As I said in My Response to Archbishop Aquila, I never agreed to bury the reports of misconduct. In this 21 June 2018 letter, Bishop Rodriguez seems to imply that at some point, I considered the issues of misconduct to be a closed case. I never did. Nor did I agree to live at my parents’ home past my 4 June meeting on my future assignment. Rather, the Archdiocese in this letter is essentially telling me that I was to live at my parents’ home until I could say that the reports of child misconduct were a closed case. I never did.
This is called blackmail, as pious the language may seem to be:
They never answered me or gave me a residence. Is this because I never agreed to their claims that the issues of misconduct were to be considered a closed case? 1
As far as the claim that there is blackmail in my initial letters to the Archdiocese weighing my future assignment against children’ safety, as Archbishop Aquila claimed here in his public libel statement against me, then I challenge Archbishop Aquila to print my blackmail in full without redactions of names, instead of questioning my sanity. 2
Questioning the sanity of someone standing up for victims’ rights and protection of the Eucharist is called gaslighting even when done in a manner that can only be described as pseudo-fatherly.
“House arrest at a priest’s parents’ home” is not a canonical term, and thus not one that must be obeyed. St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that the worst thing for the vocation of a priest is an extremely extended stay at his parents’ place. This is further reason that canon law must be obeyed by the diocese, namely, that a priest may never be left “destitute.” ↩
Yes, I have my shortcomings in patience. But I have not been sent back to Denver by all these dioceses as the Archbishop claimed against me. That is a complete lie. In fact, the only assignment I was kicked out of from another diocese was my assignment in Virginia with the FSSP, for which I was booted for an issue of anger. I am sorry to the FSSP for this, and I take responsibility for it. ↩
I’d like to highlight a few sentences that Archbishop Aquila wrote about me: “Since Fr. Nix was asked to leave his most recent assignment at the end of March, we have not given up, but his behavior has made it difficult to even establish a dialogue with him…Fr. Nix’s statement that he has been forced to be homeless and has been ignored by the Archdiocese is just another sad chapter in this long saga…We have tried to speak with Fr. Nix, but he fails to show up for scheduled meetings, is hard to get ahold of, and even just yesterday he rebuked Bishop Rodriguez. We will continue to try to help Fr. Nix, if he will let us.”
The truth is that I actually chose to leave my last assignment in Florida via a meeting on 26 March 2018 with Bishop Felipe Estevez. I left Florida to take care of an injured family member in Denver, which I did faithfully for two months.
While living at my parents’ in Denver, I asked Archbishop Aquila to meet about my future. I did indeed have this meeting on 4 June 2018 with Archbishop Aquila and Fr. Capucci (his judicial vicar.) They let me speak for a long time about my desire to be a diocesan hermit, but ultimately, they wanted me to assure them that what I had relayed regarding news of priestly and seminarian misconduct with children would be considered a completely “closed case.” I did not agree to that. Archbishop Aquila then told me not to contact him again. He told me that his vicar for clergy, the auxiliary Bishop Rodriguez, would contact me regarding my request to be a diocesan hermit.
Every month since June (meaning we are now at four months out from my last meeting with Archbishop and a full sixmonths out from my March request of being a diocesan hermit to both bishops) I have been obedient to emailing Bishop Rodriguez (exclusively) regarding my future. Every single month, Bishop Rodriguez emails me back, saying that Archbishop Aquila has not got back to him.
I wish to again highlight that Archbishop Aquila publicly said of me on social media that I “fail to show up for scheduled meetings” and that I am “hard to get a hold of” and that I am being “paid the full salary due to him.”
How could any of these accusations be true with the battery of emails that I sent to Bishop Rodriguez like the one below? I sent this one one 29 August 2018:
But I sent many emails like that and never received any guidance or meetings or help.
No residence was ever granted me in response to the above email or prior ones. No assignment was ever granted me since my March requests to be a diocesan hermit. No “help” was ever given me for groceries, even as they knew I was “homeless” as stated in the above email.
Archbishop Aquila writes of me “We will continue to try to help Fr. Nix, if he will let us.” That has the ring of fatherly compassion! However, I suspect the type of “help” I need is exactly what Fr. Z blogged about last week.
My lawsuit for unlawful discharge after reporting misconduct with children continues against Archbishop Aquila.
I am a priest of eight years in good standing of the Archdiocese of Denver. About three weeks before the McCarrick scandal broke, I relayed reports of misconduct with children to Archbishop Aquila, and since then, I have been homeless and ignored by his chancery. After months of reaching out to them, I am now forced to go public with these scandals.
After seeking legal counsel, I wrote an email to Archbishop Aquila dated 24 May 2018 that I had heard third-hand that a high-power priest in the 1980s used to share a bed with a boy. That boy is now an adult, and he is a friend of a very good friend. That priest is now an extremely important person in the Archdiocese of Denver. I fear that if one boy was involved with slumber parties with this man, then many others may have had slumber parties, too. I tried to get the victim to talk to me, but he would not. Should the Archbishop retaliate with lies about me for this blog post, I will consider bringing this name to Denver’s 9News.
In that same email dated 24 May 2018 to Archbishop Aquila, I expressed concerns that about five years ago, a seminarian web-cammed or spy-cammed two 12 year old boys in their shower at a private residence. Although the seminary reported this to police, and although the seminarian fled the country, the seminary never apologized officially (except for one holy priest at the seminary who did so on his own.) I expressed my concern at the lack of transparency from the seminary to the family that I know so well.
The day after my report of scandals, the Archdiocese of Denver put $2583.82 into my bank account as seen in this picture.
Notice the date of 25 May 2018. “AoD management corp” stands for “Archdiocese of Denver management corporation.” I believe that $2583.82 is the back pay that would have been owed to me while I was taking care of an injured family member that spring, beginning 24 March 2018. They had not paid me a single dollar for months prior!
The very next day, 26 May 2018, the threats from the chancery began. Archbishop Aquila wrote me on 26 May: “To be direct, the way you have expressed yourself raises serious civil and canonical implications.” Fr. Capucci, the judicial vicar wrote me: “Please identify your civil lawyer so the Archdiocese’s long-time counsel, Scott Browning of the law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, can be in touch with these lawyers first thing tomorrow.”
These threats did not stop me from reporting what I had heard. I brought the above potential cases of misconduct with children to the Denver District Attorney. I met with Beth McCann on 31 May 2018 at 10am. Ms. McCann and her team were ready for me on the 8th floor of 201 W. Colfax in downtown Denver. I reported everything that I had heard. Similarly, I had a 42 minute conversation on the phone on 10 Sept 2018 with the Colorado Attorney General, Cynthia Coffman. Both women were very helpful to me.
As far as my ministry this past summer, I then tried to apply to a religious order in Kentucky. Archbishop Aquila’s team assured me that I was in good standing, and gave me permission for this one week of ministry as seen in this July pdf. It is the last correspondence that I have heard from his office. In fact, one reason I left the religious order in Kentucky to pursue the life of being a diocesan hermit is that I had no proof that the Archdiocese of Denver ever handed over my paperwork of good standing for anything more than one week. (The other reason is that I have been asking Archbishop Aquila to be a diocesan hermit since 26 March 2018, but had no answer.) For months after reporting misconduct I have been writing emails to the chancery, asking for a residence or permission to be a diocesan hermit or permission join a religious order. I was never given any residence or paperwork to go elsewhere since my reporting on misconduct. Nevertheless, this important pdf from the Archbishop’s office that shows I have never lost my faculties as a priest:
Since reporting scandals, Archbishop Aquila has iced me and I have been homeless and living out of my car. Here is what my “dresser” now looks like:
Archbishop Aquila recently created a “solemn promise” website where he said: “I take very seriously all reported incidents of misconduct by members of the clergy or other Church workers, and we will investigate even non-criminal misconduct with great diligence.”
Above, Archbishop Aquila also promises us priests that he would “ensure your physical, spiritual, and psychological well-being.” Here is me sleeping in my car after my having relayed reports of a priest and a seminarian having a past of potential misconduct with children:
These are very saddening promises, considering that my Archbishop recently built himself a multi-million dollar home as CNN reported here.
Sometimes I stay in my car. Sometimes I stay in a motel (I have gotten bedbugs at least once.) Sometimes I stay with friends. In defense of the Archdiocese of Denver, I do receive $600 every two months, which is the salary of a retired priest. However, that is not enough for a motel and groceries every night.
Many of my readers might remember that I have written many times how I had five Novus Ordo parishes in five years under Archbishop Aquila. Wasn’t I in trouble long before the Spring of 2018? Yes, but I can say in good conscience that I was ousted from the Archdiocese of Denver and forced to farm myself out to other dioceses because of how many whistles I had blown on Eucharistic abuses in Denver. To protect the Archbishop’s reputation, I never published all of the Eucharistic abuse that I reported to him, but under Canon 220, I now believe I have a right to a good name, so I have written this new blog post of the letters of Eucharistic abuse that I wrote to Archbishop Aquila in my last two parish assignments that led to my removal from ministry in the Archdiocese of Denver in 2014.
However, I never lost my faculties as a priest in good standing to hear confessions or offer public Mass. From 2014 to 2018 I have been on loan to other dioceses with all my letters of suitability. Because this on-loan status has stopped after my reporting misconduct, I am now beginning a cause of action of wrongful discharge and violation of public policy against Archbishop Aquila for leaving me without an assignment after reporting misconduct with children. If anyone knows of an employment law firm in Denver that would do this on contingency, or if you are willing to provide the financial retainer to me for this lawsuit, please email me at an email that I opened up for this cause at firstname.lastname@example.org
(Please don’t write me with advice or support. I may begin a Go Fund Me soon enough. At this point, please only write me if you can help with an employment law firm willing to do this on contingency or if you have the money to donate to a retainer for me. I realize that 1 Cor 6 says believes should not sue believers, but canon law and reasonable discussions have failed me.)
Thus, if this blog post leads to my suspension as a priest under the pretext of anything else in my past, the proof is in the pdf that I again publish below that I remain a priest in good standing. I fully expect Archbishop Aquila to find a “different reason” far in the past to suspend me, so I again publish again here my proof of being in good standing, sent even after my last time of visiting Colorado, but before having any permanent home:
I have been living out of a car for months. I am not looking for pity among my readers, but I must admit that all these explanations of my vagabond nature are now becoming embarrassing. Anything embarrassing requires me to go public under the Code of Canon Law 220, especially after I have been ignored by my bishop for so many months. Canon 220 reads: “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.” And yet my reputation is harmed every time I have to explain to a family why I look like a criminal priest on the road.
After months of being ignored by Archbishop Aquila, I now must go public, for the Code of Canon Law also states in Can. 212 §2: “The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.”
I am being treated as a criminal priest, when there is at least one (and probably several) criminal priests active in Denver.
Denver is the city where I was baptized, confirmed, worked for the City Paramedic Division, and was finally ordained by Archbishop Chaput to the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ. I thought of giving up, but I decided I need to fight for this since it is not my priesthood, but Christ’s.
Aware that lying will land me in hell, I sign off with these words from the book of the Apocalypse:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.—Apocalypse 21:8
Fr. David Nix
Roman Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Denver
This is a new blog post of my old letters to Archbishop Aquila reporting my last parish assignments in Colorado in reference to the Eucharistic abuse that I found there. During my last two parish assignments in Fort Collins, Colorado (2012 to 2014) I reported Eucharistic dangers directly to Archbishop Aquila. I have no record of his response to me on any account, except my removal from ministry in Colorado, found in the last paragraph of this blog post.
Before my most recent whistle blowing on my concerns regarding misconduct with children, Archbishop Aquila had allowed me to do the Traditional Latin Mass in other dioceses, on loan, from 2014 to 2018. That is the point of this blog post here.
However, the auxiliary blog post is only about the Eucharistic issues that made me have to shop for other dioceses. Except the hierarchy, the names below are the names redacted.
Dear Archbishop Aquila, 15 Oct 2012, St. Teresa of Jesus
Glory to Jesus Christ.
I feel it is my duty as an extension of your priesthood to inform you of what happened this weekend, specifically at the 10:30am Mass at X-parish in Ft. Collins on 14 October, 2012.
In concert with Redemptionis Sacramentum #84, I made an announcement on worthy communion and non-Catholics refraining from communion. Despite this announcement, three things happened in the next ten minutes that are noteworthy:
1. A 20-something year old man with his girlfriend came to receive communion from me. He was clearly confused. I asked him “Are you Catholic?” He said “No” so I gave him a blessing. When I saw him go try to receive the Precious Blood, I went quickly to the chalice to tell him not to. 2. An older man walked away with the Eucharist shortly after this. I had to chase him down. In his hand I found the Eucharist. I told him several times he has to receive it, and each time he said “I did” with it in his hand. Finally, he got mad at me and threw the Eucharist in his mouth. His wife is a long-time Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. She was very near us with the precious blood when this happened. One other Eucharistic Minister told me after Mass that he may have been on his way to his wife for intinction. 3. The most grave of all the Eucharistic matters from this Mass is as follows: A female-altar-server saw a man put the Eucharistic in his pocket from the hands of an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC) who did not see the incident. The man who took the Eucharist left Church immediately. X, our sacristan, chased the man outside the Church, but Greg would not cross the street after him to recover the stolen host. I was only informed about this after Mass.
Of course, the people of our parish probably found all of this running around to be madness. I also find it to be madness, but for different reasons. Did this host of Our Lord’s body end up in a Satanic ritual last night? These were most-likely preventable abuses through training that my pastor and I disagree on: “However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”—Redemptionis Sacramentum #92. In fact, Fr. X’s main concern was that these things never happen at his Masses, only mine. He never once addressed the stolen Eucharistic host.
Fr. X and I are long past mediation, as I brought the following to Msgr. Bernie Schmitz last month. Only the final one is worth reading to understand my conclusions that follow:
1. ca. 8/5: Eucharistic Ministry training is moved from the hands of Fr. David, in favor of Fr. X’s training for the EMoHC of the deanery or diocese. 2. 8/5: Bob, a Eucharistic minister tells me of a dropped host and how he did his best to clean the ground. I tell him it’s not his fault. We agree that we need pattens. Redemptionis Sacramentum 93 requires pattens or communion plates for the faithful. My request for these communion plates to prevent dropped hosts was dismissed nearly a month back. 3. 8/6: I get a text from one of the faithful about spilled Precious Blood, asking what to do with that on clothes. (Although this may have been at another parish, this man in Ft. Collins told me that he believes that few Eucharistic ministers notice these things that happen all the time, simply because few care to watch.) 4. 8/9: Our paid employee, the “Liturgy coordinator,” questions my announcement on worthy communion at Mass (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum 83-84.) This was the concern she brought to me after repeatedly referring to Our Lord’s body and blood as “bread” and “wine” in that very conversation. At the Vigil of the Annunciation, she stopped my use of incense and publically disagreed with me on the number of chalices I chose, promoting an excessive amount of EMHCs, probably against Redemptionis Sacrametum 151. 5. 8/10: A woman tells me about certain EMHCs at X-parish who despise the Church and her teachings, including those teachings on abortion and confession. I explain that she needs to talk to the pastor. 6. 8/11: During Daily Mass, I make an EMHC refrain from serving, for she came to distribute the Eucharist in shorts and a sleeveless shirt. 7. 8/11: The Eucharist breaks in my hand and about a 1/16th of the host falls to the ground from my hand, while distributing to an elderly man. It takes me several minutes to stop the communion line. Not unlike my earlier incident, he keeps shuffling around the ground near where the host fell. Finally, my altar server comes over and is able to find the piece of Our Lord’s body on the ground. This too would have been easily prevented with a patten. 8. 8/11: I have to ask a female altar server to stop eating a mint or candy 15 minutes before Mass in the sacristy. 9. 8/12: “L,” an EMHC at the 12:30pm Mass fished out some of the consecrated host out of the cup with her purificator. Our Lord’s sacred body stuck to the purificator, but she continued distributing the precious blood with that same purificator the rest of the time, losing the host by the time she returned to the altar. By the time she got to me, she tried to find the piece of Our Lord’s body on the purificator. She could not. Apparently, the host is lost on the ground somewhere. Although not ill-willed by this particular EHMC, this is preventable Eucharistic sacrilege via very basic obedience to Redemptionis Sacramentum (#102 especially, which states that “Holy Communion under both kinds…is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.”) My promise of obedience two years ago was to faithfully celebrate the Eucharist worthily according to the Roman Rite, not according to parish-custom.
Although I could name more, those are the incidents of only one week! I brought all of these to Msgr. Bernie, but I received no news of any changes in our parish. My out-of-state canon lawyer has assured me that these are not matters of scrupulosity. Some of the above issues stem from a most serious sacrilegious negligence, which I believe is happening all over the diocese. Fr. X said he never finds such abuses, and he even went so far (between two and five times over the past three months) to state that he believes that my discovery of these abuses is because I and my Masses are under “diabolical oppression.” Msgr. Bernie, he claimed, said that “Fr. David lives in his own reality.”
This may be true: As long as I am under a pastor, he should know I will not depart from Divine Law from Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding pattens (#93), Eucharistic catechesis on true-worthiness (#84), vigilance on watching the receiver of communion (#92), and pruning on excessive and untrained EHMCs (#151). This I will hold to, especially on weekends, which will be presumably very painful for almost any pastor in the Archdiocese (with a few exceptions like Fr. Y.)
To this point, I’d ask you to make me a chaplain somewhere, if you find me unfit to be a pastor. My conscience will no longer allow me to offer the Novus Ordo on weekends until the minimum of Redemptionis Sacramentum is met by both the pastor and parochial vicar at a parish. I understand that Redemptionis Sacramentum is not the maximum of Eucharistic pageantry, but the minimum of the Church’s standards to ensure the integrity of Divine Worship in the Novus Ordo.
Although the above paragraph may seem to be disobedient at first pale, the reason I cannot compromise on these Eucharistic matters is because the Vatican places Eucharistic matters at the level not of ecclesial law, but Divine Law: “Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.”—http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ pontifical_councils/ intrptxt/documents/ rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html [Yes, I really linked it like this in my email to the Archbishop.]
I do not know what you are going to do with me, but this is my vote of no-confidence in Fr. X on Eucharistic protection, due especially to his responses to the above Eucharistic abuses and even the loss of two hosts from my EHMCs. I think my pastor and I would agree that we are at the point of irreconcilable differences on the Most Holy Eucharist, and I would rather sustain a leave of absence from the clerical state than risk such sacrilege in being joined to a pastor who does not welcome the aforementioned vigilance.
In Jesus and Mary, I remain your obedient son in Christ’s One Priesthood,
Fr. David Nix
Dear Archbishop, 16 September 2014
After prayerful consideration, I have come to the conviction that I need to present to you the following topics. They are:
1) My many assignments in four years of priesthood. 2) My most recent removal from Y-parish.
As to the first, I have attached the letters that I have written to you (and Bishop Conley) from previous assignments, most of which address my concerns regarding the negligence (and possible abuse) of the Holy Eucharist which I encountered at so many parishes. Bishop Conley met with me. As for the later assignments, I must ask: Have you been informed about the complaints of Eucharistic mishandling? I am attaching several letters from each parish, including a letter I addressed you from X-parish containing reports of two lost Eucharistic hosts. I do not have record of your reply. Please note, also, that I requested the move myself from X-parish explicitly and from Q-parish implicitly, both because of how Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion treated the Eucharist.
As to my most recent move from Y-parish, I have also attached the e-mail that I sent to Your Excellency on January 23rd, 2014. In it, I describe an unsafe work environment, using words like “outbursts and harassment” which has “forced me to inform R [and his wife J] that I would seek a restraining order with the police.” In that email to you, I made it clear that I was in an unsafe work environment. Again, I never heard any response from any authority of the Archdiocese.
This culminated with the employee from Y-pairsh, J (named above), having five verbally violent outbursts against me, all because I would not answer her theological question about suicide in the way she wanted. False accusations against me began in public on January 23rd, 2014. Nevertheless, I peacefully tried to avoid her during all of these confrontations, and I informed my pastor, Fr. Y. In her third to last outburst against me, July 30th, 2014, I was the only priest at the parish and I decided from my training as an EMT and paramedic that she was in danger of moving from being verbally violent to becoming physically violent. I asked her to leave peacefully, but she would not. I subsequently called the police for her removal.
All of my concern for Eucharistic abuse was answered in a five page letter from Archbishop Aquila to me, explaining that I can not get along with pastors. The center of his letter was this:
“In light of these concerns, I want to assure you that you will continue to have faculties for celebrating Mass and for hearing Confessions. However, due to these concerns, I do not believe that you can be assigned to parish ministry or serve in a parish.”—16 Sept 2014, Archbishop Aquila to me, Fr. Nix.
The last time I placed a luna in a monstrance in a parish in the Archdiocese of Denver was for this picture that became quite famous on the internet for those who search “adoration.” I did not take the picture, but it is indeed my last Novus Ordo parish that is featured above. The name of the parish is St. John XXIII, and the second letter below includes my concerns that had me removed from that parish, and ministry altogether in the Archdiocese of Denver. ↩
Johannesburg, South Africa used to be the gunshot wound (GSW) capitol of the world. Several years ago, I was reading about how a Joburg paramedic was treating a conscious GSW patient. After a body sweep to find the exact number of GSWs, the paramedic found an exit wound in addition to the single entrance wound. Finding the exit wound made the medic exclaim, “This means you’re going to live! This means you’re going to live!” (Keep in mind that GSW patients frequently survive. Other victims may die hours later in the Operating Room, unlike the movies where the victim always dies on-scene.)
I’ve been very curious about that story for about a decade, so this week I did some research to see if an exit wound truly increased survival for GSW patients. All I could find in Western medical studies online was that entrance/exit wounds are frequently misdiagnosed about 50% of the time in American Emergency Departments. (In other words, trauma docs often think that the entrance wound is the exit wound and the exit wound is the entrance wound!)
But I have met a few grizzled, old street paramedics who can both identify and even diagnose things that ED physicians can not without their CT and ultrasound toys. So, perhaps this is one of those cases where the Joburg street medics simply know something important from experience: Single-GSW patients have a better chance of living if they also find an exit wound in addition to the entrance wound. (This may be true based on sheer fact that hollow tip bullets do more damage to body systems instead of exiting immediately.)
In this Joburg street medicine we can also find an analogy for our current Church crisis. I keep hearing many Western Catholics bemoaning: “I hope the Church doesn’t schism! I hope we doesn’t schism!” Well…there already is an internal schism. Just look around. Just go to Sunday Mass. Just look on social media. Just look at the Vatican news services: We already have a schism of beliefs. We are not unified.
An external schism will only increase the chances of survival. At least, it will help us Catholics admit we’re at the point where we’re at.
Of course, we already know that the Church will survive by Christ’s promise, but we have no guarantee that the good guys will keep the buildings and the schools and the money. St. Athanasius admitted the good guys did not get the buildings in the Arian heresy. More recently, Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen called those who live off the Church but do not contribute to her growth “parasites on the mystical body of Christ.” Yes, an external schism will let those parasites depart, even if they leave with the Church buildings and school and money.
But this schism is not divided exclusively into those people who go to the Latin Mass versus those who go to Mass in the vernacular. The schism we now see is a group of Catholics who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and another group who essentially believe on salvation what Universalist Unitarians believe, namely, that everyone who follows their conscience is saved. Of course, I put “traditionalists” in the former category of those who believe in the Gospel, but I’m thrilled to see so many other non-Latin-Mass Catholics coming out of the wood-works to side with the Truth instead of relativism, to side with the Apostles over the heresy of modernism, who side with sexual-purity over the destructive synods in Dublin and Rome, who essentially side with a God-centered religion instead of a man-centered religion as we see that so many chanceries are built on man, under the pretext of simply being “pastoral.”
Maybe we should start praying for this external schism to manifest itself for survival of the Church on top of the already-existing internal schism that has already bubbled to the top in every parish in the West, on every Catholic’s social media. I don’t propose schism as Martin Luther meant it. In fact, I know we need the Pope and the Cardinals to surivive as Catholics in an Apostolic Church. But perhaps this external schism’s pressure release valve would be an imperfect council held by only a few Cardinals to determine an honest future in the Catholic Church. That is above my pay-grade in the Catholic Church to determine how to slough-off the bad and get on with the good in a small but broken Church. 1
All I know at this point is that an exit wound would increase survival more than a single entrance wound, with all these damaging bullets bouncing around in the soft-tissue of the mystical body of Christ like so many parasites. Yes, this current internal schism may find relief in the outlet of a full external schism. I, for one, am praying for this, because it would be honest to admit that two religions are now occupying the same space, “Catholic.” An external schism will only increase the chances of supernatural survival of the Catholic Church in our lifetimes, so let’s pray that we all admit what has arrived internally becomes formally recognized so we can get on with that single, unchanging Faith in Jesus Christ that Catholics have clung to everywhere and at all times.
By “schism” I of course mean that orthodox Catholics would remain under the title “Catholic” and that the heretics would remain under the title of “modernists.” The reason I am not more clear about that in this blog post is because the bad guys are not going to distance themselves from the term “Catholic” so easily. In fact, Fr. James Martin SJ recently tweeted that the Catholics that oppose him not only oppose the “Vatican” but appear to not be “orthodox.”
I wish the bad guys would leave us with the title “Catholic” even if they insisted on taking our beautiful Churches. But the bad guys might not relinquish the title “Catholic” to the good guys so easily as seen in the above tweet on Fr. Martin that LSN reported on here.
That is why I propose in this blog post that the first step is simply to publicly admit “schism” in the manner that “schism” means tear in Greek. I propose we do this first without naming who is obviously Catholic. Furthermore, it may not be initially clear who has the majority of the piece of fabric that has been torn. I fear that the orthodox Catholics will be in the minority (population wise) while the modernist heretics (at least in the USA and Europe) would be in the majority of the Catholic population with most of the clergy.
However, those gay priests will not reproduce vocations because they are not inspiring. Similarly, the contracepting modernist families will not produce many children. Thus, in one generation or two, the good-guys in the Catholic Church would outnumber the bad-guy modernists. But, as it is becoming clear that the latter has no intention of converting, I say that the good guys split ways with the bad guys so that the good guys can reproduce physically and spiritually without the negative influence, and then in 100 years the good-guys will be the only Catholics left and the modernist heretics would have died out by their own lack of reproduction, even if they initially held on to the title “orthodox.” ↩
This is part 2 of 2 of an interview with Stefanie Nicholas, a millennial who went from being an agnostic to following Christ and the Catholic Church. Hear in today’s podcast how she “runs into the fire” of a Church in crisis with scandals, even when many run away. Stefanie writes at onepeterfive.
Why would anyone become Catholic *now*? This is part 1 of 2 of an interview with a single-Mom millennial who decided to follow Christ and the Catholic Church amidst the chaos of her own life, amidst the chaos of a Church in crisis.
In the beginning of this sermon, I quote breaking news from last night via the National Catholic Register. To see why Cdl. Wuerl is the featured image on this blog post, go to the sixth and seventh paragraph here.
Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas has already written to his faithful today regarding the credibility of the allegations of Pope Francis covering up the child abuse of Cardinal McCarrick. The letter is found towards the end of this The American Conservative article, including this sentence: “Let us be clear that they are still allegations but as your shepherd I find them to be credible. Using this standard the response must be a thorough investigation similar to those conducted any time allegations are deemed to be credible.”
Here are 10 very important Nota Benes to read before the account of homosexuality in the American Catholic Church: 1. This is not a gay-bashing blog-post. I have good friends who have struggled with same-sex attraction. Most of them were smart enough not to enter seminary or religious life. I say “smart” because it would be stupid to go live with 100 people you’re sexually attracted to for over seven years in a celibate vocation. 2. I do not believe anyone is born “gay,” so the correct Catholic term is actually “someone who struggles with same-sex attraction.” However, for the sake of brevity, I will often use the term “gay” or “homosexual.” 3. There have always been gays in the priesthood, but this blog post is a cultural evaluation of what is different about the 20th and 21st centuries. I know a 55 years old priest who claims that 60% of the priests his age are gay and 80% of the bishops are gay. The priest who told me this is a normal diocesan priest who does not even know the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM.) Many priests and seminarians from several dioceses concur on these admittedly-estimated numbers. 4. If you can show me any time in Church history with as many gays as the Catholic clergy in Europe and the Americas today, I will give you my vehicle, a 2007 Nissan Murano. You giving me numerous quotes from St. Peter Damien in the 11th century is not sufficient. In fact, the fact that we have only one saint repeatedly quoted on this topic from 19 centuries before our own proves to me that we have never had an epidemic of so many homosexuals in the priesthood as today. 5. Most priests and seminarians under 45 years old in the United States are straight, so things are getting better. 6. 80% of the cases of priests raping children came from priests (including now bishops and Cardinals) who self-identify as same-sex attracted. This was proven here. 7. Nevertheless, only 1.8% of priests are pedophiles as proven here. 8. This blog post is not about the child abuse in the clergy, but one of the many underlying perversions, namely, homosexuality in the priesthood. That is not the exclusive cause of criminal activity, but it is not a factor we can ignore. 9. This blog post is not about the full history of homosexuals in the priesthood, but rather the cultural factors and attacks on the Church in 20th century that created the perfect storm for many homosexuals to enter Catholic seminaries. 10. The next blog post after this one will have solutions to many of the below problems.
Jesus Christ chose twelve Apostles as His first Catholic bishops, half of whom were fishermen. Let that reality set in for a minute: Tough, blue-collar workers who never made it to rabbi-school were chosen as Apostles. To be sure, neither were they impious doofuses. They were tough, blue-collar workers who took their faith seriously, even when they had to say things to Our Lord like “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”—Luke 5:8. They thought in black-and-whites like that, not Hegelian greys.
St. John the Baptist, although never chosen to be a Catholic priest, was of a Jewish priestly tribe. We know this because of what St. Luke tells us about the Baptist’s father, Zachariah: “And it came to pass, when he executed the priestly function in the order of his course before God, According to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord.”—Luke 1:8-9. As you know, in Judaism, the son of a priest is always a priest.
Now, St. John the Baptist lived out his priesthood not in the Second Temple, but in the original temple of the cosmos, under the stars, in reflection of the first priest, Adam. That second temple in Jerusalem was built by King Herod, who’s son Herod who would one day kill St. John the Baptist for preaching against him taking his brother Phillip’s wife. But Herod was also rumored in Roman circles to be a vicious homosexual. Thus, by today’s standards, Herod was therefore a “bi-sexual” or “pan-sexual” since he also liked children.
In a little known passage from the Gospels, Jesus contrasts his saintly second-cousin John the Baptist to the filthy Herod who would one day kill the Baptist. St. Matthew writes: “As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.'”—Mt 11:7-8 ESV.
That word translated above “soft” in Greek is μαλακοῖς, and Jesus is saying that John the Baptist would never be caught in soft garments like rich kings. But the adjective μαλακοῖς (pronounced malakois) which is indeed accurately translated as “soft,” also has a very telling etymology. μαλακοῖς comes from the noun μαλακός (pronounced malakos) and my Greek-English dictionary defines it as this: “μαλακός—soft, soft to the touch, metaph. in a bad sense, effeminate, of a catamite, of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man, of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, of a male prostitute.”
If you doubt that this interpretation is a simply a stretch to include homosexuality in my blog post, look at which word the Apostle Paul uses to show how practicing homosexuals will not make it to heaven: 1 Cor 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (μαλακοὶ), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”—1 Cor 6:9-10. Notice that μαλακοὶ is the plural for effeminate men.
In his section on effeminacy in the Summa Theologica II-II.138, St. Thomas Aquinas writes, “It is inconsistent for one who is not cast down by fear, to be defeated by lust, or who has proved himself unbeaten by toil, to yield to pleasure.” In other words, St. Thomas is saying that the man “unbeaten by toil” is not likely to be effeminate. Unfortunately, the homes of modern bishops are more like those of Herod, than the rough tree-canopy of John the Baptist at the Jordan River.
Similarly, up until the 20th century, the priesthood was known as the most difficult life that a Catholic man could live. We all know of the constant physical pain felt by the first missionaries to the United States, like the Jesuit St. Isaac Jogues or the Franciscan St. Junipero Serra. St. Isaac Jogues had his fingers chewed off by Iriquois in upstate New York. St. Junipero Serra walked from central Mexico to southern California after being stung on his heel by a scorpion…all to establish missions up and down the California coast.
People expect this from old-school Jesuits and Franciscans, but did you know that bishops in the 19th century led lives as physically challenging? The first bishop of Colorado, Bishop Machebeuf, swept up and down the front range (modern day I-25) from Santa Fe to Denver and then back again, establishing missions, fighting off bands of bandits, mountain lions and bears…sleeping in tents, eating little, exposed to the New Mexico heat and the Colorado cold.
Bishop Machebeuf left France for this challenge in the 19th century and went everywhere with two priests. It was a hard life that only the toughest Catholic Frenchmen could endure. Colorado’s first parishes established by this first bishop of Colorado, Bishop Machebeuf, came at the price of his own body being racked by constant pain…yet it left him a humble demeanor and an excellent sense of humor. Only the toughest athletes of Europe could come be priests in the United States, be it religious or diocesan.
Before Vatican II, there was already a small infiltration of homosexuals and communists into seminaries and religious orders in the United States and Europe. In the 1960s, a French nurse named Marie Carre took care of a man in a horrible car accident. She found in his briefcase nearly-unbelievable evidence that the communists had placed 1100 men into Western seminaries for ordination, and they had made it to ordination undetected. The man who died in that car accident was one of them, and the findings of that mysterious briefcase are in this book. The point is that the infiltration of the priesthood of communists, gays and freemasons began sometime in the 20th century significantly before Vatican II.
Remember that the point of this blog post is simply to show how the culture and the Church changed to allow more gays into the priesthood than ever before. Also, remember that although this blog post is not about the raping of children, Nota Bene number six at the beginning of this blog post shows that 80% of the priests who harm children were identified as gay. Part 2 will be solutions.
Catholicism grows very well in pain and opposition. But by the time John F. Kennedy was President of the United States, Catholics were no longer sidelined, but rather mainstream. Fighting side-by-side with Protestants in two World Wars earned us the respect as equals, as true American citizens. Of course, the Irish Catholic President Kennedy greatly promoted the cause of Catholic popularity in both the United States and Europe. This is fine too, but it presents a small problem: It it is hard to be faithful when things get easy as a Catholic. As the Clear Creek translation of the Bible says, “The beloved have become fat and frisky.”—Dt 32:15.
. The bishop in the middle is straight, but I learned as a priest that that gentle elbow grab with a goofy smile is usually a good sign the cleric is struggling with same sex attraction. I mean—not struggling.
Thus, Catholics (and especially priests and bishops) went from unpopular and poor in the 19th century to popular and rich after the second World War. It came to be that if you want to live in a million-dollar rectory just for offering one Mass a day but you don’t want to tell your mother why you don’t like women, then the Catholic priesthood might be right for you! As if this was not a perfect storm enough, then Vatican II arrived. For nearly 40 years before Vatican II, there was a small creep of modernism, homosexuality and even communism into seminaries in North America and South America. Vatican II was not the root of such men in the Church, but they certainly hijacked the original documents of the Council in the second week of October 1962.
The decade that followed Vatican II was not the genesis of gay priests, but it allowed them to live in the open, and here’s my guess as to why: All through seminary, I was told that there was no change to liturgy or doctrine. Vatican II had just been mis-implemented. I repeated this odd mantra, and somehow I got ordained. So, I arrive in the parish, and I do the Mass of Vatican II according to the rules of Vatican II as faithfully as I could. Then, I sadly had five parishes in five years, repeatedly getting booted for disallowing careless so-called “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.” (Only one of those pastors was probably gay, thankfully.)
But still, I would always end up in the bishop’s office quoting a 2004 document, Redemptonis Sacramentum, against this and countless other abuses. At the end of five years, I had been kicked out of five parishes, and I was exhausted. If I expected my reader in previous blog posts to pity me for having so many parishes, I now write this to prove a simple point: If a priest is not allowed to do the Mass of Vatican II according to the rules of Vatican II in a conservative diocese, under five conservative pastors…then there is no order to the Novus Ordo.
Let me write that again with no exaggeration: Even in conservative dioceses, there is no order to the Novus Ordo liturgy. This means the Mass of Vatican II was not just mis-implemented. It was written to have no order. The Dutch, Dominican Father of Vatican II, Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx said: “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”—Fr. Schillebeeckx.
Mission Accomplished, Fr. Schillebeeckx! Many if not most American dioceses have at least one young, straight priest who has been suspended from offering public Masses not because he did the Traditional Latin Mass, but because he did the Mass of Vatican II according to the so-called “rules” of Vatican II. But as Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx admitted, the ambiguity of the Mass of Paul VI was ultimately for chaos in the rules. This does not come from me, but from one of the main players of Vatican II.
This also proves there is no “hermeneutic of continuity” even in conservative dioceses. This is not only a problem in liturgy, but also doctrine. In my first five Novus Ordo parishes, I was certainly allowed to preach the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and I was even allowed to preach pro-life, but anything else that came from the doctrine of Catholic tradition, and I was frequently told that I was not “pastoral.” What kind of men are going to be attracted to a no order system of doctrine like that? What kind of men are going to be attracted to a liturgy that puts entertainment ahead of liturgical precision? What kind of men are going to be attracted to popularity ahead of doctrinal precision? There’s only one answer to all three questions: Homosexuals.
A no-order liturgy and a no-order doctrine are going to attract a man who is aberrantly-ordered sexually. It’s really very simple. The Mass of Vatican II and the amorphous teaching of the last fifty years on doctrine is very attractive to manipulative and emotional men, and such personality traits are always correlative to same-sex attracted men. It is a lot easier since I now offer only the Traditional Latin Mass.
What happened to the straight men who were attracted to solid, doctrinal parameters? They were kicked out of seminaries in the 1990s. A man who does not believe in any objective order for his sexuality (homosex at best, child abuse at worst) is going to be attracted to a Mass where he, the narcissist, is the only point of reference for entertaining the people. Furthermore, unrepentant gay men prefer the fuzzy doctrine of the post Vatican II era, for here, every rule can be dispensed for “pastoral reasons.”
Once the gay, conniving manipulative priests began to fill seminaries and religious orders in the 1970s, they easily became priests by the 1980s, and then bishops by the 1990s. To prove that gay bishops ambitiously helped each other in ladder-climbing through the hierarchy would take another five blog posts. Always follow the money. Oh, and follow the sex: As we saw in the Cdl. McCarrick history, the gay hierarchy purposefully sought out soft or handsome young men (and even boys) to enter their seminaries for untoward reasons. “Conservative” orders like the Legionnaires of Christ were simply smoother about their destruction of the priesthood than the liberals. It should be noted that this gay perversion and child abuse has even made it a little bit to certain traditional religious congregations that use the Traditional Latin Mass. Joseph Sciambra reported abuse of children in the traditional Society of St. John decades ago. He was not fully vindicated until the last chapter of the recently-released 2018Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on the Society of St. John.
Why don’t current, young orthodox priests blow the whistle on this gay mafia? Because most of the straight guys become cowardly, company men under their gay superiors, even when they avoid sexual sins with them. Occasionally one priest or another has the fortitude to blow the whistle. But when a straight-priest blows a whistle on a gay orgy of other priests, his bishop removes him. Of course, the bishop throws a red-herring to the faithful to incriminate the solid, young priest. If you think this is only a thing of the 1990s à la GoodBye Good Men, then see a recent account here on the good Fr. Leatherby.
Msgr. Ricca was a Vatican diplomat posted in Montevideo, Uruguay and has made secular international news many times for homosexual scandals. Ricca was later later named as “head of the Papal residence” at the Casa Santa Martha.
Finally, realize that the necessity of gay men running parishes jives very well with an America where women are the spiritual leaders of the families. Although I blame these scandals entirely on priests, not on families, we must recognize that the breakdown of the family contributed to such rotten priests. Catholic boys for the past fifty years have mostly been raised by their mothers, not their fathers. This has partly contributed to a mostly-gay priesthood. These gay priests furthermore surround themselves with old women in the parish, to whom they give much control. It’s a symbiotic relationship: The gay priest gets to gossip over coffee with the ladies all morning. In return, the ladies are delegated control of a parish—the next best thing to getting ordained.
In the next blog post, I’ll offer some possible but real solutions to re-establishing a straight, healthy and strong priesthood in the Catholic Church.