Never let celebrities make you shift what you feel is wrong.
When will humanity begin seeing these billionaire celebrities for who they really are?
Never let celebrities make you shift what you feel is wrong.
When will humanity begin seeing these billionaire celebrities for who they really are?
The jury decided James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has full authority to continue to “transition” James who is being renamed “Luna,” reported LifeSiteNews.
According to the report, a consensus of 11 of 12 jurors decided the current joint managing conservatorship over the twin sons of Georgulas and the boys’ father, Jeffrey Younger, should be replaced by sole managing conservatorship by Georgulas.
Judge Kim Cooks is expected to read her ruling on possession, child support, and other issues on Wednesday.
The battle between Younger and Georgulas intensified last year when James’ mother threatened Younger with a child abuse charge because he would not affirm their son is a transgender child.
Georgulas petitioned to modify the parent-child relationship while referring to James as a “gender expansive or transgender child” who “by choice, now goes by the name Luna.”
James’ mother sought to terminate Younger’s parental rights because James behaved as a boy when he was with his father. Georgulas also wanted Younger to pay for their son’s counseling with a therapist who will affirm his transgender identity and his need for transgender hormonal treatments, which may begin at age eight.
Georgulas had diagnosed James with “gender dysphoria,” a psychological disorder that is characterized by a child’s “persistent, consistent, and insistent” assertion of “their cross-gender statements and behaviors.”
However, when James has been with his father, he reportedly acts and behaves as a boy by his own choice.
The court prohibited Younger from dressing him as a boy or from sharing faith-based or biologically-based scientific teachings on sexuality, even though family friends who have observed James when he is in his father’s care reportedly affirm he dresses and behaves as a boy by his own choosing.
James’ “transition therapist” reportedly continued to identify him as “Luna” and to place him on track for gender transition.
According to the Texan, Younger and Georgulas were married in 2010 and decided to have children through in vitro fertilization (IVF).
“They requested male children through the IVF process that was successful, and their twin boys were born in 2012,” the Texas reported and added:
Because of a family tradition to name the male children with the initials “J.D.Y.,” and because of the biblical reference to the brothers of Jesus, Younger and Georgulas decided to name the children James and Jude. At the time, both parents were members of the Orthodox Church.
Georgulas has reportedly said James began to imitate female characters from Disney’s Frozen. He asked for a girls’ toy at McDonald’s and asked to wear dresses.
The mother reportedly said she contacted the GENecis clinic at Children’s Hospital Center. She was then referred o Rebekka Ouer for counseling, who recommended a process of “affirmation” and thought that a “social transition” for James should begin with the young child going to school dressed as a girl named “Luna.”
The battle reportedly escalated between the two parents when Younger learned Georgulas was “socially transitioning” James.
IMAGE CREDITS: HTTPS://SAVEJAMES.COM/
“Children are being targeted and sold for sex in America every day.”—John Ryan, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Children, young girls – some as young as 9 years old – are being bought and sold for sex in America. The average age for a young woman being sold for sex is now 13 years old.
This is America’s dirty little secret.
Harold L. Moody Jr., Democrat – Photo by Pulaski County sheriff’s office
A formal grand jury indictment was filed Friday in federal court in Little Rock charging Arkansas political consultant Harold “H.L.” Moody Jr. with six child pornography charges.
Moody, 37, was arrested Monday night on a criminal complaint that was filed Nov. 2 and unsealed Tuesday. A complaint is used to charge someone until a grand jury can review the case and decide whether to formally indict the person.
The complaint accused Moody, former chairman of the Pulaski County Democratic Party for two years and communications director for the Democratic Party of Arkansas for a year and a half, of using a videoconferencing application to view and share videos of adults raping children.
Moody had been a special events coordinator for Pulaski County Youth Services since February 2017, after he left the Democratic Party of Arkansas. He was working for the county at the time he was charged and was fired as a result, according to a spokesman for the county.
The spokesman noted that Moody’s job was “strictly an administrative position” and that he didn’t interact with children as part of his work.
An indictment handed up Thursday and filed Friday levels six charges against Moody: two counts of receipt of child pornography, both on Aug. 29; three counts of distribution of child pornography, on Sept. 7, Sept. 9 and Oct. 15; and a single count of conspiring with others between Aug. 29 and Oct. 12 to advertise child pornography to buy, sell or exchange.
The indictment on which Moody will be arraigned Nov. 27 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe Volpe doesn’t go into detail about the charges.
However, an affidavit supporting the criminal complaint laid out probable cause for his arrest.
According to a news release from U.S. Attorney Cody Hiland and Jere T. Miles, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations’ New Orleans Division, an undercover investigation into child exploitation chat rooms led federal agents to discover Moody. The agents observed him in the chat rooms at least five times, the officials said.
The affidavit said that on Aug. 29 agents saw Moody through his webcam in a chat room when child pornography was being displayed. It said his face was clearly visible and he appeared to be in an office. Later that same day, he was again observed in the same chat room while in the same office, it said.
An investigator wrote that on Sept. 7, Moody was seen on camera distributing child pornography, including a video of an adult male performing oral sex on two pre-pubescent males. The complaint said he followed the video with a message to all participants of the chat room saying, “not the version i thought.”
When another user asked Moody to play more videos, he responded, “I do not play on demand,” according to the affidavit.
It says he was again in the chat room distributing child pornography Sept. 9 and Oct. 12.
The affidavit didn’t indicate whether Moody was visiting the chat rooms from his county office, or where the office was. The officials said that federal law enforcement officers briefed the county Monday afternoon and they decided to fire him immediately.
His job involved planning fundraisers, such as a Champions of Youth event last month, according to county spokesman Cozetta Jones.
His personnel file, which was provided by the county in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, shows that while in college, from 2010 until 2014, he served as an intern for the Democratic Party of Arkansas, where he worked on “party building and fundraising events.”
It shows he was chairman of the county party from 2015 until 2017, and then worked as communications director for the state party from July 2015 until he was hired by the county.
His Facebook page indicates he was also the campaign manager for Tippi McCullough of Little Rock, who is poised to represent Arkansas House District 33 after winning a primary and facing no opponent in the general election.
Moody’s personnel file at the county shows he was given a raise five months after he started, with his supervisor noting in a memo that he was “exceptionally well-qualified.”
If convicted of distribution of child pornography, Moody faces five to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Consider what we know, and what has been alleged, about Pope Francis, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and disgraced former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
For several decades, Father, Bishop, Archbishop, and eventually Cardinal McCarrick preyed sexually on the priests and seminarians serving under his authority. There are credible allegations he abused boys as young as 11. To the extent that this behavior was a secret within the American church, it was very badly kept. Between 2005 and 2007, three dioceses in New Jersey paid out large cash settlements to keep allegations of abuse by McCarrick quiet. As Bishop Steven Lopes said in a homily first reported by First Things, “I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew.”
McCarrick ended his career as cardinal of the Washington, D.C., archdiocese and was succeeded by Archbishop Donald Wuerl, who arrived having just served as bishop of Pittsburgh. Wuerl’s former diocese has been in the news recently after the release of a grand jury report by the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office outlining decades of abuse by priests in the state.
As Wuerl arrived in Washington in 2006, McCarrick retired to the Redemptoris Mater seminary and was later ejected and sent to the Institute of the Incarnate Word seminary, both of which lay within Wuerl’s jurisdiction. In or about 2009, Pope Benedict XVI placed McCarrick under some sort of sanction. (The exact nature of the sanction is still unknown, but it seems to have been something like house arrest. It is also unclear when, exactly, Benedict first learned about McCarrick or how much time passed before he acted.) Yet somehow Wuerl insists that he knew nothing about any of this until June 2018, when the McCarrick firestorm exploded into public view.
Wuerl’s defense is that he is not an evil man who looked the other way about the behavior of a known sexual predator, but merely an incompetent dolt. And Wuerl seems to think that being guilty of gross incompetence should entitle him to keep his job. A responsible leader of good character would have walked away in disgrace the moment he learned of these scandals. Wuerl’s first public comment on the McCarrick story was to say, “I don’t think this is some massive, massive crisis.” On literally the same day that the Pennsylvania grand jury report was released, Wuerl’s diocese launched a barrage of defensive propaganda in the form of a new website, “The Wuerl Record.” It was quickly taken down when it became clear that it was hurting the cardinal’s reputation rather than helping it. Then Wuerl called for “a season of healing” with special Masses in his archdiocese. The best that can be said of Wuerl is that his crisis PR handling has bolstered the incompetence defense.
It was only after a month of trying to cling to his job that Wuerl said he plans to fly to Rome to discuss his future with Pope Francis. Francis has yet to say or do anything about Wuerl despite the fact that, as do all cardinals over the age of 75, Wuerl had a letter of resignation on file with the Vatican. Francis could have disposed of him in an afternoon without having to do anything more complicated than accept a pre-existing letter.
Those are the facts we know. None of them are in dispute.
Then there are the allegations: On August 25, 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published a letter in which he claimed that he had been party to several attempts to make the Vatican aware of McCarrick’s abuses over the years; that he had personally discussed them with Wuerl; and that Pope Francis—knowing full well all of the above—rescinded the house-arrest order of his predecessor, made McCarrick his “trusted counselor,” and, at McCarrick’s behest, began elevating certain bishops—such as Blase Cupich and Joseph William Tobin—to positions of power in the American church.
If true, this would mean that we have one cardinal who was a sanctioned sexual predator, (at least) one cardinal who turned a blind eye to this man’s crimes as they were happening within his jurisdiction, and a pope who didn’t just look the other way but took affirmative steps to help both the criminal and his enabler.
And if all of that is true, well, then what? The potential answers to this question aren’t very nice. They include: schism, the destruction of the papacy, and a long war for the soul of the Catholic church. Because the story of Theodore McCarrick isn’t just a story about sexual abuse. It’s about institutions and power.
The abuse itself is terrible, of course. We should say that out loud, because while the details are unspeakable they must be spoken of. Without the release of the Pennsylvania grand jury report, we would know much less about the evil inside the church. (It is also instructive to note that authorities within the church opposed the release of this report.) But individual priest-abusers aren’t catastrophic to the church in any structural way. Predators will always be among us. It is a human pathology from which not even priests are immune. But the remedy for predation is straightforward: Whenever and wherever such men are discovered, they should be rooted out and punished.
The institutional damage is done not by the abusers but by the structures that cover for them, excuse them, and advance them. Viewed in that way, the damage done to the Catholic church by Cardinal Wuerl—and every other bishop who knew about McCarrick and stayed silent—is several orders of magnitude greater than that done by McCarrick himself.
By way of analogy, consider the dirty cop. About once a week we see evidence of police officers behaving in ways that range from the imprudent to the illegal. It has no doubt been this way since Hammurabi deputized the first lawman. But while individuals might be harmed by rogue cops, the system of law enforcement isn’t jeopardized by police misbehavior. The damage to the system comes when the other mechanisms of law enforcement protect, rather than prosecute, bad cops. If that happens often enough, citizens can eventually decide that the system is broken and take to the ballot box to reform it. The laity have no such recourse with the church.
Pope Francis gives Theodore McCarrick a hug following a service in Washington, D.C., in September 2015.Jonathan Newton / Washington Post / Getty
The Catholic church is unlike any other earthly institution. It is strictly hierarchical, with its ultimate power derived from the son of God. The head of the church—the successor of Peter—is elected to a lifetime appointment by his peers, and his authority over them is total. He can allow them to carry on sexual affairs in broad daylight, as Francis did with Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a priest who worked for years in the Vatican curia while living openly with his gay lover. Or he can drive them from the church, as Francis did with Father Charamsa after the priest made his situation public in the Italian media in 2015. He can make either of these choices—or any choice in between—for any reason he likes. Or none at all. Such is the supreme power of the vicar of Christ.
Yet the pope’s immediate subordinates—the cardinals and bishops—function like feudal lords in their own right. The bishop can preach in contravention of the teachings of the church, as Cardinal Walter Kasper does on the subject of marriage and infidelity. He can forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist, as Bishops John Richard Keating and Paul Loverde once did in Northern Virginia. He can punish and reward priests under his care either because of merit or caprice—because the deacons and priests all swear a vow of obedience to the bishop (or cardinal) himself.
All of which is the long way of saying that there is no mechanism for a man such as Donald Wuerl to be dealt with by his peers. The bishop of Madison can fulminate against Wuerl all he wants to, as Bishop Robert Morlino did in late August. His fellow bishops have no power over him. The only man Wuerl is accountable to is the pope. And the structure of the church has no remedy when a pope is foolish or wicked.
In the weeks after the Viganò letter was published, Francis preached a homily in which he declared, “with people lacking good will, with people who only seek scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction” the best response is “silence” and “prayer.” If this sounds like Francis believes the real villains in this mess are Archbishop Viganò and people who want to know what the bishops knew, and when they knew it, well, yes.
In another homily on September 11, Francis went further, saying that not only was Viganò the real villain, but the bishops were the real victims: They were being persecuted by the devil: “In these times, it seems like the Great Accuser has been unchained and is attacking bishops,” Francis preached. And Satan “tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people.” (The Father of Lies—as he is referred to in the Bible—has not traditionally been regarded as the revealer of sins in Catholic thought, but this pope has never been known for having a supple mind.) Francis then offered counsel for his poor, suffering brother bishops: “The Great Accuser, as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, ‘roams the earth looking for someone to accuse.’ A bishop’s strength against the Great Accuser is prayer.”
Other parts of the church hierarchy also seem to view themselves as victims. In late August, Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig decided to try to get to the bottom of the Viganò story by asking McCarrick himself. She went to the church-owned property where the former cardinal now resides and knocked on the door. Whatever representative of the church—God’s vessel for Truth and Light—lives there declined to answer. Instead, he called the Post to complain about her.
So what is to be done if the vicar of Christ is a fool who sides with bishops who enabled or hid abusers? Or is a wicked man who sides with the actual abusers themselves? That’s an excellent question and we’ll get to it.
The more immediate question is: Why would he do that? And the answer is simple: power.
The pontificate of Francis can, perhaps, best be understood as a political project. His election at the conclave in 2013 was—unbeknownst to the world at the time—the result of a campaign planned out in advance by four radical cardinals who saw then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the perfect vehicle for the revolution they wanted to launch within the church. (The story of how Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels, and Karl Lehmann formed “Team Bergoglio” is detailed in Austen Ivereigh’s worshipful biography of Francis, and even though the cardinals subsequently denied the account, their protestations are supremely unconvincing.) As the Catholic News Agency reported at the time, this politicking wasn’t simply a matter of bad taste: The apostolic constitution, Universi Dominici gregis, expressly prohibits cardinals from forming pacts, agreements, promises, or commitments of any kind. Oh well.
During his time on Peter’s throne, Francis has worked to dismantle many orthodox positions in an attempt to radically reorient the church toward—by total coincidence—the long-held preferences of those four radical cardinals. For instance: He has criticized Catholics for being “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage, and contraception. He has derided Catholic women for having too many children and behaving “like rabbits.” He sent a papal blessing to the lesbian author of the Italian version of Heather Has Two Mommies—a tract for children extolling the virtues of same-sex parenting.
All of this is in addition to his bizarre insistence that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake” and that the benefits of free-market growth have “never been confirmed by the facts.” (In case people didn’t get the message, Francis posed for pictures with a crucifix made of a hammer and a sickle.) Yet as bad as free market capitalism is, the pope insists “the most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.” Which is a . . . curious view of our fallen world.
The most outré of the pope’s initiatives, however, have been his efforts to dismantle the restrictions on admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics to communion. For this, Francis convened a synod, attempted to ram through a change to Catholic teaching, and, when that failed, proclaimed via an apostolic exhortation that priests were free to use their discretion on the matter.
To non-Catholics, this may not sound like a big deal, but it is: Communion for the divorced and remarried is the first theological step to doing away with the concept of adultery. If such a change is accomplished, the Catholic church would eventually be forced to change all of its teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family: Divorce, pre-, and -extra-marital sex would all then be sanctioned by the church.
And so would—crucially—homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Now maybe you like these things and maybe you don’t. Some Christian denominations embrace them. But the Catholic church has never sanctioned any of them and the entire revolutionary project of changing the church’s teaching on family and sexuality necessarily begins with communion for the divorced and remarried.
This project and the pope’s apostolic exhortation were serious enough that several cardinals sent the Holy Father a formal document, known as a dubia, asking if he truly intended to change Catholic teaching in a heretical manner, or if he had just made an honest mistake. Francis simply ignored them.
Which is his way. In his only conversation with reporters about the Viganò testimony, Francis declined to address the charge that he had known about McCarrick. Viganò’s letter, Francis said, “speaks for itself.” When it wasn’t clear what the Holy Father meant by this—Was Viganò’s account true? Was Viganò a mountebank?—Francis continued, saying, “It’s an act of trust. I won’t say a word about it.”
The pope’s favorite American cardinal is Blase Cupich, who heads the archdiocese of Chicago and has been the most persistent cheerleader for the Francis project in America. He has said quite a few words. Asked about the Viganò letter by a reporter, Cupich said it was a “rabbit hole” and “[T]he pope has a bigger agenda. . . . he’s got to get on with other things” such as “talking about the environment and protecting migrants.”
This was not a gaffe. A few days later, Cupich met with a group of seminarians who very much wanted to talk about the priest-abuse problem, the Holy Father, and this dark night of the church. Cupich told the group, “I feel very much at peace at this moment. I am sleeping okay.” Then came this, per the account in the Chicago Sun-Times:
The source said Cupich also told the group that, while the church’s “agenda” certainly involves protecting kids from harm, “we have a bigger agenda than to be distracted by all of this,” including helping the homeless and sick.
Which brings us, finally, to the question of what this “agenda” actually is.
It is difficult to disentangle the hundreds of cases of abuse in the church from the subject of homosexuality. No one wants to say, or even to insinuate, that homosexuality and abusiveness are one and the same, or that all, or most, or even a large proportion of gay men are abusers. Those statements are objectively false.
At the same time, the math is pitiless: According to our best data, a mammoth CDC study done in 2013, 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay. Yet 80 percent of the abuse cases involve priests abusing other males. You can include all the caveats you like—maybe there’s selection bias, maybe the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood is many times higher than 1.6 percent, maybe not all male-on-male abuse is perpetrated by men who would identify as gay. But the correlation is still high enough that it is impossible to ignore.
And despite the fact that everyone wants to insist that abuse by priests has nothing to do with homosexuality, it’s strange that the people who most want to open the church sacramentally to homosexuality are the ones strenuously ignoring the abuse. Priests such as Cardinal Cupich are certainly acting like they think there’s a linkage and that if the church were to crack down on abuse and the bishops who enabled it, it would somehow endanger their project.
Archbishop of Chicago Blase Cupich. Giulio Origlia / Getty
And it’s not confined to the United States. In Chile, too, Catholic bishops have presided over a sickening culture of abuse and coverup. Confronted with charges of abuse, Francis stood by the Chilean bishop Juan Barros Madrid, saying of the allegations, “The day someone brings me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk. But there is not one single piece of evidence. It is all slander. Is that clear?” This, despite the fact that Francis had been warned about Barros and there was a mountain of evidence against him. Barros was on Team Francis, which is what counted most.
In July, a group of 50 seminarians in Honduras presented Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga with a letter and corroborating evidence alleging a ring of homosexual abuse at the country’s largest seminary. Maradiaga’s response, per the reporting of Edward Pentin, was to accuse the seminarians of being “gossipers.” You can think of Maradiaga as the Donald Wuerl of Tegucigalpa. He is also one of Francis’s closest advisers.
Whether or not it’s coincidence, the American bishops in the most jeopardy now—McCarrick, Wuerl, Cupich, Tobin—are also the ones closest to Francis and most supportive of his desire to revolutionize the church.
There was a general sense among Catholics following the pontificate of John Paul II that the church had been jolted by an influx of orthodox young priests. In time, the thinking went, these men would climb and, eventually, they would stock the positions of power throughout the church. Thus the church would remain, at least for the medium-term, an orthodox institution.
But the election of Francis changed all of that. Even though the radical elements within the church were a small and aging minority, the progressives realized that the only person who really matters is the pope. That’s why they organized to get Francis elected. Since then they have understood that if Francis and his faction can find just a few score of like-minded priests to elevate, they can ensure that the current pope’s successor will share his ideological preferences.
The College of Cardinals is supposed to have 120 voting members; currently there are 124 members eligible to participate in the next conclave. That’s more than the cap should allow. Why? Because 75 of them—including Cupich and Tobin—have been appointed by Francis. Unlike his predecessor, Francis understands power. And because there are so few high-level progressives in the church, Francis understands that losing any of these men could endanger his succession, which could endanger his larger project. His confederates, in turn, understand that losing Francis himself at this moment could sink it entirely.
The chances of the church’s losing Francis, however, are slim. You cannot impeach a pope. And barring an unexpected return to our Heavenly Father, Francis will remain pope for the foreseeable future. Which leaves four possible pathways, none of which is attractive.
Some conservative Catholics, such as Princeton’s Robert P. George, have suggested that Francis ought to resign—especially if the Viganò letter is corroborated. This is an attractive idea and would align with the cause of justice. Anyone in the church hierarchy who knew, or should have known, about specific abusers in their midst should, at the least, be removed from any position of responsibility. They simply cannot be trusted. If you were to extend this view all the way to the bishop of Rome, there is a certain cleanliness to its logic—a sense that maybe the church could make a clean break and begin to make things right anew.
But it might be a cure worse than the disease.
In the last 600 years, only one pope has abdicated: Benedict XVI, the man who immediately preceded Francis. Two abdications in a millennium are an aberration. But two abdications in a row would have the practical effect of breaking the modern papacy. From here forward, all popes would be expected to resign their office rather than die in harness.
This expectation of resignation would, in turn, create incentives for the pope’s theological adversaries to fight and wound him, in the not-unreasonable hope that if they could make him unpopular, he could be shuffled out of the palace and they could try their luck with a new pontiff. Before you know it, you’d have polling data and opposition research and the papacy would become an expressly political office. No Catholic should yearn for this outcome.
The second option is capitulation. Catholics could shrug and give up. They could let Cardinal Wuerl live his best life and then slink off to a graceful retirement; they could make peace with Cardinal Cupich’s view that the church exists, first and foremost, to deal with global warming, or the minimum wage, or whatever else is trending on Vox.com. They could toe the dirt and accept sacramental same-sex marriages, even if it destroys the theology of the body. After all, times change. Religions change. And if you really trust in the Lord, then no change could come to His church without its being the will of the Father.
The third option is schism. There has been loose talk about schism since the early days of Francis’s pontificate. The conversation became less whimsical at the time of the synod and the dubia. It will become deadly serious if Viganò’s accusations are corroborated and Francis shelters in place. Even so, it remains one of those low-probability, extinction-level events that every Catholic should pray does not come to pass.
The fourth option is resistance. We are only at the current moment because the forces that conspired to elevate Francis refused, for decades, to leave the church, even though their desires were at odds with its teachings.
Despite the fact that the Catholic church rejected their preferences as false, the South American liberation theologists, the German cardinals who wanted to redefine marriage, and the American progressives who never met a social justice cause they didn’t like all hung on. Eventually they organized. And after a generation of orthodox papacy, during which time most American Catholics forgot that there even was a radical side of the faith, they worked together to elect Francis. Organization works, if you’re willing to play the long game and play for keeps.
So Catholics could starve bishops such as Wuerl, Cupich, and Tobin of funds. Not a dime for any church in any diocese headed by a bishop who refuses to root out abusers and their enablers.
The bishops who do care about these things could start organizing for the next conclave now, identifying potential candidates and laying the groundwork for the election of the next pope.
Then, when the pendulum eventually swings back—be it next year or 40 years from now—orthodox Catholics could take from these years a very sobering lesson about power. And with neither malice nor mercy drive men such as Cupich, Tobin, and Wuerl into the sea and purge the church of anyone who believes that climate change is a more pressing matter than the abuse of Catholics by the clergy.
None of these pathways is attractive; each leads to a church that is at best impoverished and at worst crippled.
Then again, the church survived Caligula, the bubonic plague, the Third Reich, the Gather hymnal, and the autoharp. It will survive McCarrick, Wuerl, and Francis, too.
But crucibles are rarely pleasant experiences for those inside them and a great many souls may be lost in the transition.
Those men will have much to answer for.
Correction, September 14, 2018, 3:05 p.m.: The article originally stated that a bishop “can forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist, as Bishop Michael Burbidge does in Northern Virginia.” Bishop Burbidge does allow both species of the Eucharist, it was his predecessors, Bishops John Richard Keating and Paul Loverde, who forbid the offering of both species of the Eucharist. According to a statement from the Arlington Diocese: “Reverend Thomas Ferguson, Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia with the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, [says that] Bishop Paul Loverde changed the policy to allow both species of the Eucharist to be allowed at Mass. The policy changed sometime between 1999 and 2004.”
Also, the article originally stated that Bishop Steven Lopes said “I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew.” in the an interview with First Things. He made those remarks in a homily that was first reported by First Things.
We regret the errors.
Two leading German news outlets have leaked an explosive report on Catholic child sex abuse in Germany
(Walking Times) There is a cultural revolution taking place right before your very eyes. It involves the overturn of sexual values and an agenda to normalize pedophilia.
The signs are everywhere.
Major sex-trafficking rings and pedophile prostitution networks are being exposed with shocking regularity. The Catholic church is involved at the highest levels, and Hollywood insiders continue to speak out about the dark side of the entertainment industry. Gender neutrality is the new buzz word and sex robots are the latest in must have consumer devices. Free speech and truth news is being censored from the internet while pornography is utterly pervasive all over the web, widely available to children. Meanwhile members of the political class and global elite continue to be exposed as pedophiles and sexual predators.
Against this backdrop, Netflix is pushing the boundaries of what is culturally acceptable with a new comedy about the sexuality of children.
Exploring the primary theme of puberty, Big Mouth is a new show by producer Nick Kroll in which a cartoon cast experiences the changes that come at this awkward stage in life. Although this subject is undoubtedly uncomfortable for young people, and is traditionally taught by parents and/or sexual education programs in schools, the new show turns puberty into a comedy for adults.
As noted by Vigilant Citizen:
“For some bizarre, disturbing and upsetting reason, the sexualization of children is also part of that agenda. Slowly but surely, new content keeps pushing the envelope, slightly going too far, chipping away at moral decency to make the sexuality of children fair game.
Why? Because Hollywood and the world elite are full of children lovers and they want to normalize their derangement.”
This view is not the mainstream however, and most big media organizations are praising and happily promoting this show, in spite of the fact that the 3 minute trailer features some truly disturbing moments.
Here, a father explains to his son that it’s okay to kiss a penis.
Speaking to Time magazine, Kroll explains a bit, saying, “As open as society is, there are still certain things that we feel like are too awkward to talk about, and those are the things that we wanted to zero in on specifically.”
He goes on about the creative leeway he was given by Netflix, pushing their limits to find the right balance of perversion and acceptability for a network which recently featured Bill Nye’s now infamous episode of Bill Nye Saves the World on ‘The Sexual Spectrum,’ introducing the concept of gender neutrality to kids.
“Netflix gave us incredible latitude in going for it. In fact, [they] encouraged us at almost every stage to just go for it. In that first episode, Nick sees Andrew’s penis. Now there aren’t probably a ton of animated shows where you’d see a 13-year-old boy’s penis. But it’s incredibly important to the story that you see this other boy’s penis and how it makes him feel because his penis doesn’t look like that yet.
There [was] one moment in [a different episode] where Netflix was like, “Hey this is too far.” I won’t even explain it because it was too graphic. And we agreed, we were on the same page. We knew we had an opportunity to show and talk about stuff that really has never been discussed as directly as we hoped to do. So we leaned into it.”
Here, a very creepy grown male monster with a penis shaped nose invades the boys’ bedroom to tell them about nocturnal emissions.
And here, a young girl has a conversation with her vagina.
No longer bound to the strict traditionalist formats of broadcast television, producers no longer have to use subtlety to promote an agenda, and in this case the agenda is changing the sexual values of a society to normalize the once perverse. Furthermore, as this show is aimed at adults, it serves to legitimize children’s sexuality as a form of entertainment.
Television programming is called programming because it seeks to program the cultural values of a population. It is social engineering, and when looked at in the context of the world today, a show like serves to further the agenda of sexual perversion and predation in a society which is already on the brink of moral annihilation.
Watch the disturbing trailer for yourself, here:
The FBI arrested over 900 members of a ‘dark web’ pedophile ring the sprawls Europe and America, following a two year investigation.
In one of the largest busts of its kind, pedophile ring investigators from the FBI and Europol apprehended the website’s founder, who was given a 30-year jail sentence.
The dark web (also referred to as the ‘Deep Web‘) contains content that cannot be accessed through a normal browser, and cannot be indexed and searched via traditional search engines such as Google or Bing. Yet, according to researchers, a staggering 99.97% of what exists on the internet, exists on the dark web – unseen by the public at large.
According to the FBI, 350 of the 900 arrests were made in the U.S. alone – highlighting that a large portion of the world’s pedophile networks operate and exist in America. The arrests come after President Trump vowed to tackle America’s pedophile crisis which he claims is organized from the highest echelons of government.
Rt.com reports: The arrests and other law enforcement actions related to the investigation were carried out “in countries far and near”, including Turkey, Peru, Chile, Ukraine, Israel and Malaysia, according to the FBI.
Europe accounts for the major share of arrests and convictions with 368 suspects being charged. A total of 870 arrests were made in connection with the case, according to Europol.
Over 300 children who had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of Playpen members have been identified or rescued.
EU Commissioner for the Security Union, Sir Julian King, said “a hugely significant blow has been struck against one of the most heinous of crimes, arguably the worst of all, thanks to the excellent transnational cooperation of Europol with the FBI and US Department of Justice, as well as other law enforcement agencies around the world.”
Playpen’s founder, Steven W. Chase, 58, was sentenced Monday to 30 years behind bars. The site he set up in August 2014 boasted some 150,000 users worldwide until it was taken down by the FBI following a controversial covert operation.
The agency said it had uncovered the site almost immediately after it had been launched but lacked information to trace the location or identity of the site’s owner as it was rooted in the deep web, meaning the site was only accessible through special software such as Tor.
Tor grants anonymity to its users and thereby is often described as a convenient platform for illicit activities, such as selling weapons, drugs or disseminating pornography.
However, Florida-based Chase inadvertently slipped up, revealing his site’s IP address, providing law enforcement with all the necessary leads.
Two of Chase’s aides, Michael Fluckiger and David Browning, both US citizens – who served as administrators of the site – were each jailed for 20 years.
Through a subsequent operation codenamed Operation Pacifier, the FBI succeeded in tracking down hundreds of the site’s users, sending “more than 1,000 leads” to FBI agents as well as to European authorities.
The FBI has been criticized for what it called a “court-approved network investigative technique” used to unearth information about the suspects. It emerged that the agency, with court approval, seized and ran the pedophile website for 13 days in February 2015.
The FBI’s command of the Playpen site enabled the agency to infect over 8,000 users’ computers with malware and hack them. Notably, the site was said to be more efficient and even experienced a boost in audience numbers with the FBI in charge of its content.
Internet privacy experts found the FBI’s handling of the case highly questionable and contrary to privacy laws.
“The warrant here did not identify any particular person to search or seize. Nor did it identify any specific user of the targeted website,” Electronic Frontier Foundation said, calling into question the legality of the FBI’s actions.
Article Source: http://yournewswire.com/fbi-pedophile…
ABOARD SHEPHERD ONE – Pope Francis acknowledged Saturday that the Vatican has a 2,000-case backlog in processing clerical sex abuse cases and says criticism of the slow pace was justified. But he says more staff are being added and insists the Vatican is “on the right path.”
Francis was making his first comments about the criticism leveled at the Vatican’s handling of sex abuse cases by Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor who resigned from Francis’ sex abuse advisory commission in March. Collins quit because of what she said was the “unacceptable” level of resistance within the Vatican to implementing the group’s proposals to better care for victims and protect children from priests who rape and molest them.
Speaking to reporters while flying home Saturday from a trip to Portugal, Francis called Collins “a great woman” and said she was “a bit right” to complain about the slow pace in processing cases.
“Marie Collins was right on that point. But we are on the right path, as there were 2,000 cases backlogged,” he said.
Francis didn’t respond to the other issues raised by Collins, including the refusal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — which handles abuse cases — to create a tribunal to judge bishops who covered up for pedophile priests. Instead, he focused on explaining why cases can take so long to process.
To improve efficiency, he said he had added more staff to the congregation and that talks were underway about providing more regional help to bishops to ensure their cases are properly documented before they arrive at the Vatican for review.
He denied he had ever agreed to a request for clemency from a pedophile priest, saying once a sentence is confirmed on appeal by the congregation “it is finished.”
Francis has come under fire from some survivors and their advocates for his handling of the abuse crisis.
He won praise for having created the advisory commission and for promising “zero tolerance” for abuse. But his advisory board has lost credibility following Collins’ departure and its failure to implement key recommendations that even Francis had approved.
Database of Publicly Accused Priests in the United States
National Survivor Advocates Coalition
In a shocking story putting the massive social network in a very seedy light, Gizmodo reported last week, “When BBC journalists discovered child porn on the network and sent those images to Facebook last week, the company reported the BBC to police in the UK for the distribution of illegal images.”
That’s right. When informed that pedophiles were passing around pictures of children in the vilest, most unholy ways, Facebook shot the messenger. Well, Facebook asked police to do it for them — metaphorically of course.
Investigative reporters from the BBC have a long history of tracking down the perverts that seem to pervade the Internet. After discovering that there was a significant amount of such images floating around Facebook, the network notified executives at the company, offering to sit down and show Facebook’s representatives the evidence of pedophilia collected by BBC reporters.
Again, from Gizmodo:
Simon Milner [a Facebook representative], finally agreed to sit down for an interview about moderation tools on the network. There was just one condition: Facebook asked that the BBC reporters send the company images that they’d found on Facebook’s secret groups that the BBC would like to discuss.
The BBC complied with Facebook’s request, sent the images to the company, and then, almost unbelievably, Facebook backed out of the scheduled sit down and reported the BBC to the police!
In explanation of its extraordinary actions, Facebook issued a statement explaining, “It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation.”
Imagine informing your neighbor that you saw someone break into his house and then offering to show him the evidence of the crime and then he calls the police, claiming you were the criminal!
Facebook says it is sufficiently policing child pornography and pedophilia by providing a “Report Button” on the site whereby users can identify potential pedophiles and “nudity and other sexually suggestive content.”
A report button. That’s multi-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s answer to demonstrable accusations of pedophilia rings maintained on Facebook’s servers and classified as “secret” groups.
BBC apparently considered the “Report Button” likely to prove unreliable, therefore the news organ conducted its own experiment on its effectiveness. The BBC reports:
To test Facebook’s claim, the BBC used the report button to alert the company to 100 images which appeared to break its guidelines. They included:
• pages explicitly for men with a sexual interest in children
• images of under-16s in highly sexualised [sic] poses, with obscene comments posted beside them
• groups with names such as “hot xxxx schoolgirls” containing stolen images of real children
• an image that appeared to be a still from a video of child abuse, with a request below it to share “child pornography.”
Of the 100 images only 18 were removed.
Facebook told the BBC that the other 82 images didn’t cross the company’s “inappropriate” threshold.
Undeterred, the BBC continued its test of Facebook’s accountability on the issue of child pornography and pedophilia:
Facebook’s rules forbid convicted sex offenders from having accounts.
But the BBC found five convicted pedophiles [sic] with profiles, and reported them to Facebook via its own system. None of them were taken down.
“I find it very disturbing, I find that content unacceptable,” said Mr Collins in response.
“I think it raises the question of how can users make effective complaints to Facebook about content that is disturbing, shouldn’t be on the site, and have confidence that that will be acted upon.”
David Jordan, the BBC Director of Editorial Policy, is concerned about the cause of Facebook’s bizarre reaction to receiving undeniable evidence of pedophilia and child pornography on its servers.
“The fact that Facebook sent images that had been sent to them, that appear on their site, for their response about how Facebook deals with inappropriate images … the fact that they sent those on to the police seemed to me to be extraordinary,” he said.
“One can only assume that the Facebook executives were unwilling or certainly reluctant to engage in an interview or a debate about why these images are available on the Facebook site.”
Facebook’s disregard of disgusting content on its site seems to be nothing new. Consider this story published by FoxNews.com on September 28, 2010:
The world’s largest pro-pedophilia advocacy group uses Facebook to connect with its members throughout the world; to find and exchange photos of children; to hone its members’ predatory behavior; and to identify, target and reel in child victims, an investigation by FoxNews.com reveals.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a revolting organization devoted to providing opportunities for pedophiles to find children to exploit.
FoxNews.com’s investigation revealed:
Facebook says it has a strict policy against the posting of content that supports groups engaged in child exploitation, yet a simple, five-second search on Facebook, conducted on Sept. 23, yielded dozens of pages devoted to the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Many of those pages featured numerous photos of unnamed boys, some of whom appeared to be too young for kindergarten.
The same day, FoxNews.com found hundreds of links to NAMBLA’s website on Facebook, which has more than half a billion users worldwide. And posts on known pedophile blogs and chat rooms show an organized effort by pedophiles to use the social networking site to prey on children.
Why would Facebook and its executives and managers permit such perversion on its site, a site accessed by over one billion people every day?
A better, more relevant question would be why conservatives, Christians, and others of strong moral character continue to patronize a site so reluctant to run perverts off its site?
“Facebook has been recognized as one of the best platforms on the internet for child safety,” Facebook said in a statement.
That’s a position seemingly impossible to prove. What is certain, though, is that when offered evidence of the vilest perversion being passed around on its servers, Facebook called the police on the whistle blowers.
KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.
“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.
The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.
“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”
The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.
After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.
Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander.
“The Army contends that Martland and others should have looked the other way (a contention that I believe is nonsense),” Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who hopes to save Sergeant Martland’s career, wrote last week to the Pentagon’s inspector general.
In Sergeant Martland’s case, the Army said it could not comment because of the Privacy Act.
When asked about American military policy, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, wrote in an email: “Generally, allegations of child sexual abuse by Afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” He added that “there would be no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan report it.” An exception, he said, is when rape is being used as a weapon of war.
The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.
Some soldiers believed that the policy made sense, even if they were personally distressed at the sexual predation they witnessed or heard about.
“The bigger picture was fighting the Taliban,” a former Marine lance corporal reflected. “It wasn’t to stop molestation.”
Still, the former lance corporal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending fellow Marines, recalled feeling sickened the day he entered a room on a base and saw three or four men lying on the floor with children between them. “I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,” he said.
But the American policy of treating child sexual abuse as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children are being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.
By the summer of 2011, Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland, both Green Berets on their second tour in northern Kunduz Province, began to receive dire complaints about the Afghan Local Police units they were training and supporting.
First, they were told, one of the militia commanders raped a 14- or 15-year-old girl whom he had spotted working in the fields. Captain Quinn informed the provincial police chief, who soon levied punishment. “He got one day in jail, and then she was forced to marry him,” Mr. Quinn said.
When he asked a superior officer what more he could do, he was told that he had done well to bring it up with local officials but that there was nothing else to be done. “We’re being praised for doing the right thing, and a guy just got away with raping a 14-year-old girl,” Mr. Quinn said.
Village elders grew more upset at the predatory behavior of American-backed commanders. After each case, Captain Quinn would gather the Afghan commanders and lecture them on human rights.
Soon another commander absconded with his men’s wages. Mr. Quinn said he later heard that the commander had spent the money on dancing boys. Another commander murdered his 12-year-old daughter in a so-called honor killing for having kissed a boy. “There were no repercussions,” Mr. Quinn recalled.
In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again, she told the Americans on the base.
She explained that because “her son was such a good-looking kid, he was a status symbol” coveted by local commanders, recalled Mr. Quinn, who did not speak to the woman directly but was told about her visit when he returned to the base from a mission later that day.
So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.
“I picked him up and threw him onto the ground,” Mr. Quinn said. Sergeant Martland joined in, he said. “I did this to make sure the message was understood that if he went back to the boy, that it was not going to be tolerated,” Mr. Quinn recalled.
There is disagreement over the extent of the commander’s injuries. Mr. Quinn said they were not serious, which was corroborated by an Afghan official who saw the commander afterward.
(The commander, Abdul Rahman, was killed two years ago in a Taliban ambush. His brother said in an interview that his brother had never raped the boy, but was the victim of a false accusation engineered by his enemies.)
Sergeant Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our A.L.P. to commit atrocities,” referring to the Afghan Local Police.
The father of Lance Corporal Buckley believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death, and he has filed a lawsuit to press the Marine Corps for more information about it.
Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.
Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption,
support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.
Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.v
Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.
The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.
Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”
The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.
Mr. Jan appears to have moved on, to a higher-ranking police command in the same province. In an interview, he denied keeping boys as sex slaves or having any relationship with the boy who killed the three Marines. “No, it’s all untrue,” Mr. Jan said. But people who know him say he still suffers from “a toothache problem,” a euphemism here for child sexual abuse.