in the wake of the Church's sex-abuse crisis. For more information, please contact Daniel Piedra at 858-759-9948 or visit CCSD's website at https://concernedcatholicssd.org/.
______________________
A Failing Justice in Chicago
Please Share: This was sent to both the Tribune and the Sun Times and no guarantee of being published. Written by Retired Deputy Mike Hoke of the Chicago Police Department.
T.H.
To the Editor,
I, along with many others, am shocked about the amount of violence this past weekend.
I believe that the police are doing all they can to prevent the violence but I also believe that the rest of the criminal justice system in Cook County is failing the public.
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle has publicly stated that way too many black males are incarcerated and she has made it her mission to address her concerns. She has influenced State's Attorney Foxx, Chief Judge Timothy Evans and Sheriff Dart to adjust their policies to follow her beliefs.
State's Attorney Foxx has instructed the Felony Review Unit of her office to limit the number of felony charges brought against individuals who are arrested with a firearm within Cook County. The Chicago Police Department has recovered over 5,000 firearms in 2018 but I doubt if even half of those arrested was charged with a felony. The clearance rate for murders in Chicago is under 15% for 2018 and if one removes the domestic related homicides and the homicides where the offender is deceased one will unfortunately discover that the actual clearance rate is under 10%.
I have been informed that detectives have asked CCSAO, Felony Review Unit to approve charges against individuals on many other cases but have been turned down because they want additional evidence. I was really shocked when I heard that of the 66 reported homicides from July 2018 have resulted in prosecution in only 1 incident.
Chief Judge Evans has instructed the judges in Bond Court to release as many individuals as possible on recognizance bonds. It makes no sense, to me, that an individual already on parole or who has previous bond forfeitures should be granted a recognizance bond. I also find it troubling that when an individual released on a recognizance bond fails to appear the judge who he was to appear in front of issues a ruling of "bond forfeited, case stricken, no warrant issued". There is no sanctions attached to failing to appear for the hearing!
Sheriff Dart is allowing individuals already on parole or who have failed to appear in the past for a hearing to walk the streets on home monitoring. There have been credible reports that many of those released on home monitoring are not being tracked by his office and he is failing to advise the public of same.
The police are trying their best but the remainder of the criminal justice system is failing the citizens of Chicago.
Note: I am a retired police officer with 33+ years of service with the Chicago Police Department and was fortunate of having served in doing investigative work for 30+ years of my career including assignments of Commander of Vice and Narcotics, Deputy Chief of Organized Crime and Detective Division and Deputy Superintendent of Internal Affairs.
Mike Hoke
Posted October 9, 2018
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |
Would you be so kind as to let me know your thoughts on the open letter of Card. Ouellet issued against Arch.Viganò?
I am starting to read here and there in the social media different interpretations of the real meaning of what Ouellet wrote, and I would appreciate your input, since I have a high consideration for you as a Catholic fighter for the truth.
I hope you have had the opportunity to read the document he released yesterday.
I would greatly appreciate knowing your orientation.
May Our Lord and Our Lady continued to bless your battle.
P.M.M.
The Editor responds:
Dear Mr. P.M.M.,
Thank you for your kind words. They are an encouragement to me.
I read the document last night on the Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano, dated October 8, 2018, which published first-hand and verbatim the letter of Card. Ouellet, dated October 7.
In a summary way – unfortunately at this moment I have no time for an extensive analysis – two points caught my attention:
- Card. Ouellet denies the affirmation of Arch. Vigano that Benedict XVI had issued a condemnation against Card. McCarrick. His words are quite clear in this regard (my translation):
- My other observation concerns the weak point of Ouellet’s argument. He affirms that Pope Francis did not punish McCarrick before, because he was unaware of his misconduct; as soon as he became
aware of it, he punished him. This is not true.
Here, Mr. P.M.M., you have the two more relevant points I found reading Ouellet’s response.“The ex-cardinal [McCarrick], who had retired in May 2006, was strongly advised not to travel and not to appear in public, in order to not provoke additional rumors about him. It is false to present the measures taken regarding him as ‘sanctions’ decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After reexamining the archives, I can affirm that there is no document on this topic signed by either of the two Popes, nor any note of an audience with my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Baptista Re, obliging Archbishop McCarrick to keep silence and retired to a private life under the rigor of canon penalties.” (bold added)
So, there was no condemnation. What actually happened was a warning was given to McCarrick.
This fact confirmed my idea that Arch. Vigano placed dramatic notes in that warning in order to save Benedict XVI and, consequently, incriminate Francis.
I believe that, by doing this, Vigano exaggerated and weakened his argument. He did not need to falsify reality in order to accuse Francis. The latter can be easily attacked on many other fronts.
Both Benedict XVI and Francis knew perfectly well what was going on. In 2008, Mr. Richard Sipe, who offered our TIA website an open-letter to Benedict XVI shortly after he posted it on his, made it extremely clear that McCarrick was guilty of homosexuality. I believe that it is impossible for that letter not to have reached the Vatican. By the way, Vigano himself stresses its importance in his first testimony.
So, Ouellet is lying on this point. Both Benedict and Francis knew perfectly well what was going on in the U.S. They did not act because they were covering up. Only when pressed by the media and public did Francis punish McCarrick, not because he is concerned about justice but because he is concerned about saving his public image in the media tornado that was accusing him of covering up.
I hope this analysis is of assistance to you.
Cordially,
Atila S. Guimarães