Former Vocations Director for the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, defrocked

Crux reports:

WORCESTER, Massachusetts - The Vatican has defrocked a priest who was named in one of the Worcester Diocese of Massachusetts’ largest sex-abuse settlements.

The diocese in a statement Thursday said Peter Inzerillo was laicized at his own request. The decision means Inzerillo 'may not function in any capacity as a priest or be referred to as a priest or as Father.'

The diocese had removed Inzerillo from ministry in 2002, and he had not had faculties for priestly ministry since that time.

Inzerillo served as director of Vocations from 1983 until 1994.

The Telegram & Gazette reports that Inzerillo was accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old man who was considering a vocation to the priesthood in 1985.

The victim said he told Inzerillo about being abused by a priest when he was a 13-year-old altar boy; following the disclosure, Inzerillo then also abused him.

Inzerillo was not criminally charged.
The diocese settled the case in 1999 for $300,000, and reassigned Inzerillo to a different parish.

Ordained in 1970, he served at parishes in Leominster and Fitchburg and was also headmaster at St. Peter-Marian High School. A listed number for Inzerillo was not in service Friday.

'It is my fervent prayer that Christ may bring healing and hope to anyone who has been abused by a priest or by anyone in the Catholic Church,' said Bishop Robert J. McManus.

The bishop also encouraged anyone in need of pastoral assistance as a result of clerical abuse to contact the diocesan Victims Assistance Coordinator in the Office of Healing and Prevention."

Director of Vocations...surprised? Father James Aquino, once the Director of the Permanent Diaconate Program, was arrested in Las Vegas on charges of lewd conduct, To Wit: public masturbation.  See here.

Is there really any doubt as to why sexual deviants were placed in charge of priestly vocations and Diaconate training programs?

Recruitment? Perish the thought. Meanwhile, orthodox and heterosexual men free of pathologies have witnessed their vocation relegated to the dust-bin...see here.

But the Homosexualist Lavender Mafia hasn't been able to silence us.  More than 50,000 readers visit this Blog every month.

God works in mysterious ways.

FBI believed Hillary Clinton and aides broke the law...why then wasn't the matter pursued?

The Hill is reporting that:

Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the 'sheer volume' of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said."

From Cornell Law School:



U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Why then wasn't this matter pursued? Why did the FBI not pursue a criminal investigation into the former Secretary of State and her aides?

Expect the "mainstream media" to ignore this story or to bury it.

Bill Clinton to a veteran: Shut up

Speaking to a crowd in Bluffton, South Carolina, former President Bill Clinton told a veteran to "shut up" because he didn't want to hear what he had to day.  See here.

While many are enjoying the best of everything this country has to offer, many are not.  Twenty-five percent of homeless men in this country are veterans.  Apparently we are content with this situation because it is only getting worse.  My father served in Korea and during the Vietnam conflict. He was career military.  But when he needed a hearing aid, he was denied one.  We treat veterans in this country much like disposable razors: we discard them after use.

It was Henry James who said, "I think patriotism is like charity - it begins at home."  But we have forgotten this.  We spend countless millions helping illegal aliens in this country but we still neglect to treat veterans with dignity.

Even in the Church, those of us who served in the military are often treated as second-class citizens. As Wintery Knight says, "All of the outward facing disciplines within Christianity, such as apologetics, theology, ethics, etc. are de-emphasized, censored or resisted in feminized churches. There is no place for rationality, moral judgments and boundaries, debates and disagreement, confrontations and persuasion, or other manly Christian practices."

I've personally encountered such resistance toward apologetics and spiritualities which are decidely masculine (such as the Ignatian model). I'm convinced that the effeminization which has take place within the Catholic Church in this country is one reason I am not welcome at my own parish and have been, like so many other healthy young men who are not homosexual or crippled by effeminacy, relegated to the trash bin.

I have been ostracized in my parish because I refuse to accept sodomy and the agenda to "queer the Church" or effeminize her.

A. Lawrence Vaincourt, in a poem, offers something for Bill Clinton and others who disrespect veterans to reflect upon.  It is entitled Just a Common Soldier - A Soldier Died Today:


He was getting old and paunchy and his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion, telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he had fought in and the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies; they were heroes, every one.

And tho’ sometimes, to his neighbors, his tales became a joke,
All his Legion buddies listened, for they knew whereof he spoke.

But we’ll hear his tales no longer for old Bill has passed away,
And the world’s a little poorer, for a soldier died today.

He will not be mourned by many, just his children and his wife,
For he lived an ordinary and quite uneventful life.

Held a job and raised a family, quietly going his own way,
And the world won’t note his passing, though a soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth, their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing and proclaim that they were great.

Papers tell their whole life stories, from the time that they were young,
But the passing of a soldier goes unnoticed and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution to the welfare of our land
A guy who breaks his promises and cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow who, in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his Country and offers up his life?

A politician’s stipend and the style in which he lives
Are sometimes disproportionate to the service that he gives.

While the ordinary soldier, who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal and perhaps, a pension small.

It’s so easy to forget them for it was so long ago,
That the old Bills of our Country went to battle, but we know

It was not the politicians, with their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom that our Country now enjoys.

Should you find yourself in danger, with your enemies at hand,
Would you want a politician with his ever-shifting stand?

Or would you prefer a soldier, who has sworn to defend
His home, his kin and Country and would fight until the end?

He was just a common soldier and his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us we may need his like again.

For when countries are in conflict, then we find the soldier’s part
Is to clean up all the troubles that the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor while he’s here to hear the praise,
Then at least let’s give him homage at the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline in a paper that would say,
Our Country is in mourning, for a soldier died today.

It's not a loyal marine corps veteran who needs to "shut up."  Rather, it is Bill Clinton, a failed President who spent his career enriching himself while cheating on his wife.

Mr. Clinton hasn't earned the right to tell an honorable veteran to shut up.

Father Thomas Rosica and the leaven of infidelity

In an interview with Professor Gregory Baum for "Salt and Light TV," Father Thomas Rosica told the notorious dissident, “I’ve certainly admired very much your theology, your writings but also your love of the Church, your love of Christ, and you helped to keep alive not only the spirit of the Second Vatican council, but also the authentic teaching of the Council … you remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist.”

Lifesite News has reported, "Liberal Catholic press-people have recently touted a man some call Canada’s leading dissenter since the 1960s - former Catholic priest Gregory Baum - because of his role as an expert, or peritus, to the Canadian bishops at Vatican II.  Baum, an advocate of homosexual ‘marriage’ and sex outside of marriage and contraception, was lauded by Fr. Thomas Rosica of Salt and Light TV, Michael Swan of the Catholic Register and also given free reign in the pages of the Scarboro Foreign Missions magazine.

Had he merely publicly rejected Catholicism, Baum would not have been as grave a danger to the Church and especially its moral teachings.

Despite the automatic excommunication he incurred for marrying an ex-nun while still a priest, Baum continued to speak lovingly of Jesus and the Gospels as he repudiated many of the principles of faith and morals revealed by Christ and in Sacred Scripture.  One of the tools of repudiation was the dissenting Catholic New Times newspaper co-founded by Baum and other dissenters in 1976 and eventually prohibited from one diocese after another.

Such two-facedness led one of Baum’s contemporaries, canon lawyer Monsignor Vincent Foy, to consider Baum as having “done more than any person to harm the Church in Canada…"

This is the disturbed soul which Father Thomas Rosica has publically lauded.  What would that suggest about Dr. Rosica?

Vatican II, in its' Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 4, tells us that: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: "Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).


To all men, therefore, priests are debtors that the truth of the Gospel which they have may be given to others. And so, whether by entering into profitable dialogue they bring people to the worship of God, whether by openly preaching they proclaim the mystery of Christ, or whether in the light of Christ they treat contemporary problems, they are relying not on their own wisdom for it is the word of Christ they teach, and it is to conversion and holiness that they exhort all men."

According to the Council, the task of priests is "not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word." And this task is of no less importance for the priest than his offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Both of these are inseperably linked to each other: "The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1552).

For this reason, priests have the very serious obligation to teach the faithful under their care that it is never licit to have sexual relations outside of marriage; that a Catholic cannot (having been validly married in the Church) after divorce, marry another or otherwise pretend that sexual relations with another individual are somehow "marital"; that "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" and that '"the Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" (CCC, 2272); and that "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil.." (CCC, No. 2370, citing Humanae Vitae, No. 14).

The Church proposes these (and other teachings) as true and it does so in the name of Christ. The priest is not to question them. He is not to ignore them or neglect them out of a false sense of "compassion" or "charity." It was Pope Paul VI who said that, "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls." (Humanae Vitae, No. 29).

Pope John Paul II reiterated these words in Familiaris Consortio, No. 33. We are reminded in Lumen Gentium 14 of the Second Vatican Council that: "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

When a priest ignores or neglects his duty, his task, of serving the Word of God with fidelity, he fails to persevere in that charity described by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a charity which diminishes in no way the saving teaching of Christ. And he will be the more severely judged (Luke 12:48).

But so many priests have neglected their duty to proclaim the Gospel to all.  And the Church is now reaping the fruit of this infidelity.  Even though Canon Law states quite clearly that, "The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments" (Canon 213), there has been a dearth of sound catechesis.  The People of God have not been formed by sound instruction based on Church doctrine and Church Tradition.  When was the last time (if ever) you heard a homily in your local parish citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church or papal documents?  Were it not for EWTN, you might never hear such authentic preaching.

And this is nothing short of shameful.  For such a foundation is vital.  Where it is absent, people will assume that they have the right to form their conscience according to their own opinions, their own whims.  The Catechism teaches us that, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.  A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.  It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.  The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." (1783).

Those priests who remain silent while their people crave truth and direction are betraying their vocation.  And they will be (as Lumen Gentium 14 reminds us), the more severely judged.  As will every Catholic who knowingly rejects the authoritative teachings of Christ's Church.  Truly the words of Hosea apply to our own time:

"Sons of Israel, listen to the word of Yahweh, for Yahweh indicts the inhabitants of the country; there is no fidelity, no tenderness, no knowledge of God in the country, only perjury and lies, slaughter, theft, adultery and violence, murder after murder.  This is why the country is in mourning, and all who live in it pineaway, even the wild animals and the birds of heaven; the fish of the sea themselves are perishing."

And to the priests:

"But let no man denounce, no man rebuke; it is you, priest that I denounce.  Day and night you stumble along, the prophet stumbling with you, and you are the ruin of your people.  My people perish for want of knowledge.  As you have rejected knowledge so do I reject you from my priesthood; you have forgotten the teaching of your God, I in my turn will forget your children.  Many as they are, all of them have sinned against me, they have bartered their glory for shame.  They feed on the sin of my people, they are all greedy for their iniquity.  But as with the people, so let it be with the priest: I will make them for their conduct, I will pay them out for their deeds.  They will eat but never be satisfied, they will play the whore but still be sterile, because they have deserted Yahweh to give themselves up to whoring." (Hosea 4: 1-11).

The Church is in crisis because priests like Father Thomas Rosica continue to genuflect before the world in their zeal to serve the Prince of this world.

Pray for these confused clerics.

Thomas Groome, former priest and heretic, is anxiously awaiting Pope Francis' "Major reforms."

Father Malachi Martin, a Jesuit scholar who served as a member of the Vatican Advisory Council as well as personal secretary to Cardinal Augustin Bea, was known to be in possession of detailed information pertaining to the Third Secret of Fatima, which he said addressed a plan to install the False Prophet during a "Final Conclave."





Is it just a coincidence that the current Pontiff took the name Francis - after Saint Francis of Assisi - when the same saint was given a prophecy which enabled him to prophesy that, "...a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.....some preachers will keep silence about the truth, an others will trample it under foot and deny it....for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer."





This prophecy of an anti-pope seizing papal authority and the faithful remnant of the Church being subjected to persecution like never before in history has been spoken of by many seers.  Blessed Joachim prophesied that, "Toward the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his See."  Malvenda says that, "...Rome itself in the last times of the world will return to its ancient idolatry, power and imperial greatness.  It will cast out its Pontiff, altogether apostasize from the Christian faith, terribly persecute the Church, shed the blood of martyrs more cruelly than ever, and will recover its former state of abundant wealth, or even greater than it had under its first rulers."

The priest-mystic Father Herman Bernard Kramer, in his classic work "The Book of Destiny," interprets the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation thusly: "The 'sign' in heaven is that of a woman with child crying out in travail and anguish of delivery.  In that travail, she gives birth to some definite 'person' who is to rule the Church with a rod of iron (verse 5).  It then points to a conflict-waged within the Church to elect one who was to 'rule all nations' in the manner clearly stated.  In accord with the text this is unmistakably a papal election, for only Christ and His Vicar have the divine right to rule all nations.....But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of  the logical and expected candidate...."





What else does this describe but a revolution in the Church?





At La Salette, the Blessed Mother told Melanie Calvat that the time was coming when, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.  For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends.  The Church will be in eclipse, the worl will be in ismay....Now is the time; the abyss is opening.  Here is the king of kings of darkness, here is the Beast with his subjects, calling himself the savior of the world."



Bear in mind that little Melanie Calvat was a simple peasant girl.  She was not what the world considers to be "sophisticated."  She wasn't given to flights of fancy.  There was no malice in her.  No deceit.  Otherwise the La Salette apparition would not have been approved.



Things appear to be escalating quickly now.




In an article entitled "New role shows pope's esteem for O'Malley," Thomas Groome, a former priest who is nothing less than a heretic, and who serves as a professor of theology at Boston College, assures us that Pope Francis will depend on Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley's advice to lead "major Church reforms."




Readers of this Blog will recall how Cardinal O'Malley was prepared to allow a "Gay Pride Mass" in his Archdiocese (at Saint Cecilia's Parish in the Back Bay) until faithful Catholics such as yours truly exposed the whole affair (see here).  What sort of "advice" will Francis receive from the Cardinal?


And what does Groome mean by "major Church reforms"?  Doctrinal changes on the way?  That a heretic would be looking forward to "major reforms" from Francis is, to say the least, extremely unnerving.




Archbishop Fulton John Sheen warned us years ago that a False Prophet would be chosen from among the Bishops and that he would advance "a religion without a cross."


Watch and pray.




Related reading here and here.

Who has really gone "well over the line," Rick Santorum or Barack Obama?

Former White House Press Secretary and current campaign adviser Robert Gibbs is alleging that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum went "well over the line" when he questioned Obama's Christian values.  Gibbs told ABC's "This Week" that it's time to get rid of this mindset in our politics that, if we disagree, we have to question character and faith."  See here.

If Robert Gibbs really believes that Rick Santorum went "well over the line" by merely questioning Obama's so-called "Christian virtues," he must then concede that Barack Obama obliterated that line when he said that Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." See here.

Where was Mr. Gibbs when Barack Obama said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.."  If we are not supposed to question character or faith, why was Mr. Obama questioning the character and faith of average Americans who live in "a lot of small towns in the Midwest"?

I've noted before at this Blog that Barack Obama imposes a standard on others which he refuses to live up to himself.  See here.  And it would seem that Robert Gibbs would also hold others to a higher standard than he expects from his boss.  Mr. Gibbs should reflect very carefully on what the philosopher Plato had to say in Book I of his Laws (635a): "We invite you to criticize our institutions without reserve. One is not insulted by being informed of something amiss, but rather gets an opportunity for amendment, if the information is taken in good part, without resentment."

In the meantime, I would like an explanation as to how Barack Obama may be considered a Christian when he has rejected the teaching of Sacred Scripture.  I would really like to hear Mr. Gibbs' explain that one.  I just love creative fiction.

America Needs Fatima reports: Jesuit run Marquette University to hire former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold to teach

Mr. Robert Ritchie of America Needs Fatima writes, "Catholic and Jesuit run Marquette University will hire former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold to teach a course about law and the US Senate in the spring. Feingold's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual voting record as a US Senator is a public fact. He also approved partial birth abortion and voted against prayer in schools. Is this who we want teaching the next generation of Catholic lawyers at Marquette University? Among other things, Feingold voted NO on: restricting UN funding for population control policies, defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP, prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion, barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions, expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines, notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime, maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions, banning human cloning

But there's more. According to Pro-life Wisconsin: "Feingold is hardly Marquette's first controversial professor, however. Two current Marquette professors are also on the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin Board: Jacqueline Boynton and Daniel Maguire."

This is outrageous. It's very troubling that Marquette would hire someone who publicly and consistently opposes Catholic teaching on key moral issues. And it's time we voice our opinion against this scandalous, public and blatant violation of the Catholic sense. So please take a moment right now to send an instant protest message to Marquette University.

Sign emergency e-protest message to Marquette University

Thank you!"


Marquette University Law School

Joseph D. Kearney
Dean and Professor of Law
joseph.kearney@marquette.edu
Phone: (414) 288-1955


Marquette University
Fr. Robert A. Wild, S.J., President
O'Hara Hall, 101
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
robert.wild@marquette.edu
Phone: 414-288-7223

Related reading: A culture of infidelity at Marquette University.

Former Newsweek editor slams New York Times for creating its "own version of the scandal."

Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek's former religion editor, said that the New York Times has not been fair in its recent attempts to link the Pope with Church sex abuse cover up. See here. That's really putting it mildly. The New York Times is guilty of calumny. So too is Father James Scahill*. And it is time for Father Scahill to issue an apology to our Holy Father for this calumny and to the entire Church for his blasphemous assertion that the Catholic Church - the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus - is "insidiously evil."

Throughout all of this ugly hate campaign directed against Pope Benedict XVI, our Holy Father has been [ and this doesn't surprise me in the least] a shining example of humility and grace. It was the great Saint Francis de Sales who advised, "If you are falsely accused, excuse yourself meekly, denying your guilt, for so much you owe to truth and the edification of your neighbor. But if, after your true and honest excuse, your accusers persist, give yourself no further trouble, and do not persevere in your defense, for having paid tribute to truth, now pay tribute to humility."


* See here.

Related reading: Will VOTF, the anti-Catholic dissent group, apologize for its calumny?

Former President Jimmy Carter attempting to silence dissent from Obama's socialist policies

In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Now, former President Jimmy Carter, the same man who referred to Barack Obama as a "Black Boy" (see video here) is asserting that the overwhelming portion of opposition to President Obama's socialistic policies is racist in origin (see here).

A convenient way to silence debate and political dissent. Paint the opposition as racist even when there is no evidence of racism. Never mind that ordinary decent Americans, many of whom voted for Barack Obama, are concerned about their future and the future of their children. No, according to former President Carter, most of those who have been expressing their concerns over the direction this country is heading in are racist. This response from Rush Limbaugh is most relevant.