Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very grateful to Anthony Murphy and John Lacken of the Lumen Fidei Institute for having invited
me to address this distinguished audience. Even though my little trumpet is not of Irish, but of Latin
American manufacture, it has learnt some tunes in Catholic France and may add some notes in
consonance with their “Clarion call to the Irish Bishops.”

With no competence in educating children – since I am not a teacher and opted for celibacy at my
early youth, the better to devote myself to fighting for Christian Civilization – as well as totally
incompetent regarding seminaries, I will deal only with the subject of the faithful Catholic clergy that
lay people deserve and how to react when Bishops and priests fail to fulfil their mission.

It is not that we, laity, deserve faithful Catholic clerics because of our personal value or holiness.
Much to the contrary, we deserve faithful Catholic Bishops and priests because we are sinners. You
may know the old saying some people attribute to the Cure d’Ars: “If the parish priest is a Saint, his
people will be holy; If the priest is holy, but not yet a Saint, his people will be good; If he is good, his
people will be lukewarm, and if he is lukewarm, his parishioners will be bad. And if the priest himself
is bad, his people will go to Hell”.

In other words, we need holy Bishops and priests in order not to go to hell. Our right to have faithful
Catholic Bishops and Priests stems from our own misery and from their obligation to be holy because
of their ordination.

A little more than a month ago was the 25th anniversary of a Directory on the Ministry and Life of
Priests, by the Congregation for the Clergy and signed by its Prefect, Philippine Cardinal Jose Tomas
Sánchez, and its secretary then Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe, today Cardinal of Naples. I will draw
from it to establish solidly that we, laity, have a right to good, holy priests, stemming from their own
obligations to holiness.

If priests were just our representatives, or just presidents of the assembly (as it is stated in the New
Order of the Mass), they could resemble the poor sinners we all are. But they are not just our
representatives, because “the ministerial priesthood finds its reason for being in light of [the] vital
and operative union of the Church with Christ”, for “indissolubly united to her Lord, she continuously
receives from Him the effects of grace and truth, of guidance and support”. Thus, “the ministerial
priesthood renders tangible the actual work of Christ, the Head, and gives witness to the fact that
Christ has not separated Himself from his Church; rather He continues to vivify her through his
everlasting priesthood”.

“The identity of the priest comes from the specific participation in the Priesthood of Christ, in which
the one ordained becomes, in the Church and for the Church, a real, living and faithful image of
Christ the Priest, ‘a sacramental representation of Christ, Head and Shepherd’.”

Therefore, it is not “clericalism” to say that “through consecration, the priest receives a spiritual
'power' as a gift which is a participation in the authority with which Jesus Christ, through his Spirit,
guides the Church.”
Configured to Christ, Sovereign Priest, Master, Sanctifier and Pastor of His flock, the priest shares in
the public dimension of mediation and authority regarding the sanctification, teaching and guidance
of all the People of God.

And here comes the main support for what I claim: “The specificity of the ministerial priesthood lies
in the need that the faithful have of the mediation and dominion of Christ which is made visible by
the work of the ministerial priesthood.”

“Acting in persona Christi capitis,” says the 1994 Vatican Instruction, “the priest becomes the
minister of the essential salvific actions, transmits the truths necessary for salvation and cares for the
People of God, leading them towards sanctity.”

Furthermore, “it is also the Holy Spirit who by Ordination confers on the priest the prophetic task of
announcing and explaining, with authority, the Word of God.” Pay attention to the expressions used
in the Instruction: the priest should not just “propose” the Word of God, as we often hear, but he
should prophetically announce and explain it “with authority.”

It is because of this authority that the priest places himself not in the middle, but in front of the
Church, for he is “a guide who works toward the sanctification of the faithful entrusted to his
ministry, which is essentially pastoral.”

“This reality, which has to be lived with humility and coherence,” says the Instruction, “can be
subject to two opposite temptations. The first is that of exercising his ministry in an overbearing
manner.” Pope Francis calls this temptation: “clericalism”, in spite of the very anti-Catholic
connotation this term has had since the Masonic lodges created it to prevent any interference of the
Church authorities in public affairs.

But for Cardinal Sanchez’s Instruction the greatest and gravest danger is the opposite one, which he
calls “democratism.”

“It often happens,” he says, “that to avoid this first deviation, one falls into the second, eliminating
all the differences in the roles among the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the
Church. This practically negates the true doctrine of the distinction between the common and
ministerial priesthood.”

Even though democracy is one of the legitimate forms of government, Cardinal Sanchez says that
“the mentality and current practice in cultural and social-political trends of our times cannot be
transferred automatically to the Church,” because “the Church, indeed, owes its existence and
structure to the salvific plan of God,” which in turn makes “the Church by its specific nature, into a
reality diverse from the simple human society.”

And the Instruction rightly concludes that “the so-called ‘democratism’ becomes a grave temptation
because it leads to a denial of the authority and capital grace of Christ and to distort the nature of
the Church. (...) Such a view damages the very hierarchical structure willed by its Divine Founder as
the Magisterium has always clearly taught and the Church herself has lived from the start.”

I do not know what Pope Francis would make of this assertion, he who views the “synodal Church” of
his choice as an inverted pyramid...
As a matter of fact, the 1994 Vatican Instruction views the priest in a totally different way: “Insofar as
he unites the family of God and brings about the Church as communion, the priest becomes the
bridge between man and God, making himself a brother of men who wants to be their pastor, father
and master.”

In dealing with his flock’s wounded or lost sheep, the pastor must “exercise his spiritual mission with
kindness and firmness” (both!) and regarding “the difficult and uncertain ways of the conversion of
sinners” he must “exercise the gift of truth and patience and the encouraging benevolence of the
Good Shepherd” (note that the gift of truth is mentioned first, because patience and benevolence
would become complicity in the absence of truth). All the more so, in our times of “silent apostasy”
which require “a renewal of our faith in Jesus Christ, who is the same ‘yesterday, today and for ever’
(Heb 13:8).”

Against a deviated form of “pastoralism” that places hospitality and mercy above doctrine, Cardinal
Sanchez’s Instruction says: “The obligation to follow the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals is
intrinsically united to all the functions which the priest must perform in the Church. Dissent in this
area is to be considered grave, in that it produces scandal and confusion among the faithful.”

Had Pope Francis abided by this principle, millions of Catholics would not be confused and
scandalized by his dizzying remarks in airplane interviews and particularly since Amoris laetitia.

The same should be said regarding the compliance to the Church’s immemorial sacramental practise
of refusing absolution and Holy Communion to public sinners who do not repent and do not abandon
their sinful lifestyle, because the Instruction goes on saying: “As for the ministry of Christ and of his
Church, the priest generously takes on the duty to faithfully fulfil each and every norm, avoiding any
sense of partial compliance according to subjective criteria, which creates division and has damaging
effects upon the lay faithful and public opinion.”

For the renewal of the flock’s faith in Jesus Christ, previously mentioned, “the priest must above all
revive his faith, his hope and his sincere love for the Lord, in such a way as to be able to present Him
for the contemplation of the faithful and all men as He truly is.” From whence stems the pre-
eminence of the priest’s spiritual life, the care of which should be felt “as a joyful duty on the part of
the priest himself,” as well as “a right of the faithful who seek in him, consciously or not, the man of
God.”

Here you see once again what I am postulating: what is a duty for the priest becomes a right of the
faithful. In this particular case, the flock has the right to receive from the lips of the priest the good
doctrine of the faith and from his life the testimony of holiness. Indeed, the Instruction reminds the
priest of the exhortation given to him by the Bishop during his ordination: “Always believe what you
read, teach what you believe, carry out in your life what you teach. In this way, through the doctrine
which nourishes the People of God and with life's upright testimony which comforts and sustains
them, you will become a builder of the temple of God.”

In a section titled “Fidelity to the Word,” the Instruction further insists in the fact that, even though
“the ministry of the Word cannot be abstracted or distanced from the life of the people,” there exists
“a demand of authenticity and of conformity with the faith of the Church,” which requires “the
explicit preaching of the mystery of Christ to the faithful, to non-believers and to non-Christians.”
Indeed, “for all those who today are removed or are far from the message of Christ, the priest will
hear the particularly urgent and anguished plea: ‘How are they to believe Him whom they have not
heard? And how are they to hear, if no one preaches?’ (Rom 10:14)”. All of which is far from present-
day relativistic inter-religious dialogue leading to the signing of common declarations which bluntly
state that the diversity of religions is as much willed by God as the diversity of sexes, colour, race and
language...

Much to the contrary, the 1994 Instruction of the Congregation for the Clergy reminds the priest that
he must be aware of “the absolute necessity of being founded on and of ‘remaining’ faithful to the
Word of God and Tradition in order to be true disciples of Christ.” On this account, “the priest will
wisely avoid falsifying, reducing, distorting or diluting the content of the divine message.” Therefore,
and much contrary to what we so often endure on Sundays or when reading episcopal statements,
“preaching cannot be reduced to the presentation of one's own thought, to the manifestation of
personal experience, to simple explanations of a psychological, sociological or humanitarian nature.”

The Instruction stresses then, that “in spite of the reality of a loss of the sense of sin, greatly
extended in the culture of our times, the priest must practice, with joy and dedication, the ministry
of the formation of consciences, pardon and peace.” And, while hearing confession, he must
“enlighten the conscience of the penitent with words which, however brief, will be appropriate for
that particular situation, and thus enhance a renewed personal orientation toward conversion and
make a deep impression upon his spiritual journey.”

Once again you see here the insistence on the duty of enlightening consciences and calling sinners to
conversion!

In these days when the idea is advanced of ordaining viri provati in areas where the lack of celebrants
of Holy Mass is more felt, it is very heartening to read the following: “Consecrated celibacy should be
seen as that liberating novelty which the world, especially today, demands as a radical testimony that
following Christ is a sign of the eschatological reality.”

I am convinced that, if this most enlightening Instruction had been put into practise, many of the
sexual scandals that are presently shaking the Church, especially those linked with homosexuality,
would have been averted, in spite of what the Instruction calls “today's climate of irritating sexual
permissiveness”. Indeed, one of its paragraph declares the following: “It is necessary, therefore, that
priests conduct themselves with due prudence in dealing with those whose familiarity could be a
possible danger for fidelity to this gift or could cause scandal amongst the faithful.”

Another remark could have also averted many of those scandals: “In a secularised and materialistic
society, where the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to disappear, it is
particularly important that the community be able to recognise the priest, man of God and dispenser
of his mysteries, by his attire as well, which is an unequivocal sign of his dedication and his identity as
a public minister. (...) This means that the attire, when it is not the cassock, must be different from
the manner in which the laity dress, and conform to the dignity and sacredness of his ministry.”
Would the abusers dare to behave as they did, if they regularly wore an unequivocal sign of the
sacred character of priesthood?
Summing up the features of the model-priest, Cardinal Sanchez’s Instruction says: “As pastor of the
community, the priest exists and lives for it; he prays, studies, works and sacrifices himself for the
community (...) enlightening their consciences with the light of revealed truth, wisely guarding the
evangelical authenticity of the Christian life, correcting errors, forgiving, curing the sick, consoling the
afflicted, and promoting fraternity.”

Unfortunately, it is not the model-priest that most Catholic communities of the West have had as
pastors since the crisis of priesthood began at the time of the Second Vatican Council. And alas! this
is particularly not the model-priest that is being promoted since Pope Francis started a paradigm shift
that, according to Cardinal Cupich, is “nothing short [of] revolutionary” in the relationship between
moral doctrine and pastoral praxis; a paradigm shift by which the Church should accompany people
in their different “situations,” without seeking to impose on them “an abstract, isolated set of
truths.” Instead, we should acknowledge that God is present and reveals Himself even in “situations”
that the Church previously defined as sinful.

The promotion of a paradigm shift within the Church has also inspired the rapid change through
which, in just a few years, unnatural vice is increasingly becoming accepted within the Church and
among the clergy. Initially, homosexuals received timid invitations to join Church activities. Today,
the faithful are told to recognize the “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice” supposedly found in their
relationships. Similarly, paradigm shifters increasingly clamour for the approval of Church blessing
ceremonies for same-sex couples and Catholic funeral services for unrepentant homosexuals!

The question then arises: How should the common faithful in the pews relate to pastors who adopt
paradigm shifts of Bergoglian inspiration and put them into practice, like, for instance, when pastors
openly give communion to civilly remarried divorcees or bless same-sex unions?

As a modest contribution to orient the perplexed faithful, my book Pope Francis’s “Paradigm Shift”:
Continuity of Rupture in the Mission of the Church maintains that a minimum level of mutual
confidence in the spiritual relations between sheep and shepherd is required in common parish life
and deplores that, in many instances, there are no conditions for the habitual exercise of those
relations, without a proximate risk for the Faith and grave scandals for the good. It concludes that, in
such conditions, the flock has a right of cessation of daily ecclesiastical relations with demolishing
Church authorities.

Such right is analogous to what canon 1153 paragraph 1 of the Code of Canon Law says about a
couple who may legitimately separate “with the bond remaining,” “if either of the spouses causes
grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders
common life too difficult”.

This attitude of self-segregation from demolishing pastors to preserve one’s faith and to prevent
scandalising the weak – which is not a kind of “Benedict option” inside the Catholic Church, but a
supreme act of resistance to bad pastors – is not something new: it has been practised by good,
faithful lay people since the beginnings of the Church. As early as during the controversies of the
Fourth Century about the divinity of Christ, denied by almost all the Bishops who become Arians and
semi-Arians, the flock remained faithful to their Baptism. Saint Basil wrote that about the year 372,
“those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety.” And four
years later he added, “the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts ... faring
in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms in winter and under a scorching sun in
summer. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven”.

Another interesting example of cessation of daily ecclesiastical relations with demolishing Church
authorities was given during the 11th century, at the beginning of the Gregorian Reform, by a lay
organization called Pataria, operating in Milan, where the situation was particularly bad regarding
the mores of the clerics. Saint Peter Damian wrote that in the huge diocese of Milan it would have
been most difficult to find a holder of a benefice that had not bought his office. A chronicler of that
period, Bonizone, calculated these rare upright ones to number 5 per thousand! All vices going
together, a Bishop of Verona, not far from Milan, said at the end of the X Century that if someone
would chase the offspring of clerics from the church, only a few children would remain.

In such emergency, three holy men from Milan and its surroundings – Anselm, bishop of Baggio,
later Pope Alexander II; Arialdo of Cucciago, a deacon who had sojourned in the Abbey of Cluny; and
a cleric called Landolf, of the noble family of Cotta – decided to form a group to fight against Simony
and impurity in the clergy. Having very little support from clerics, they planned to turn to the people
who had begun to be scandalized and to long for reform.

Publicly denouncing the scandals and putting name and shame on specific clergymen who lived
openly with wives or concubines, they encouraged the laity to withdraw from any religious
relationship with their parish priests and vicars and gather around the few pastors who were in
favour of the reform.

They called themselves Fedeli, that is, faithful. But as soon that lay organization became important,
its enemies, most of whom were among the main families of the city, which had bought ecclesiastical
benefices for some of their members to ensure the wealth of their clan, started calling them Patarini.
In the local dialect, this was a pejorative name for resellers of old clothes, to stress the low social
condition of many of them. In reality, the members of Pataria belonged to all social classes, with a
large majority coming from the rich merchant bourgeoisie.

Two years after its founding, the organization already accounted for a thousand members united by
a solemn vow, the formula of which was registered by Saint Peter Damian, who was sent twice to
Milan as a papal delegate.

It said, “I promise, for as long as I live, to make any effort (except the sacrifice of money, unless by a
spontaneous donation) to destroy the two heresies of Nicolaism and Simony. Furthermore, I will not
allow any priest, nor a deacon or sub-deacon, to have at the same time a wife and an ecclesiastical
office; and I also promise to prevent any venality in the conferment of holy things.”

As I said before, the main course of action encouraged by Pataria was to put into practice the
conciliar decrees that not only forbade the immorality of clerics but also the people from attending
sacred ceremonies celebrated by immoral priests.

Needless to say, these decisions put into practice by Pataria were not based on the idea that the
sacraments or Holy Masses celebrated by corrupt clerics were not valid. Pope Stephen IX approved
deacon Arialdo’s recommendation to the laity to withdraw from scandalous priests and to gather
around observant pastors and said that in the latter case the faithful could receive the sacraments
“with no risk of contaminating themselves.” The reason was indeed the preservation of the faith of
the flock. Later, Saint Gregory VII added to it fraternal correction of clergy by the laity: “Those who
do not mend themselves by love of God, nor the dignity of their own priestly ministry, will be
constraint to amendment by shame from secular people and the rebuke of the peoples.”

Many clerics, indeed, faced with the alternative of abandoning either their concubine or their
ecclesiastic benefice, preferred the altar to sin and converted. As soon as this occurred, Arialdo, who
had become the leader of the movement after his companion Landolf had been poisoned by the
corrupted clergymen, allowed the laity to attend their masses and receive the sacraments from their
hand.

Those who converted, however, were only a few, and the people started to protest against being
secluded from the sacraments. They told deacon Arialdo: “You impose on us that we run away from
the company of Nicolaist and Simoniac priests; but to whom will we go for the needs of our souls?
Our priests, some more some less, are oppressed by the same sins in which all others are submerged;
should we run away from all of them? Who will then administer the sacraments to us? Would we not
be running away from the sacraments? And you tell us that we commit sin by participating at the
works of death...”

Arialdo was very aware of the enormous sacrifice being imposed on the laity. In a request to the
Abbot of Vallombrosa to send some monks to Milan, the deacon tells him that “for many, many years
a great number of men and women of our city have not come to the holy sacraments of Penance and
the Eucharist in order not to participate in the sin of our Simoniac priests.”

Notwithstanding this acknowledgment of the burden being imposed on the flock, he answered to the
complainants that, by doing their duty and running away from the company of these bad priests and
by not participating in their ceremonies, God would hear their prayers and send them good priests
according to His Divine Heart. “Could you doubt,” he said to them, “that Him who gave himself
totally in the mystery of Incarnation would deny you what is so much less, but so necessary, that is,
holy shepherds to guide you directly to Heaven?”

To cut a long story short, I will just mention that, after many incidents, deacon Arialdo was killed by
order of the Simoniac Guido, Archbishop of Milan. He was raised to the honour of the altar as a
martyr by two pontifical legates on behalf of Pope Alexander II. The Church later confirmed his
canonization at the beginning of the 20th century. Since 2010, the remains of the holy man repose at
the Duomo of Milan, at a place chosen by Cardinal Ildefonso Schuster, the only truly holy archbishop
of the city in the 20th century. But, his sacrifice was not in vain, because some decades later Simony
and Nicolaism were eradicated from Milan.

In an article published last November, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller , wrote that the present situation
of the Church reminds him of the Italian Church in the 11th and 12th centuries, both in regard to the
spreading of concubinage and sodomy among the clergy, as well as the reaction of the laity, and he
specifically mentioned the patarini.

According to Cardinal Brandmüller, there is however a risk that even the most committed Catholic lay
person, left to its own devices, might “no longer recognize the nature of the Church founded on the
sacred order and slip ... into an Evangelical-style communitarian Christianity.”
The risk is undeniable and particularly high among liberal Catholics who, profiting from the sexual
abuse crisis, are calling for a democratic Church. Also a few comments by some imprudent
conservative commentators here and there, may give the same impression. But on the whole, I
personally do not see such tendencies in the main movements or among intellectuals and laity who
have reacted against Pope Francis “paradigm shift” so far.

Whether it be the Filial Appeal to Pope Francis on the Indissolubility of Marriage, promoted by the
TFP and Voice of the Family with the support of other organizations, which collected more than 900
thousand signatures, or the Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, signed by 250 scholars, most
of whom are lay people, and other similar reactions, no one has fallen into the trap of demanding
structural changes in the Church even though the present crisis stems from the worst form of
clericalism, which is not sexual abuse but an attempt to teach a new Gospel and to establish an
Anglican-style synodal Church.

Nor do I see a rebellious attitude in the reactions to the sexual abuse crisis reopened by the
McCarrick and other affairs, which revealed the complicity of the hierarchy in covering up the
homosexual network entrenched in the Church.

Just to mention a few, I think that Deacon James Garcia of the Washington Archdiocese is acting
along the lines of his predecessor in deaconry, Saint Arialdo, when he refuses to attend Cardinal
Wuerl “whether as an assisting deacon or a master of ceremony.”

I think that when the American organization of Catholic businessmen, Legatus, announced that it had
withheld its annual $1 million contribution to the Vatican because of the lack of transparency on the
specific use of the funds, it acted as did the faithful patarini .

I think that Better Church Governance has the right to investigate and share the findings through the
Red Hat Report with regard to the cardinals that will participate in the next conclave, as well as to
assess how they handled allegations of sexual abuse and whether they have remained faithful to
their vows. If such an initiative existed in 2013, maybe the self-professed Sankt-Gallen mafia would
have not succeeded in sneaking Jorge Mario Bergoglio into the Chair of Peter.

I think that the Napa Institute and the Augustine Institute had the right to convene last September
the “Authentic Reform” gathering in Washington and to urge attendees to withhold donations as a
means of pressuring the hierarchy to obtain an apostolic visitation that would uncover all that
allowed Theodor McCarrick to climb up the ecclesiastical ladder and become cardinal archbishop of
Washington in spite of the evidence of his abusive behaviour.

I think that Russell Ronald Reno, editor of First Things, has every right to say that parents who do not
want their children brainwashed by LGBT gender propaganda are exercising their parental
responsibility when they open schools sidestepping the ecclesiastical establishment and to suggest to
them: “Say you are sorry, if needed, but don’t ask for permission.” As Reno rightly points out, the
canonical authority of the bishops “will remain intact. They are and will always be the governing
authority in their dioceses. But they will lose their moral and spiritual authority. They already have.”

I think that Pro Ecclesia and LifeSiteNews have the right to promote a petition to free the Church
from the plague of homosexuality and to request the emending of the Code of Canon Law so as to re-
establish the norm of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, providing that any cleric found to have
committed any delict against the Sixth Commandment with a minor, or sodomy or adultery with an
adult, be suspended, publicly declared as having committed sexual misconduct, and deprived of any
office, dignity, pension, and function if he have any, and in graver cases, dismissed from the clerical
state.

I think that the hundreds of lay faithful belonging to various Catholic associations from all over the
world had the right to make a silent protest in central Rome, before the recent summit on sexual
abuse, so as to urge Bishops to “break the wall of silence,” cast away fear and preach the truth
of the Gospel in the face of the terrible plague of homosexuality.

All these are practical applications of that “zealous hatred of evil” that Bishop Morlino called for to
take hold in the Church during the homily at the “Authentic Reform” conference's opening Mass and
go along the lines of 1974 declaration of resistance to the Ostpolitik of Paul VI, written by Plinio
Correa de Oliveira, from which I rephrase and update this leading passage:

“The bond of obedience to the Successor of Peter, which we will never break, which we love in the
most profound depths of our soul, and to which we tribute our highest love, this bond we kiss at the
very moment in which, overwhelmed with sorrow, we affirm our position.

“And on our knees, gazing with veneration at the figure of His Holiness Pope Francis, we express all
our fidelity to him.

“In this filial act, we say to the Pastor of Pastors: Our soul is yours, our life is yours. Order us to do
whatever you wish. Only do not order us to do nothing in face of the plague of divorce and
homosexuality being smuggled into the Church. To this, our conscience is opposed.”

Thank you.