www.Restore-DC-Catholicism.com

In this page, we’ll attempt to correct the errors and shortcomings of the official Archdiocesan periodical. It will be updated as errors and omissions become known. Remember – if you learn of anything, please advise us!

RUSSERT AND RICHMOND

By now you’ve heard of the latest Catholic Charities debacle, this one in nearby Richmond, VA (If not, go to the “national news” section of this site). This one truly scrapes the bottom of the barrel, for they have been found to be party to an abortion in January of 2008. Given the depth of moral depravity in this instance, we might have hoped to have seen some mention of it in the Catholic Standard. Alas, such did not happen (in the June 26^th edition). We’ve no reason to hope, given past performance, that any will happen. We find this to be patently dishonest and downright stupid. Surely the Standard staff has to know that the Washington Times put it on one of their front pages. In a word, whom do they think they’re fooling? Meanwhile, we see all kinds of happy-happy anecdotes about kids and priests getting awards. However, aside from the bios of the newly-ordained deacons, there really is nothing of substance.

One colossal waste of space has been all the coverage devoted to Tim Russert’s passing. Of course we pray for the repose of his soul and for his bereaved family. I’ll say, though, that during that same time, the father of friends of mine passed away after a long illness. He and his family raised eight children and was a faithful Catholic. How much coverage in the Standard did his death garner? The same amount as did the Richmond situation – zilch, nada! Yet what was the difference between the two men? It’s painfully obvious, and painful because it reveals the priorities of the Standard and the archdiocese that pulls its puppet strings. Russert was rich, famous and influential; the other gentleman was not.

The June 19^th issue of the Standard was almost entirely devoted to the bewailing of Russert’s death. I cannot recall a single page that didn’t mention him at least once. I suppose the June 26^th issue was an improvement, since only half the pages therein had Russert articles. Now it is known that Russert, in the past, did work for the campaigns of both Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo – both pro-abortion Democrats. Did he ever renounce his promotion of pro-abortion politics, however indirect such promotion might have been? We certainly hope so. Moreover, we hope that the Standard made due-diligence inquiries into the same: although we strongly doubt it.

Our point, though, is not to speculate on whether or not Russert was faithful to the Majesterium with regards to life issues. Rather, we deplore the Standard’s (and the archdiocese of Washington’s) rather unsavory proclivities in fawning over powerful and prominent people simply because they are powerful and prominent. Such does not seem to reflect true Catholic standards (pun NOT intended!).

UPDATE! Rocks are being overturned, and details are being unearthed. Yes, he did more than just work for Moynihan and Cuomo. According to the Wanderer (July 3^rd edition), he took their flagging primary campaigns and propelled them to victory. How, you may ask? By encouraging them to embrace the pro-abortion position. You can read it here, but you’ll have to subscribe to the online edition to read it (the article is called “An Insider’s Take on Tim Russert”). Now why is this important, now that the man is dead? Two reasons: if this is true, and it probably is, he has advocated abortion and may well have died in mortal sin. We don’t know that for certain, but there is cause for concern, and need for much prayer. Second, in keeping with their dubious tradition of celebrating the rich and famous Catholic (regardless of virtue, or lack thereof), the Archdiocese of Washington has established (drum roll, please!) the “Tim Russert Memorial Fund”! Ostensibly it’s a scholarship fund of sorts, aimed no doubt at those celebrities who continue to wax lyrical about Russert. Why, what better way to express their admiration for their colleague by dropping a few thousand into this worthy fund?

Seriously, the archdiocese must be challenged on this. It is simply not appropriate to establish any memorial of any sort for someone who may well have advanced the culture of death. Christopher Manion of the Wanderer did excellent research. However, it was the duty of the archdiocese to do their homework before establishing this memorial.

ANOTHER UPDATE With all the sad saga and sorry excuses that seem to be popping up like kudzu regarding the Richmond/DiLorenzo scandal (see the “national news” section of this site), we’d think that the Catholic Standard would see fit to mention it at least once. Well, now the July 3^rd issue has arrived, and still there is not one word about it. The writers/editors at the Standard continue to emulate the Three Monkeys. However, there is progress in one aspect. The lament regarding Tim Russert’s death is waning! This time, we only saw the back page devoted to the rehash. Perhaps by the time next week rolls around, it will be all out of their system, and they can let the poor man rest in peace.

HARRY FORBES BLATHERS AGAIN

Harry Forbes, the USCCB movie reviewer who made a laughingstock of himself after giving favorable reviews to the poison contained in the movies “Brokeback Mountain” and the “Harry Potter” series, has done it again in the March 6, 2008 edition of the Standard. The object of misplaced adulation is “The Other Boleyn Girl”. Ostensibly, it’s a tale about King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and her sister. We will not bore you with the unedifying details of the movie; your own knowledge of Church history in England will suffice. Forbes calls this “good old-fashioned historical drama”. Well, it’s more like modern, sordid, daytime soap operas! To quote, “the film contains royal bedroom intrigue with nongraphic sexual encounters including rape, incest reference, adultery, divorce, light sexual banter and innuendo and discreetly filmed beheadings. It is acceptable for older teens.”

We kid you not! The review actually makes those statements – in that order! It is not acceptable for anybody (How on earth does one talk about “discreetly filmed beheadings”??!?!?). Oh, by the way – he fails to mention in any way the resultant apostasy of England and the resultant persecution of Catholics (We don’t think those persecutions were discreet at all!), but we suppose insults to the Faith are no big deal to Mr. Forbes. At any rate, he gives the trash a rating of A-III-adults. Is it time to make them ashamed enough to rate that junk more appropriately? That was accomplished with the Brokeback Mountain review!

HUMANAE VITAE DISSENTER EULUGIZED IN THE STANDARD

Walter J. Burghardt, S.J., passed away February 16, 2008. His eulogy appeared in the Standard. In it, he was praised up and down and right and left for his social justice advocacy. There was mentioned, very briefly (very VERY briefly) his public dissent against Humanae Vitae. He was quoted as saying that was a difficult decision for him, that it “cost him dearly.” What screams the loudest is what was NOT said. No mention was made of any recantation, any repentance on his part for disobedience to Pope Paul VI. We of Faithful Catholics of MD/DC hope that he did indeed repent; else he may have found that his dissent cost him even more dearly than he originally believed. May God have mercy! As for the Catholic Standard, we wonder why they gloss over this dissent, a dissent that more than besmirches all the other good that Father may have done. Again, the Standard should have implored the prayers of all for this man’s repose, but it should never have sung his praises.

TRANSGENDER PANDERER EULUGIZED IN THE STANDARD

Montgomery County Councilwoman Marilyn Praisner passed away on February 1, 2008. The Standard’s questionable eulogy (page 18 of the Feb 14^th edition) starts with a headline describing her as “woman who lived her faith as public servant”. We find one of her final votes to be quite at variance with Catholic moral teaching. In November 2007, the Montgomery County Council unanimously passed Bill 23-07, the Transgender Identity Bill. Among other things, this bill would allow cross-dressers the legal right to use public facilities that are designated for the “gender of choice” at any given moment. This webmistress is aware of three occasions when women went into ladies’ restrooms and found therein men in drag. All facilities – churches and schools included – would be forced to accommodate perversion. No exceptions are allowed. Many good people are spending countless hours trying to bring this bill to referendum – and to undo Ms. Praisner’s fine public service! (Note: to aid in restoring some semblance of sanity, please visit www.notmyshower.net to see how you can assist!)

So why on earth does Mary McGinnity (Director of the Archdiocesan Social Concerns Office) think that Ms. Praisner’s public service was inspired by her faith (as stated in the Standard)? Does Ms McGinnity not realize that what Ms. Praisner did was to facilitate mortal sin? Whatever else Ms. Praisner’s support of that bill may be, it was not based on inspiration by the Catholic faith.

Additionally we ask why the Catholic Standard sees fit to sing Ms. Praisner’s praises? Yes, the woman has passed away, and by all means we should pray for the repose of her immortal soul. But in no way should she be lionized in a Catholic publication!

CONTROVERIES – HUSHED AT THE STANDARD

On the front page of the December 17^th edition of the Washington Times, the planned closing of Holy Redeemer School in northwest DC, and the ensuing controversy, was detailed. In the issues of the Catholic Standard preceding and following the Times article, not one peep was uttered about the closing. Now whatever one might think of the particulars of this issue, all can agree that this matter constitutes significant archdiocesan news and deserved mention in the official archdiocesan news organ. Now why the cover-up? Is the Standard embarked on some futile crusade to paint a false, “smiley-face” image of the archdiocese? In doing so, the Standard is only reinforcing in the minds of intelligent Catholics the notion that it is merely a mouthpiece of the chancery and not a true journalistic effort. It may even be committing sins of omission against the Eighth Commandment.

One thing the Standard did mention in its December 21, 2006 issue is that the Archdiocese of Washington is paying out the paltry sum of $1.3 million dollars in sex abuse settlements. Currently the article is on their website at www.cathstan.org, but should it mysteriously disappear from that website, you can see it here. Of particular note is Archbishop Wuerl’s statement, "the funds are from insurance reserves; no funds have or will come from the archdiocese's operating funds, Archbishop's Appeal, Forward in Faith or parishes." He fails to mention that those same insurance reserves originated from insurance premiums, paid by the archdiocese, that ultimately had their source in the dollars that faithful Catholics have been putting into the collection baskets. Of course no mention is made of the most likely probability that now these insurance premiums are going to skyrocket owing to this payout (and maybe more to come). Again – why the spin?

Not long after the sex abuse scandals broke out, the archdiocese began a series of panel discussions to (ahem!) “explain” what was happening to the parishioners. The first one was held at St. Raphael’s in Rockville. This session was attended by many people, many from outside that parish – including this webmistress. Clearly it was an attempt to spin the focus away from the gross sins of 1) homosexual behavior in the clergy and 2) the sins of cover-ups on the part of the hierarchy. One of the “spin doctrines” was that stated by Archbishop Wuerl a few weeks ago – verbatim! When one considers that Archbishop Wuerl was not yet on the Washington scene at the time of this panel discussion, we can see clearly “the party line” that was being put forth, probably with orders from “on-high” – maybe the USCCB?

The Catholics in attendance at this session were very alert and articulate. They did an excellent job in refuting this propaganda, and others like it. Clearly, this archdiocesan-picked panel of “experts” was not prepared for honest challenge. This “first session” of panel discussions, to the best of my knowledge, was also the last. Gee – makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?

Interesting “aside” to consider – wouldn’t the $1.3 million have been put to excellent use to help the beleaguered Holy Redeemer School?

Open Letter to Father Peter Daly and Mark Zimmerman

These comments regard Father Daly’s column in the April 13^th edition of the Catholic Standard. This particular issue was devoted to the questions surrounding illegal immigration into the United States. Clearly this is an issue involving great controversy. On the one hand, we wish only the good of those immigrating to this country. On the other hand, we recognize that sovereign states have not only the right but the obligation to control their borders, if they are to fulfill their binding responsibilities to their citizens. How these equally-valid objectives are to be balanced is a question upon which good people may, and do, disagree. The key concept here is that while people disagree, they are still good. They do not deserve to be disparaged or vilified. Regrettably, in this regard, Father Daly and the Catholic Standard have failed the Minutemen both in justice and charity.

It certainly is acceptable that Father Daly disagrees with the Minutemen. However, it must be taken into consideration that the Minutemen are simply decent people who are addressing the issue as they deem best; the means they are exercising are perfectly legitimate. Father Daly had no moral right to label them as a “xenophobic group” and no basis for claiming that they “know nothing about history, culture, religion, justice and economics.” Who does Father Daly think he is to sit in judgment of their faith and intelligence? Father Daly, in using such slanderous language against good people, disgraced his Roman collar. He owes the Minutemen a public apology.

Equally inexcusable was the decision by the editorial staff of the Catholic Standard to let that sort of diatribe appear in a Catholic newspaper. For the life of us, we cannot fathom what induced the Standard to allow what is arguably “hate speech” to be published. Indeed, we suspect that they would never allow such language to be used against a Catholic politician who supports abortion; indeed, over the years, several of them have been favorably portrayed in the Standard. Additionally, we believe that the editors of the Catholic Standard would never allow any derogatory remarks against gay priest-abusers to be published on their pages. Why then, did Mr. Zimmerman et al allow the Minutemen to be verbally savaged in the pages of the Standard? The editors and management of the Catholic Standard showed deplorable lack of professional and moral judgment in allowing Father Daly’s article to be published as it was.

The entirety of this article is being mailed/emailed to Father Daly and Mark Zimmerman at St. John Vianney and the Catholic Standard respectively. It also appears on this website (www.Restore-DC-Catholicism.com) because we know it will never be published (at least not in its entirety) in the Catholic Standard. Indeed, ever since many good people wrote to protest the Cardinal’s decision to allow pro-abortion Catholics to receive Communion, the “letters to the editor” have all but disappeared. Any responses received (or lack thereof) from these two gentlemen will likewise be published on this site.

To all other recipients: please feel free to copy and distribute this; we ask, though that you do so in its entirety and to make plain the source of this article. Additionally, you may wish to contact both of them yourselves about this matter.

Father Daly’s address is:

St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Church (He is the pastor)

105 Vianney Lane

Prince Frederick, MD 20678

Ph: 410-535-0223

Fax: 410-535-4422

Email: none, to the best of our knowledge

Mark Zimmerman can be reached at:

Catholic Standard

145 Taylor Street, NE

Washington, DC 20017

Ph: 202-281-2410

Fax: 202-281-2408

Email: mark@cathstan.org

STRANGE SILENCE ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH On page 4 of the March 9, 2006 issue of the Standard is an article regarding the so-called “Statement of Principles” signed by a bunch of pro-abortion “Catholic” Democrats from the U.S. House of Representatives. Having been quite occupied by the struggle in the Maryland Senate over SB144 (regarding embryonic stem cell research), this webmaster was somewhat flummoxed over the apparent priorities of the Standard staff. The Standard devoted almost a full page to the bloviation about these disobedient Catholics, yet made no mention whatsoever about the efforts to keep embryonic stem cell research at bay in Maryland. We saw no reason for that – until we recalled the letter that we wrote to Cardinal McCarrick in September of 2004. In the 12^th point of our letter, we questioned Cardinal McCarrick how he could be comfortable with embryonic stem cell research as performed by Georgetown University. Then in the 14^th point, we voiced our disappointment in His Eminence regarding his apparent suppression of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction regarding the Eucharist and dissident Catholics. With that in mind, we now understand the thinking (or lack thereof) behind the priorities of this issue. We also deplore them.