Wednesday, November 14, 2018

First Step, Name the Problem: 'Homosexual activity is immoral'

At the special meeting of American Bishops, our own Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas named and identified the problem--homosexual infiltration of the priesthood and seminaries-- and earned rounds of applause from their fellow Bishops:



"Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco then gave a long intervention in which he described what he has been hearing from Catholics in his area.
“We’ve heard how important it is to listen to our people, I’ve held listening sessions in my own Archdiocese” regarding the abuse scandal, he said.
From this listening, Cordileone said he has found that Catholics tend to fall in one of two camps regarding the abuse crisis: the first camp believes that the Church is not talking about the real problem, which is the prevalence homosexuality among the clergy and its correlation with abuse, he said.
The second camp believes that the real problem is an all-male hierarchy, “because women would never have allowed this to happen,” and therefore women must be invited in to all levels of the clergy.
Cordileone, who clarified that he was merely reporting what he found among his people, said that both conclusions are overly simplistic, but neither are without some merit.
“We do sometimes act as a good old boys club,” he said, with problems of “cronyism, favoritism, and cover-up.” He urged the bishops to find solutions to these “legitimate concerns” of Catholics in the second camp.
When considering the first camp, Cordileone cautioned against the “overly simplistic” conclusion that homosexuality causes sexual abuse. That “obviously cannot be true” he said, as some priests with homosexual tendencies faithfully serve the Church, while some heterosexually priests serve the Church poorly.
Still, the concern “has some validity,” he said, pointing to a recently-published study by Father D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic priest and retired Catholic University of America sociology professor. Sullins’ analysis found a rising trend in abuse, and argued that the evidence strongly suggests links between sexual abuse of minors and two factors: a disproportionate number of homosexual clergy, and the manifestation of a “homosexual subculture” in seminaries.
“The worst thing we could do is discredit this study so we can ignore or deny this reality,” Cordileone said. “We have to lean into it...to ignore it would be fleeing from the truth.”
The archbishop recommended further studies into the correlation between homosexuality and sexual abuse, one that avoids “quick and easy answers” and would attempt to find the root causes of this correlation.
Cordileone’s was the first intervention met with applause from many bishops."

His Excellency's words were echoed by Bishop Strickland of Tyler, TX:


 Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, a “small rural area” with a minority Catholic population, gave a notably strong intervention, in which he asked the bishops to consider how McCarrick got to be in the positions that he was “if we really believed that what was going on was wrong?”
“It’s part of our deposit of faith that we believe homosexual activity is immoral,” he said. “How did he get promoted if we are all of one mind that this is wrong? Do we believe the doctrine of the Church or not?”
Strickland said that while homosexual people are “children of God who deserve great care” and not personal condemnation, the Church should teach clearly that homosexual actions are sinful, and help people move from sin to virtue.
“There’s a priest that travels around saying that he doesn’t (believe this teaching), and he’s well promoted in various places,” Strickland said. “Can that be presented in our dioceses? That same-sex marriage is just fine and that the Church may one day grow to understand that? That’s not what we teach.”
Strickland’s intervention was also followed by applause from numerous bishops.



Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Arcbishop Viganò Takes on Vatican Stonewall

I hereby dub him Carlo Maria Athanasius Viganò.  The Vatican is attempting to stonewall and obstruct the purification of the Church and Archbishop Viganò is having none of it:


 Archbishop Viganò urges US bishops to be 'courageous shepherds
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò sent Tuesday a message to the bishops of the United States, who are holding a plenary assembly, encouraging them to act as courageous shepherds in the face of the sex abuse crisis.
“I am writing to remind you of the sacred mandate you were given on the day of your episcopal ordination: to lead the flock to Christ,” the emeritus Apostolic Nuncio to the US said Nov. 13.
“Meditate on Proverbs 9:10: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom! Do not behave like frightened sheep, but as courageous shepherds. Do not be afraid of standing up and doing the right thing for the victims, for the faithful and for your own salvation. The Lord will render to every one of us according to our actions and omissions.”
“I am fasting and praying for you,” Archbishop Viganò concluded.
The former nuncio's message came on the second day of the USCCB's autumn general assembly, being held in Baltimore Nov. 12-14.
It was intended that the assembly would vote on proposals meant to form the basis for a response to the sexual abuse crisis facing the Church in the US.
But Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the conference, announced Monday morning that the Congregation for Bishops had directed that the vote not be held.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Ab. Viganò’s third letter: "When the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission"



Here is the opening of His Excellency's third letter, and it may be read here in full:


On the Feast of the North American Martyrs

To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge -- "How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?" -- what answer could I give?
I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop's charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own. Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that. This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.
 I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke. For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church -- harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope....

Monday, October 1, 2018

"The most serious and literally diabolical form of clerical abuse."

The following are excerpts from a column Claudio Pierantoni, professor of Medieval Philosophy in the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Chile (Santiago). Emphases added. 


Did Cardinal Maradiaga just confirm Viganò’s claims about Pope Francis?
 When Cardinal Maradiaga reduces sodomy (and the abuse of power for this purpose), to a mere “private affair” and “administrative matter,” he is clearly revealing to us what his own moral standard is on the subject.
How many steps on the scale of moral depravity must a man of the Church have already descended, to reduce sexual corruption, through abuse of power, of generations of seminarians, to a “private matter” to be resolved “administratively”? Certainly he knows that, on paper, canonical laws still exist which prohibit certain behaviors, and that these, in addition to being grave sins, are also, according to these laws, true and proper crimes.

But his words indicate that these norms ought to be considered, if not a dead letter, then certainly a mere “administrative matter” that “should be dealt with using more serene and objective criteria.” As we see, the picture presented by Viganò — which is horribly disgusting for any Catholic who has kept a minimum of modesty and the sensus fidei — is not at all denied by our Honduran Cardinal….

Yet, while demonstrating by these words the truly striking hardening of his own moral sense, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga — consummate politician that he is — is well aware that he could never afford to make such an evaluation were he not protected under the safe umbrella of his Boss, who implicitly but unequivocally promoted himself from being the simple Vicar of Christ to the absolute Leader of the Church….

This brings us to the final point we wish to underscore: namely, the fact that in his testimony Viganò describes the cover-up of these crimes as a “conspiracy of silence, not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia.”

In fact, this cover-up has an important point in common with the mafia’s conspiracy of silence: it does not conceal crimes simply out of fear that they will be discovered. Instead, it covers them up because, in reality, it obeys a different system of values, one that does not correspond to the law in force in the community in which it operates (in this case, the Catholic Church).

In other words, the gay lobby covers up these crimes because it justifies them in the name of a different morality, which a certain elite of illuminati who are in power substitute for Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. And this, without any doubt, is the most serious and literally diabolical form of clerical abuse.

As we have been pointing out lately , interested readers can see our post from 11 years ago "Most Holy Redeemer and How it Got That Way" which addressed just this issue:

“The authentic community-forming experience...is not Catholicism, but homosexuality. If… the sexuality is experienced as more important than the doctrines of the Catholic Church, one would expect the doctrines of the Church to be discarded when they come into conflict with the community-forming experience. And this is exactly what happens... The doctrines will not only be discarded, but mocked… And this leads to the acceptance of blasphemy in an ostensibly Catholic Church. But such events will not be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous because they validate the community-forming experience… what will be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous is that which denies the value of the community-forming experience…”

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Sin-Affirming Jesuit Now Claims to be Affirming Orthodoxy



Har.

Delusional Jesuit Jimmy Martin now claims to be a watchdog of Orthodoxy. Yeah, that'll go over big--but it is one more illustration of the homosexual cesspool that now exists in the highest reaches of the Church of God.


Monday, September 24, 2018

“Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions"



Those are the words of San Francisco's own Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, founder of the St. Ignatius Institute, founder of Ignatius Press, America's most distinguished Catholic Publishing house, and chaplain of the Walk for Life West Coast.

Fr. Fessio was speaking to CNN, as reported by LifeSiteNews:
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, told CNN that he finds the pontiff’s refusal to give an answer “deplorable”. In recent weeks, commentators have interpreted Pope Francis’ homilies about “the Great Accuser” and Christ’s “silence” as coded commentary on the Vatican whistleblower’s testimony and the pontiff’s own reluctance to answer it.

“He’s attacking Viganò and everyone who is asking for answers,” Fessio told CNN. “I just find that deplorable.”
“Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions,” he added.
The publisher-priest told LifeSiteNews that he meant no disrespect for the Pope by saying this. Fessio observed that words said in conversation look “worse” in print but defended his opinions.
“I think the idea that I’m expressing there is a valid idea, and even if I tempered it somewhat, I think it should be said. And maybe ... it will help the Pope to have some straight-talking. He seems to want to have openness, doesn’t he? He talks about frankness and openness and don’t be afraid to say what’s on your mind.”

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Priest Fights Blasphemy so Cupich Orders Psych Evaluation



Fr. John Paul Kalchik, of Resurrection Church in Avondale, IL, who quite properly destroyed the blasphemous rainbow/cross banner that had been used in Resurrection Church, has been stripped of his pastorate and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by Chicago’s Blaise Cupich.

As we said in our last post:

1) The rainbow banner celebrates sodomy.
2) Sodomy is sin.
3) Appropriating the Cross of Christ onto a banner that celebrates sin is blasphemous.
4) Hanging a blasphemous banner in the Temple of God is the smoke of Satan His Holiness (Pope Paul VI) saw.

So: Cupich had a priest defending the Catholic Church against blasphemy, and what does he do? He attacks the priest. This is powerful evidence, perhaps even proof, that Cupich’s religion is not Catholicism. His religion is something else. Interested readers can see our post from 11 years ago "Most Holy Redeemer and How it Got That Way" which addressed just this issue. In the paragraph below just insert "Cupich" where it reads "the parishioners":
“The authentic community-forming experience...is not Catholicism, but homosexuality.  If… the sexuality is experienced as more important than the doctrines of the Catholic Church, one would expect the doctrines of the Church to be discarded when they come into conflict with the community-forming experience. And this is exactly what happens... The doctrines will not only be discarded, but mocked… And this leads to the acceptance of blasphemy in an ostensibly Catholic Church. But such events will not be experienced by the parishioners (read: Cupich) as blasphemous because they validate the community-forming experience… what will be experienced by the parishioners (read: Cupich) as blasphemous is that which denies the value of the community-forming experience…”
I.e. having a rainbow/cross banner at Mass is not blasphemous, but burning the rainbow/cross banner is.

Cupich was one of those identified by Archbishop Viganó, and he certainly seems to be vindicating the former Nuncio:
“The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two.

Friday, September 21, 2018

"The gay banner superimposed over Our Lord's Cross, a symbol of Our Lord's Passion, had to go."

Those are the words of Fr. John Paul Kalchik of Resurrection Church in Avondale, IL.

Pope Paul VI famously said that “the smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God.”

1) The rainbow banner celebrates sodomy.
2) Sodomy is sin.
3) Appropriating the Cross of Christ onto a banner that celebrates sin is blasphemous.
4) Hanging a blasphemous banner in the Temple of God is the smoke of Satan His Holiness saw.

So the Chicago-area parishioners have done their part in dispelling the smoke of Satan. Bless them!



Excerpt, from Church Militant:

Chicago Priest Explains Why Parish Burned Rainbow Flag
As events have unfolded over the last month, we find the Church engulfed in a great battle. Many cardinals, bishops and even the Pope seem to be living double lives. They, at times, speak eloquently about the Faith and present themselves as men striving for holiness. But then the records show they are either living very sinful lives or have covered up for others who do so, leaving them to prey on more victims.
And also, when asked to speak about the abuse, they play it down; they are more concerned with global warming, migrant issues and fake homophobia than their real mission of saving souls. Thusly, many of the faithful have found themselves shaken, deeply disturbed, because the institutional Church has been revealed to be a sham. The Church is at war, but this war is anything but civil.
A week ago, I was threatened with removal of my faculties to serve as a priest by those in charge at the archdiocese. They told me in no uncertain terms that we could not burn a rainbow banner as it would be offensive to the gay community.
A week ago, I was threatened with removal of my faculties to serve as a priest by those in charge at the archdiocese.
This does not scare me. Over the course of my life, I have been to Hell and back a couple times over. I recognize what is evil and have vowed to God to take steps to thwart that evil. God grants authority, and I follow my conscience, formed by His law. The gay banner superimposed over Our Lord's Cross, a symbol of Our Lord's Passion, had to go....

Dutch Bishop to Boycott Phony "Youth Synod": "I will not take part in the coming synod in October."



"I will not take part in the coming synod in October." 

Church Militant has the story. Emphases added. Excerpt:
A Dutch bishop is refusing to take part in the Synod on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment scheduled for October 3–28 in Rome.

Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, auxiliary of the southern Dutch diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch, has notified Pope Francis in an open letter that he will not be attending the synod in light of the crisis of clerical sex abuse and cover-up.

"The release of the letter of Archbishop Viganò has opened the eyes of many," Bp. Mutsaerts told the Pontiff. "It appears that the crimes of Theodore McCarrick and the double life he led for many years, were made possible because of the cover up by several high prelates in the United States of America as well as in Rome."

Mutsaerts stated unequivocally the roots of the crisis are not "clericalism," as leftist U.S. bishops are suggesting. "The McCarrick file appears to be a symptom of a much larger crisis in the Church," he wrote, "where on a large scale the vow of celibacy by in particular homosexual clerics is ignored."
Continuing, the Dutch prelate took aim directly at Francis' handling of the crisis: "The credibility of the Church as a whole is at stake here. Excuses and mea culpas are not enough. A more fundamental approach is necessary. But this is extremely difficult when bishops are compromised and nearly impossible if the highest authority is involved when it comes to protecting McCarrick."
Bishop Mutsaerts then pointed out the imprudence of holding a synod on youth in the midst of the worst Church crisis in centuries: "In these circumstances, I find it extremely difficult to be present at the Synod on the Youth October coming. How can we discuss matters concerning the youth, when not even the basic safety of the youth of our Church is safeguarded?"

Echoing calls by a handful of American prelates, Mutsaerts recommended the youth synod be postponed, and a synod on the sins of bishops be held instead:

This is why, Your Holiness, considering the sincerity of the circumstances, I propose to move the Synod on the Youth to a later date. Instead I propose to call together at short notice an Extraordinary Synod that thoroughly discusses and investigates the problems of the sexual abuse and the double lives of clerics in order to come to a credible, independent investigation of the past, and what measures could be taken to improve the spiritual climate.

"As long as this is not realized," he added, "it is in my opinion inappropriate to meet with You, Holy Father and with my fellow bishops on matters concerning young people as if there is nothing in between the young people and us and move on to business as usual."

…Hereby I announce ... that I will not take part in the coming synod in October," said Mutsaerts.

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

"Shameless Liars" at Phony Youth Synod: "Cast them out, for they have rebelled against you"


Peter Kwasniewski writes in LifeSiteNews:

Pope Francis is no longer hiding his strategy for manipulating outcome of Youth Synod

In addition to the delegates elected by the world’s episcopal conferences, the upcoming Synod on Youth has been given 39 special delegates appointed directly by Pope Francis.

This list includes several of his close allies in the hierarchy: Cardinal Marx of Munich, President of the German bishops’ conference; Cardinal Cupich, who has said that the Church has more important business than dealing with the abuse crisis, such as environmentalism and immigration; Cardinal Tobin, who denies having known anything about McCarrick, in spite of evidence of hundreds of clergy who knew “all about it”; Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civilta Cattolica, famous for tweeting that in theology (modern theology?), 2+2=5; and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the deconstructed Pontifical Academy for Life and grand chancellor of the gutted John Paul II Institute in Rome.

All of these figures have been in the spotlight for their heterodoxy, and all have angrily denounced Catholics who oppose the pope’s progressive agenda.

In some ways, this delegate development is not surprising. In another way, however, it is appalling. Many of these men have given evidence of being shameless liars (to use Viganò’s terminology) by denying knowledge of now ex-Cardinal McCarrick’s predations or by denying that the abuse crisis is primarily a consequence of active homosexuality in the clergy. Like the recent Vatican photo of the private papal meeting on abuse which shows everyone relaxed and smiling, or the now extensive string of papal homilies in which the pope compares himself to the silent Christ in His Passion and writes off his critics as accusers like Satan, this development is one more nail in the coffin of any reasonable expectation Catholics might have to see the pope or any of his senior officials take seriously either the abuse scandal or the devastating report of Viganò.
Phony Catholics=Phony Synods. Mr. K also opines that the creeps infiltrating the Church are more common the higher you go:
Think of it this way. I would wager that at least 75% of believing and practicing Catholic laity today—by “believing and practicing,” I mean Catholics who know the basics of their faith and accept the Church’s teaching on such countercultural issues as divorce, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion—are by now opposed to the progressivist and modernist program of Pope Francis. Perhaps the number is even higher. In contrast, probably not more than 50% of the lower clergy are skeptical of it or opposed to it. Maybe 25% of the world’s bishops and 15% of the cardinals are hesitant about it or opposed to it.
What this suggests to me is that, at this time in history, the higher one’s position in the institutional hierarchy, the more likely one is to be corrupted and compromised, while simple lay believers are far more likely to be outspokenly committed to traditional faith, morals, and liturgy. This is where future Catholic laity, priests, and religious will come from—not from the Synod machinery of the new German-Italian Axis.
He also provides a link to Psalm 5:10: Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against you. 






Monday, September 17, 2018

"When the facts and law are on your side, you pound those; and when they aren’t, you pound the table instead."


Professor Ed Feser has a very comprehensive post which offers the obvious reason behind Francis's indefensible (and unaccustomed) silence. Excerpt, but read the whole thing:

Why Archbishop Viganò is almost certainly telling the truth
There are five considerations that seem to me to make it very likely that Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is truthful. To be sure, given how numerous and detailed are the claims he makes, it would not be surprising if he has gotten certain particulars wrong. And perhaps in his passion he has inadvertently overstated things here and there. But the main claims are probably true. I certainly do not believe he is lying. The reasons are these:

1. The deafening silence of Pope Francis

Pope Francis has been accused of grave offenses by a churchman of high stature who was in an optimal position to know about the matters in question. Yet he has refused to deny the charges or to comment on the matter at all. That is simply not the way one would expect a person to act if such charges against him were false. You would expect him immediately, clearly, and vigorously to deny the charges.

Some of his defenders suggest that the pope is merely exhibiting a Christ-like lack of concern for his own reputation. He is not defending himself, so the claim goes, any more than Christ defended himself against those who crucified him. Yet the pope has defended himself in other contexts. For example, he has defended himself against the accusation that he is a communist and against charges that he failed to speak out forcefully enough during Argentina’s “dirty war.” After he was criticized by some on the Left for meeting with Kim Davis in 2015, the Vatican issued a statement asserting that “his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” In 2016, the pope defended himself against criticism of his refusal to associate Islam with violence. In 2017, he defended himself against criticism of his comparison of migrant camps to concentration camps.

So, the thesis that the pope prefers to “turn the other cheek” rather than answer critics simply doesn’t withstand scrutiny. He does answer them, sometimes. Why, then, would he not defend himself against the far more serious charges now at issue, leveled by an accuser far more eminent than some of the critics the pope has answered in the past?

Furthermore, it is not merely the pope’s own reputation that is at stake. The good of the Church is at stake. There is, as people on both sides of the controversy have noted, a kind of “civil war” brewing in the Church. The pope could help prevent that if he would only respond to the archbishop’s charges. Yet he has not done so....
As the old lawyer’s saw has it, when the facts and law are on your side, you pound those; and when they aren’t, you pound the table instead.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Salesian Cardinal overseeing destruction of Honduran church says Viganò “hurting faith”




LifeSiteNews reports:

Cardinal Maradiaga rebukes papal critics: McCarrick abuse scandal ‘of a private order’

The scandal of ex-Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual abuse of young priests and seminarians and Pope Francis’ alleged cover-up are “of a private order,” and a merely “administrative affair,” according to one of the Pope’s top advisers, Cardinal Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga. He made these remarks in a recent interview in one of the most revealing statements to date on the Viganò testimony.

In an interview published on Wednesday evening by Religion Digital, the religious portal of the Spanish-language news site Periodista Digital, Maradiaga once again strongly criticized Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for having gone public about McCarrick’s sexual predations and the protection the Cardinal received from the highest spheres in the Vatican, especially since Pope Francis was elected to the See of Peter and trusted the American prelate to help him choose new cardinals for the Church in the USA.

Asked to comment about Viganò’s call on the Pope to resign, Maradiaga answered:

It does not seem correct to me to transform something that is of the private order into bombshell headlines exploding all over the world and whose shrapnel is hurting the faith of many. I think this case of an administrative nature should have been made public in accordance with more serene and objective criteria, not with the negative charge of deeply bitter expressions.
Leave aside, just for the moment, just for the moment!--that Maradaiga is part of the worst cover-up in the Catholic Church in living memory. Leave aside--just for the moment!--that when his good seminarians complained about rampant sodomy and sodomy-enabling behavior at their seminary, he attacked them as "gossipers."

Leave that aside for now, and just look what has happened to the Honduran Catholic Church during the time Maradiaga has been in charge. We've reported on this before. In 2014 the Pew Organization did a major study on the religious demography in Latin America. Pew reported:
“the period between 1970 and 2014 is marked by significant declines in the percentages of Catholics in nearly all of the (Latin American) countries surveyed – ranging from a 47-point drop in Honduras to a 5-point decrease in Paraguay."
Get that? "a 47-point drop."  Since 1970, Catholics have fallen from 94% to 46% of the population of Honduras. Maradiaga has been a bishop in Tegucigalpa, Honduras' capitol, since 1978, and the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa and hence the Metropolitan of the whole country since 1993--25 years. Now he professes to believe that Archbishop Viganò's telling the truth "is hurting the faith of many."