A WILDERNESS OF MIRRORS: The Political Scandal behind the Clerical Scandal Written by Jesse Russell, Ph.D. | Remnant Columnist

Interesting perspective..Smells of Masonic Influence.
Part I: War and Rumors of War…

Former head of CIA counterintelligence and infamous spymaster, James Jesus Angleton, once described the Cold War world of espionage and intrigue as a “wilderness of mirrors.”
As more and more of the clerical abuse scandal is revealed, and layers of conspiracy and confusion are peeled away, many Catholics may feel as though they are walking around in their own wilderness of mirrors, a mess of doubt and confusion in which no one can be trusted.
Such a conspiratorial mindset is not unjustified, for it is apparent that there is more to the story than simply another round of liberal prelates being exposed as enablers to vicious sex offenders (although that reading of the story certainly is true). The conspiracy recently reached a new level of interesting in The American Spectator’s George Neumayr’s revelation that Cardinal Wuerl has recruited Barrack Obama’s former head of Secret Service to run cover for the Washington, DC cardinal who is now deluged with scandal.
As Neumayr’s brilliant gumshoe work has revealed, the presence of Obama’s former SS chief, Mark Sullivan, in Wuerl’s entourage seems to point to a deeper collusion between the Democratic Party and the liberal wing of the Catholic Church—something The Remnant suggested last year.
While such a weird alliance is very likely, the alliance between Democrats and liberal Catholic prelates poses an unsettling question: is it possible that there are those who masquerade as conservatives both in and outside the Church who are trying to take advantage of the McCarrick-Wuerl scandal to push a political agenda?
Is this moment of political and ecclesiastical crisis in America a window of opportunity for a certain group of people who have been holed in “the resistance” during in the Trump Era, biding their time and waiting for an opportunity to rear their ugly neoconservative heads?
Yes, dear reader, there is just such a possibility.
Yet, before we explore this avenue, let us start with some preliminary principles:
1. As has long been known, Wuerl, McCarrick, Cupich, and the whole stinking lot of the Francis Church is rotten to the core and are (hopefully) about ready to face the majesty of God’s justice.
2. Those journalists who are sincerely exposing the degeneracy and rot in the Church are heroes and deserve our prayers and support.
However, just because Francis-Church is rotten, it does not mean that all of the enemies of Francis-Church are good.
Furthermore, not every journalist who is reporting on the Francis-Church scandal is doing so from noble intentions.
To uncover those who are taking advantage of the scandal in the Church, we must turn back the clock to the 2002 Boston scandals in which the wicked deeds of priests were published coast to coast on the TV and computer screens of the people of America for the first time.
The standard narrative of the 2002 Boston Spotlight Scandal is that a group of investigative sleuths at the Boston Globe tracked down the dark secrets of the Boston Archdiocese, exposing a how a fundamentally insular and reactionary institution had been protecting pedophiles.
The only way to repair the Catholic Church, this narrative suggested, would be to reform the Church’s oppressive medieval structure and to liberalize her rigid teachings. A new, hip, and liberated Church, this narrative went, would not allow for the sexual abuse of children.
This narrative is wrong on many levels, but perhaps the most critical point at which it is wrong is the idea that the Globe had discovered a hidden abuse crisis.
The truth is that the crimes in Boston had been known for decades
Fr. Paul Shanley, one of the most notorious, frequently mentioned names in the 2002 Spotlight Scandal, flaunted his homosexuality and pederasty for decades and had even attended a meeting of the North American Man Boy Love Association, which was reported in a 1979 article in GaysWeek titled, “Men and Boys.”
While many have rightfully asked if the Boston Archdiocese knew of this 1979 meeting, an equally important question is: did anyone else in the media or in the social world of Boston know about this meeting?
Shanley was not the only priest with a record of abuse who publicly flaunted his degeneracy—to this very day, Catholic priests march in Gay Pride Parades, and gay priest scandals continue to plague the Church, but for some reason only some of these scandals are selectively aired in the media.
It is almost as if these scandals are saved in a sort of grotesque reservoir of perversity only to be released in the national media at an opportune time.
If many in the media knew about Shanley and the other most infamous Boston offender, Fr. John J. Geoghan, why did the Boston Globe pick up the story in July of 2001 and then begin the big takedown of Cardinal Law and the Boston Archdiocese when the September 11, 2001 attacks faded from the news cycle?
Examining the stories from the era, we can see that the tone of the coverage is not a crusade against child abuse, but an attack on the institution of the Catholic Church. The Globe’s commentary and the wider media narrative pitted the American media in a David versus Goliath struggle against Catholicism. As a typical example, PBS ran a special report on the Globe’s coverage titled, “Challenging the Church.” As was suggested by the PBS special as well as other media reports, Boston, Massachusetts was one of the strongest hubs of Catholicism in America, and the Globe’s spotlighting of the abuse crisis had the effect of cracking one of the last coherent ethnic Catholic communities in America.
What the efforts of busing in the 1960s and 1970s and other attempts to break up the ethnic Catholic communities in American cities had failed to do, the Globe was now accomplishing by revealing to Irish-American Catholics that the Church that had supported them for so long had become a morally toxic environment from which all Catholics should flee.
There is little doubt that the Boston Archdiocese as well as the Church in America was and still is infested with dangerous perverts, but the point here is that the media did not see its job as helping to expose and rid the Church of degenerates, but rather to attack the Catholic Church as an unreformed, pre-modern institution.
The horrific stories of abuse were simply cannon-fodder to attack the Church.
To explore this matter further and uncover why the media had saved up this cache of abuse stories, we must turn to the figure at the center of both the Spotlight Scandal as well as the current Wuerl-McCarrick crisis: Rod Dreher.
During the “long Lent” of the Spotlight scandal, which coincided with the ignition of the War on Terror, now in its seventeenth year, before he took up the cause of exposing clerical abuse, Rod Dreher made a living selling Catholics on the Iraq War in the pages of National Review.
In fact, Dreher even appeared on CNN’s Crossfire on March 5, 2003, just fifteen days before Operation Shock and Awe, to tell American Catholics that he was standing with President George W. Bush instead of Pope John Paul II, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, stating:
“For all of the great things this pope has done compared to our president, he’s still wrong on this. And this is one Catholic who supports our evangelical president.
I think the president is right on this war, the pope is wrong. And I say that with respect for the Holy Father. But we Catholics are allowed to dissent on this matter, on a matter of prudential judgment about the war. And I think the Holy Father simply doesn’t see things in the right way and our president does.”
Moreover, Dreher even takes a shot at John Paul II’s administration of the abuse crisis as evidence that the Holy Father lacks the competence to assess Saddam’s alleged threat to the United States:
“The Holy Father would like a dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. That’s the way he’s run this church and it hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked in the ways governing the church and it doesn’t work in the real world.”
Let’s be clear here: Rod Dreher is not wrong for criticizing John Paul II’s soft approach to handling the abuse crisis as well the Pontiff’s seemingly weak administration of Church. Certainly, much stronger words could and should have been used to criticize the pontiff—but in a different context.
Rather, the problem here is that it appears as though we have a reporter whose job at the National Review was to sell Catholics on what was an ultimately futile war that only increased the presence of terrorists in the Middle East and violated the Catholic Church’s just war teaching. This same reporter picks up the trail of clerical abuse and uses it as a mallet to hammer John Paul II for opposing a clearly unjust war that has destroyed the country of Iraq and has affected incredible suffering on untold millions of Catholics in the Middle East.
Indeed, as Tom Piatak of Chronicles has reminded us, during the heady days of the Iraq War, Dreher even expressed his glee that a reader of National Review informed him that “there is going to be hell to pay for the Chaldean Catholics” when Iraq falls due to the Chaldeans’ alleged cooperation with Saddam.
Is it then possible that the reason why the disgusting and wicked deeds of abuser priests were kept secret and then launched into the public—on the eve of the Iraq War by neoconservatives like Rod Dreher and their allies and benefactors—was because it would destroy the moral credibility of the Church?
Or was it merely a coincidence that all of the abuse was outed in the early 21st century as America was forced into a Middle Eastern war that did not benefit American interests?
If the former question is to be answered, “yes,” then there would be a similar narrative for the storing up of and then airing of Wuerl, McCarrick, and even Pope Francis’s foul misdeeds at precisely the right moment.
If so, then what is it, other than their degenerate criminal acts, which these liberal prelates did in order to draw the wrath of the neoconservatives?
Stay tuned for Part II of “A Wilderness of Mirrors: The Political Scandal behind the Clerical Scandal”: “Cardinal McCarrick’s War.”

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “A WILDERNESS OF MIRRORS: The Political Scandal behind the Clerical Scandal Written by Jesse Russell, Ph.D. | Remnant Columnist

  1. A WILDERNESS OF MIRRORS, PART 2: “Cardinal McCarrick’s War.”

    Written by Jesse Russell, Ph.D. | Remnant Columnist – 919/18

    “It was real grease ball [stuff]”…

    In one of the best of many aesthetically excellent scenes in his classic (but deeply immoral and therefore unwatchable) 1990 Goodfellas, the sadly lapsed Catholic Martin Scorsese depicts the death of the mobster Tommy DeVito, superbly played by Joe Pesci.

    Tommy, thinking that he was on his way to “being made” and initiated into the inner sanctum of the Sicilian Mafia, dresses and prepares for his big moment while the actor Ray Liotta provides a wise guy history of the process of “being made.”

    The viewer eagerly anticipates the moment when Tommy is going to be made but is violently shocked to see Joe Pesci’s character shot in the back of the head while looking into an empty room.

    In the film, Tommy is murdered in retaliation for having killed Billy Batts, who himself was made, and thus “untouchable.” The viewer of the film, which itself is based upon a true story, is left with the impression that, in the end, if someone crosses, the mob, the mob is going to find out, and the mob is going to get even.


    It seems that Pope Francis and his merry band of degenerates in the American and European hierarchy has finally, after five years of complete mayhem, made the mob angry. First the neoconservative and now even the left wing media has turned on the Roman Pontiff.

    There are two key questions here, however:

    What exactly did Francis do to anger the mob?

    And who, pray tell, is the mob?

    The first question is more difficult to answer than the second, for there are so many bad things Pope Francis has done.

    It cannot be the fact that he has protected gay priests and abuser bishops, for Pope Francis, in his infamous “Who am I to judge?” interview, which way back in 2013, even the New York Times recognized, was referring specifically to gay priests. In effect, giving a “green light” to gay priests (and bishops) around the world, the Successor to Saint Peter made it perfectly clear that he was going to look the other way in regard to clerical abuse.

    In fact, in the fall of 2013, Vanity Fair ran an exposé of gay clergy called “The Vatican’s Secret Life.”

    There are innumerable articles that your author could marshal to support his argument, but the point here is that the media have known about the misdeeds of the Lavender Mafia for a long time.

    So why now, all of a sudden, is there a coordinated campaign to dump all of the Vatican II Church’s misdeeds out in the street?

    Is it really the case that the criminal justice system in America and the world media are driven by noble motives and want to protect young men from creepy old gay pederasts?

    If you believe that, dear reader, there is a bridge on the moon this author wants to sell you.

    The answer for the current deliberate emptying of the skeletons out of the Church’s closet may be found in the realm of geopolitics.

    As your author suggested in the previous installment of this series, there is a strong possibility that there were two reasons why the crimes of clergy of the Boston Archdiocese were aired in 2002. The first was a coordinated attack on Irish Catholic Boston by the Boston Globe and the American media in order shatter what remained of the people’s faith and ethnic identity. The second possible reason was because of John Paul II and much of the Catholic hierarchy around the world’s opposition to the Iraq War.

    Again, it is important to reaffirm three important principles in our discussion.

    1. The Catholic Church in Europe and America is infested with degenerates and crooks.
    2. Journalists have an obligation before God to expose this evil.

    3. To criticize those who criticize Francis-Church is not to defend Francis or his goons in the U.S. Hierarchy.

    The problem here is not what is being done, i.e., the exposure of pederasty, the problem is why it is being done.

    Did Pope Francis, like John Paul II, oppose the efforts of the neoconservatives and the “conservative” faction of the Deep State that they represent to wage yet another war in the Middle East?

    Yes, friends, Pope Francis sure did.

    In 2013 after the first alleged chemical attacks in Syria by Bashar al-Assad, which were later proven false by German Intelligence and later, the UN, Pope Francis called for a day of prayer and fasting, which in addition to a near mutiny in the U.S. military over the possibility of fighting alongside Al Qaeda, stopped a U.S. invasion of Syria.

    This could not have made the neoconservatives happy, for as US Army General Wesley Clark has stated, it was the prerogative of the neocons immediately after 9/11 to bulldoze a number of Middle Eastern countries.

    But what about Uncle Ted McCarrick? Did he do something to trigger the ire of those planning to cripple and destroy any country that stood in the way of the neoconservative agenda?

    Yes, for when he wasn’t raping and stalking seminarians, Uncle Ted found time to publish a letter in the Washington Post, applauding John Kerry and Barrack H. Obama’s 2015 Iran Deal.

    This letter did not go unnoticed by the neocons, and an article was published in Bill Kristol’s failing Weekly Standard decrying Christian support for a possible peace deal with the Iranians.

    The Iran Deal was especially detested by the neocons because it would grant Iran the ability to produce nuclear power and would lift some of the economic sanctions on the country. But it was especially detested because it would improve relations between Iran and the West and would thus allow Iran to grow into a power that would rival Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Cardinal McCarrick, who like most of the U.S. Catholic bishops, is very close to the Democratic Party and was clearly throwing a bone to John Kerry and Barrack Obama who had worked so hard to form the deal with Iran.

    Also, for some strange reason, Cardinal McCarrick has a long history of wheeling and dealing in Iran. In fact, as our friends at the National Catholic Reporter have informed us, Cardinal McCarrick had enough free time to make several trips to Iran in the 90s and 00s.

    That’s very interesting.

    What could Uncle Ted have been doing in the former Persian Empire? And, more importantly, who sent the good Cardinal to the great land once conquered by Alexander of Macedonia?

    Is it possible that like Cardinal Wuerl’s ties to the Obama administration and other strange overlays between the USCCB and the Democratic Party that Cardinal McCarrick was some sort of agent for American Intelligence or the State Department in Iran?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    The whole thing is weird nonetheless, and it further suggests that there may not be entirely noble motives behind the venting of McCarrick’s disgusting predatory activity.

    The relationship between the USCCB and the Democrats as well as Pope Francis’s opposition to U.S.-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East could very well account for why the younger generation of neoconservatives led by “Little Ben” Shapiro at the Daily Wire has made it a pet project to take on exposing the scandals of a Church of which they are not part.

    Like the older generation of neoconservatives before him, Shapiro ignores the devastating abuse scandals in his own religion, and, for some strange reason, is dead set on exposing the Catholic Church’s.

    Something is going on here.

    Is it possible that the neoconservatives and their backers are planning on forcing President Trump’s hand to strike Syria or Iran and thus need to discredit the liberal American hierarchy who would oppose these wars?

    Stay tuned for the Final Part of the “Wilderness of Mirrors”: “Ray’s Roman Holiday.”

Leave a Reply