The other night, I received a text from a bishop we communicate with privately with some regularity — and yes, for all those "Church Militant sews division and has a mean tone" crowd out there, we are in touch with a surprising number of bishops, privately.
This one, who shall remain anonymous, texted and asked, "Michael, what is your (Church Militant's) endgame? What do (you) want to see as the Church in the next 10 years?"
The text went on to be very long, raising lots of interesting and discussion-worthy points. But the entire thread is easily summed up by that opening line.
So what is the endgame Church Militant is playing for, to put it in somewhat crude terms?
The "endgame" that any faithful Catholic should be "playing," the salvation of souls, our own first and then anyone else we can help get to Heaven. It's just that simple.
Much of the bishop's text went on to talk about what he phrased as our "tactics," what we refer to as our approach, guided by the reality on the ground, and that reality is abysmal.
How can the faithful effectively evangelize when we have to slog through scandal after scandal after never-ending scandal, most of them somehow tied back to the corrupt gay mafia running the Church, as we discussed yesterday?
Is it Christian to call someone "Evil Jimmy," you might ask?
He lies, deceives, perverts and twists even Our Blessed Lord's own words in order to advance his agenda of sodomy being normalized within the Church.
And what is the reaction to him from the supposedly "good" bishops? Silence. Privately, many of them will tell you, as many have told us privately, they wish Evil Jimmy would shut up and go away.
But here's the rub: They have it within their power to actually make that happen, and they don't. So who cares what they think privately?
Even Evil Jimmy doesn't care what they think privately. As long as he gets no public pushback from them, he wins. And the bishops lose even more credibility with the only people they should really care about: God and the remaining faithful.
Take, for example, Philadelphia Abp. Charles Chaput. Evil Jimmy is scheduled to speak in Philly in a few days, he has tweeted and Facebooked it extensively — and it's a return trip.
Granted, the "Sodomy Is a Blessing" conference is not on actual archdiocesan property, but so what?
Does the archbishop not feel that what Evil Jimmy promotes is sufficient to issue a warning to his sheep to stay away?
The bishop of Crookston, Minnesota, issued a public statement about our appearance in his diocese — on non-Church property — this past weekend. He ordered, under obedience, his priests and deacons to not attend.
By the way, that bishop, Michael Hoeppner is the first in the world to be investigated under the Pope's new norms for covering up sex abuse, so his denouncing of us is kind of a badge of honor.
But back to Chaput, the archbishop has issued all kinds of statements over the years about how rotten and mean and divisive Church Militant is, as well as other fine groups like Michael Hichborn and The Lepanto Institute.
So why the double standard, archbishop? A priest who regularly supports same-sex marriage in his social media postings and conferences is coming to your diocese, again, and what merits a press release from Abp. Chaput is Church Militant? What's the deal?
Or let's shift south a little to the diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, where faithful Catholic media reports, instigated by investigative reporter George Neumayr, exposed a homosexual former priest who had not been laicized and was civilly married to another man was still, until just a day ago, when he was forced to resign owing specifically to the exposure, still sitting on the diocesan marriage tribunal.
You heard that right.
A former priest, who had never been laicized, officially converted to Episcopalianism, civilly married to his homosexual partner, sitting on the diocesan marriage tribunal for years, with the bishop's knowledge, as well as the knowledge of his local bishop, Joseph Bambera of Scranton, another episcopal fan of Evil Jimmy, and neither bishop gives a rip.
What's the deal? Anyone still think that homosexuality isn't the leading issue among the clergy?
Well, here's another one.
The bishop of Lafayette, Louisiana, Douglas Deshotel, is lashing out at his seminarians and forbidding them to belong to a reform outfit in the diocese, telling them if they sign up or do not resign from the Society of St. Peter Damian, they will be terminated at the seminary.
Saint Peter Damian, you will recall, was the saint who fought the scourge of homosexuality among the clergy in Rome in the 11th century.
The Lafayette group is disturbed by the bishop's overlooking of a priest he freely admits "should not be alone with children" — his words.
The priest, Fr. Mikel Polson, has a history of either directly abusing minors, a 16-year-old male, or wrestling around with them, getting on top of them clothed and, according directly to transcripts, "pinning young boys on the ground and having his pelvic area on their rear while wrestling with them for a long time."
That quote is directly from an audio recorded meeting last November between the St. Peter Damian group and Bp. Deshotel.
In response, the group's direct face to face inquiry of the bishop:
SSPD: "Don't you believe that that is indicative of a disordered disposition?"
Bishop Deshotel: "Not necessarily. It is a sign of … immaturity, of not realizing the importance of professional boundaries, of not being sensitive to the climate of the times."
And yet, a few moments later, Bp. Deshotel freely admits that the priest should not be alone with children — his words.
So what's the deal?
Here's the deal, and in answer to the bishop's text to me about what we want to see in the Church in 10 years: free of this evil, that's what.
The hierarchy is supportive of homosexuality. Whether some individual bishops think so or not, they are supporting this by their silence or burying their heads in the sand.
A priest "wrestling" with teenage males, grinding on them, and the bishop denies is part of a larger problem.
An active homosexual apostate civilly married to his gay lover non-laicized former priest making decisions about annulments and not one, but two bishops just look the other way.
And an archbishop held up as a hero by so-called conservative Catholics permits repeated traveling to his diocese of the leading provocateur of all things gay in the Church and refuses to issue any warning of any kind to his sheep, but attacks faithful Catholics for calling attention to it.
So what's the deal? What's our endgame? Where do we want to see the Church in 10 years? How about starting with a Church free of gay and cowardly bishops?
That would be a good start.