Communion while Kneeling - Cupich off the rails

Cardinal Cupich recently published an essay condemning reception of Communion while kneeling. He stated, "no one should engage in a gesture [kneeling] that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession. That would be contrary to the norms and tradition of the church."

Following is a brief analysis that will show that the Cardinal's claims are theologically empty and derogatory of faithful Catholics.

Tradition for Communion while Kneeling

Kneeling for Communion has been the norm for centuries. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species." (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2002)

One needn't even be a scholar to know Communion while kneeling is a centuries-old tradition. You can just look at the pictures. Here are paintings from the 20th, 19th, and 15th centuries all depicting Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

Holy Communion by Angelo comte de Courten, d. 1925

Woman Receiving the Eucharist by Felix-Joseph Barrias, 1850

The Institution of the Eucharist by Joos van Wassenhove, ca 1475

Cupich's own home Chicago church, Holy Name Cathedral can be seen here with its altar rail for Communion while kneeling in these photos taken prior to Vatican II:

Holy Name Cathedral (home of Cardinal Cupich) seen above in
the 1903 stereogram and in 1958 with altar rails still in place.

Magisterial Support for Communion while Kneeling

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops echoes Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding Communion while kneeling:

"The norm... is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling. ... It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ's faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing."

Cardinal Sarah, writing in a book preface recently pointed out how antagonism for Communion while kneeling is from the devil:

And then we understand how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable way of receiving it; truly the war between Michael and his Angels on the one hand, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan's target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. .... May this book encourage those priests and faithful who, also moved by the example of Benedict XVI – who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling – wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter way, much more suited to the Sacrament itself. I hope there may be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this modality. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ. (Cardinal Robert Sarah, preface to the book The Distribution of Communion in the Hand: a Historical, Juridical, and Pastoral Overview (2018)

Bishop Thomas Olmsted similarly referenced the devil as an opponent of kneeling before God:

According to Abba Apollo, a desert father who lived about 1,700 years ago, the devil has no knees; he cannot kneel; he cannot adore; he cannot pray; he can only look down his nose in contempt. Being unwilling to bend the knee at the name of Jesus is the essence of evil (Cf. Is 45:23, Rom 14:11). (Bishop Thomas Olmstead, "Knees to Love Christ," 2005)

The angelic battle calls to mind Scripture, where we see angels prostrating themselves before God's throne (Revelation 7:11). Such gestures of reverence can hardly be considered "calling attention to oneself," as Cupich asserted baselessly.

Around 2014, Cardinal Francis Arinze perhaps summed up the theological basis for receiving Communion kneeling in the most efficient statement: "If you believe that Christ is our God, and He is present, why don't you kneel?"

History against Eucharistic piety

Cardinal Cupich's stance on kneeling for Communion is part of a broader pattern against proper reverence for the Holy Eucharist. He has previously expressed openness to giving Communion to the divorced and remarried and those in same-sex relationships, positions that contradict longstanding Church teaching and the moral law, including that described by St. Paul (1 Cor 11:28-29) in exhorting those in sinful condition to abstain from the Eucharist. Cupich's Eucharistic procession this past June was noted for its irreverently fast pace.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is Cardinal Cupich who stands against the Tradition of the Church. He is in contradiction with the teaching of the USCCB and Redemptionis Sacramentum and relevant parts recognized by the Apostolic See. His essay avoids confronting the theological basis for Communion while kneeling - which is a form of censorship - concealing from readers what he was opposing. Instead he attacked a strawman about self-aggrandizement and disunity. His position may ultimately work against his intent. The faithful can see what a poor theological analysis he offers compared to the theological soundness and beauty offered by those who support Communion while kneeling.

While the faithful might find the Cardinal's essay akin to a mobster's letter of intimidation, they needn't lose confidence. The theological basis for kneeling to receive Communion has a solid foundation in truth. Those who desire to receive Communion kneeling should always remember we are called to please God, not men (cf. Gal. 1:10).

A priest posting on X made a relevant observation that would both account for the theological basis for kneeling prostrate like angels before God all while maintaining unity in posture that Cupich said is important: "[W]hat if instead of coming forward individually, we line up side by side—perhaps along some sort of railing."

6 political behaviors of the Francis pontificate

Pope Francis and many of the bishops and Vatican spokespersons during his pontificate frequently behave in a manner matching modern propagandistic politicians. There are many examples. Here are 6.

CENSORSHIP

Francis Pontificate: Not only did the Pope command suffocation of the Traditional Latin Mass, but Vatican officials subsequently issued instruction censoring the TLM from being included among the bulletin mass times.

Hundreds of priests find themselves “cancelled” for reasons kept hidden by the aggressing bishops. In the typical case, there is no impropriety even alleged by the bishops. These priests are forbidden from public ministry. The latest inexcusable scandal was Pope Francis declaring the orthodox Bishop Joseph Strickland’s office in Texas vacant without due cause.

Politics: Recently, we’ve seen western governments even controlling social media sites to limit what is said and by whom. For example, Facebook has censored video of a living unborn baby. Both Facebook and Twitter censored a news story just prior to the 2020 election about Joe Biden’s son that was indisputably true. Social media knowingly censored true Covid information. Once the latest Ukraine conflict started, Youtube censored Oliver Stone’s 2016 film Ukraine on Fire, which incriminated the West in the 2014 Maidan coup. Youtube also recently removed interviews for the film The Sound of Freedom, which exposed a vast child-trafficking international network. It's a warlike tactic to take out an opponent's communication channels. These are a fraction of the censorship and account banning that has occurred in recent years at the behest of politicians.

Pope Francis 2016 (from Wikimedia Commons)

BLAMING A PROXY

Francis Pontificate: At the close of the recent “Synod on Synodality,” German heretical bishop Georg Bätzing claimed the “overwhelming majority of a world church has chosen” the sexual perversions he and many bishops (especially in Germany) have propagated. Of course, this is asserted gratuitously, because the practicing faithful believe the Church’s true moral teachings. The bishop points the finger at the faithful as a proxy for advancing his own ambitions.

Pointing the finger at the second Vatican council is also a common theme during the Francis pontificate. A Vatican official recently said, “Francis is the one who is pushing forward the application of Vatican II.” Yet Vatican II did not call for many of the Pope’s chief causes, such as the oppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Roche even claimed “The Council Fathers perceived the urgent need for a reform” in his letter defending suppression of Traditional Latin Mass. When cited this way, Vatican II has become a Rorschach blot, a proxy for advancing causes the Council did not call to advance.

Politics: The censorship tactic also ties into this, as government officials launder their power through big tech, belying the argument that these are “private companies.” They are instead used as proxies to do the bidding of the government entity.

In the Ukraine conflict, both NATO and U.S. politicians have insisted involvement in the war is limited to Russia and Ukraine and not NATO nor the U.S. However: In September, NATO candidly confessed the NATO expansion east was a cause for Russia’s response; the April Discord leaks show that the Pentagon was the source of war plans to which Ukraine did not have access; Hillary Clinton has said favor for Ukraine come with “strings;” British intelligence flat out said they support Ukraine so they can hurt Russia for non-acceptance of Western “lgbt+” ideology; President Biden’s son spearheaded funding for bioweapon research in Ukraine; and U.S. Undersecretary Victoria Nuland confirmed involvement with Ukraine biolabs. Sen. Tim Scott proudly said the U.S. was using “Ukranian blood” in the U.S. effort to weaken Russia. These are just a few of the direct involvements and interests the West has in Ukraine well beyond “freedom” help.

So, while Western politicians say their support is just altruism to help Ukraine, the operation appears ordered for Western interests. Ukraine is the proxy.

HYPOCRISY

A quick word on “hypocrisy.” The concept of hypocrisy is not merely condemning someone for that which one does himself. Someone addicted to smoking would be quite right and not hypocritical to discourage others from doing the same. Hypocrisy as used here is to condemn another for a behavior one condones for himself.

Francis Pontificate: Synod on Synodality pitchmen speak of the “openness” of the event. Yet participants are sworn to secrecy.

Pope Francis often makes statements like “say an emphatic ‘no’ to all forms of clericalism” while his pontificate is plump with clericalism. One example would be his attitude of placing himself above Church Fathers and preceding Popes when he rejected their teaching on the death penalty. Another is his absolutization of the Novus Ordo mass, in which the priest’s ad populum posture is a textbook form of clericalism. Other examples abound.

Politics: One of the politicized tactics of the abortion industry is to accuse the pro-life movement of being against “choice.” Of course, “choice” is a euphemism the abortion industry uses to disguise the intentional termination of an innocent human life. Meanwhile, when doctors offer women an actual “choice,” such as the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol, the abortion industry has responded by attempting to silence that treatment, most recently in Colorado and California.

As mentioned above, the West has denied leveraging proxies throughout the business world – especially tech - and the international scene. Ironically, Nuland said last year, “It is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves.”

FICTIONAL VICTIMS

Francis Pontificate: One of the battle cries of the Synod on Synodality is reaching out to people labeled “marginalized,” such as women or so-called “LGBT+” etc. As Professor Regis Martin said recently, “I have yet to meet any of these people. Who exactly are they whom we’ve so cruelly consigned to the margins of ecclesial life? … I really have not seen anyone who fits the description.”

Of course, the victimhood expressed here is fictional, since all of humanity is invited to participate in the full life of the Church, and the above persons are no exception. The only ostracized group today are the TLM attendees, ostracized by that very pontificate, and referred to in official Vatican documents as “members of the said group” distinct from all the other faithful. The heterodox cries of marginalization of women or the sexual identities commit a form of the fallacy of equivocation, confusing the non-possibility of a female priest or the non-possibility of blessing a sinful relationship as “marginalizing” those people. It’s similar to the modern world’s poorly thought-out attempt to redefine “love” as “endorsing” whatever someone does.

Politics: Fictional victimhood in the Synod mirrors fictional victimhood tactics in the world. Leftist ideologues have been conditioned to seek refuge in victimhood even when they act as bigoted aggressor. For example, in December, the Family Foundation had reserved a dining room at a restaurant later discovered to be owned by a leftist. Once the owner discovered the group was pro-life and pro-marriage, the owner rescinded the reservation and released a delusional statement claiming the Family Foundation sought to “deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights” and that the restaurant staff felt “unsafe.” Of course, the natural law and millennia-old notion of marriage and desire to protect innocent life is no cause for alarm.

Another example of fictional victimhood prowls the world of modern feminism, which asserts that women are denied “equal pay” for equal work. However, the statistics they use for this assertion conflate the average pay of males and females in totality, ignoring job-types or amount of work. When those factors are accounted for, the so-called discrimination virtually vanishes. A hallucination of victimhood occurred when the U.S. women’s national soccer team cried foul on equal pay because they themselves rejected the collective bargaining agreement under which they would have made more had they signed it when offered.

EUPHEMISMS

Francis Pontificate: Pope Francis often uses the term “backwardness” as a pejorative against orthodox Catholics. He said, “There is incredible support for restorationism, what I call indietrismo (backwardness).” The term is non-theological. As a concept, looking backward per se is neither good nor bad. It depends to what one is looking back. Certainly, the Church in every age has looked back toward the Apostolic deposit and the preceding Magisterium to guide matters of the day. As mentioned in the proxy section above, Francis himself is ever looking “backward” to Vatican II and the 1960s to defend many of his teachings. In rejecting what he claims is “backwardness” of orthodox Catholics, he ironically (and unconvincingly) appeals to the 5^th century’s St. Vincent of Lerins. Also ironic is that his document detaching from Tradition is called Traditionis Custodes, which in word means “guardians of tradition” and in practice means obliterator of tradition. While Pope Francis belittles such “restorationism,” predecessors such as Pope Pius X said where “Christian doctrine…is neglected, to restore it.”

Another common term used by Francis and heterodox bishops is “accompaniment.” This is, again, a concept that is neither good nor bad, per se. It depends on who one is accompanying. Proverbs 13:20 says “[T]he companion of fools will suffer harm.” In 2018, Cardinal Cupich exposed the term as a vehicle leading to the 2023 Synod, which, among other offenses, blurred the authority of the hierarchy and laity: “Thus, in a genuinely synodal Church there is no hierarchical distinction between those with knowledge and those without. As such, the most important consequence of this call to accompaniment ought to be greater attention to the voices of the laity, especially on matters of marriage and family life.” Opening doctrine in this way to any laity has resulted in various justifications of sinful behaviors. Fr. Jerry Pokorsky explained: “instead of accompanying our Lord on the way of the cross, many Church leaders choose to accommodate sinners on sinners’ terms.”

Related to “accompaniment” is “inclusion.” The Synod touted concepts like “radical inclusion” in the context of women and so-called “LGBT+,” etc. But, as discussed in the fictional victims section above, the notion that any group is excluded is really only applicable today to TLM attendees against whom the Francis pontificate has been plainly hostile. Polish Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki said the modernist term “‘inclusiveness’ implies an acceptance of how a person defines him or herself, as if defining oneself were in obvious conformity with reality, inherently unquestionable, and therefore demanding affirmation.”

Politics: The abortion industry is dependent on lies, including many euphemisms like “reproductive health” or “her body.”

The gay “marriage” movement hides behind many euphemistic slogans like “love is love,” “same love” or “marriage equality,” none of which address the root of the matter of what is a marriage or what is a man and woman.

The term “underrepresented” is used to signal supposed injustice if there are not enough of certain people of a particular demographic involved in a business, industry, film, or similar. It’s also applied inconsistently. Modern use of “representation” is a euphemism to condition people to perceive injustice where there is none. Politicians then leverage this. Merely sharing, say, skin color, with another person does not amount to any sense of relevant “representation.” If a white female devout Catholic is asked who better represents her, Nancy Pelosi or Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, she’s going to pick Cardinal Arinze. Today’s political use of “representation” appeals to trivial demographic characteristics when those characteristics are irrelevant to the context at hand.

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY

Francis Pontificate: The Pope’s quest to eradicate the Traditional Latin Mass is outside the scope of his authority. Cardinal Roche also abused authority proper to local bishops when he attempted to police them to impose Pope Francis’ Latin Mass restriction.

The removal of priests or even bishops without due cause is also external to the Pope’s or a bishop’s authority.

The Vatican Press office declared the Church was now ruled by Pope Francis as an individual, as opposed to the authority of Scripture and Tradition.

Politics: In an explicit overlap between the Francis pontificate and politics, the FBI was caught spying on traditional Catholics.

A court recognized the “abuse of authority” the U.S. government attempted to impose when demanding “vaccine mandates.”

Another court blocked Minnesota’s Democrat Secretary of State from forbidding the opposition party’s overwhelming leading candidate from appearing on the ballot.

FINAL THOUGHTS

What these overlapping tactics and language patterns between the Church and the world suggest is that the world is over-influencing the Church if not outright directing it. Language tricks and political tactics are not native to the pursuit of sound doctrine nor pastoral and familial leadership. It is indicative of a modern and worldly infection warned against by many in Church history:

Everyone must understand that such ravings and others like them, concealed in many deceitful guises, cause greater ruin to public calm the longer their impious originators are unrestrained. They cause a serious loss of souls redeemed by Christ’s blood wherever their teaching spreads, like a cancer; it forces its way into public academies, into the houses of the great, into the palaces of kings, and even enters the sanctuary, shocking as it is to say so. (Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile, 7, 1775)

The common enemy of the human race is wholly engaged in undermining faith, destroying truth and disrupting unity by worldly wisdom, heretical discussion, subtle, clever deceit, and even, where possible, by the use of force. (St. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 2, 1873)

According to these rules, Venerable Brethren, you should judge those to whom you will entrust the ministry of the divine word. Whenever you find any of them departing from these rules, being more concerned with their own interests than those of Jesus Christ and more anxious for worldly applause than the welfare of souls, warn and correct them. If that proves insufficient, be firm in removing them from an office for which they have proven themselves unworthy. (St. Pius X, Pieni L’animo, 9, 1906)

2 paths to save the immoral culture

What will solve the immoral madness that has seized the world today? The Western world is largely responsible for fostering various sexual deviance, abortion, sterilizations, child predation, anti-marriage and family, fatherless homes, drug overdose, and various other immoralities.

There are at least two key fronts by which this hellish trajectory can be altered.

#1: The Church restores moral authority

Abortion and various sexual, economic, and societal indecencies have infected the world, in a particular way, the West (predominantly North America, Western Europe, and Australia). The primary and non-negotiable path to save the moral decadence in the West must come from the Church. The current generation of papacy and bishops is largely infected with a secular bent hostile to truth and tradition.

Our Lady of Akita in 1973, fifty years ago, prophesied:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres.

In recent days, we’ve seen no less. One archbishop called out a Cardinal’s acceptance of sexual perversion at the divine liturgy, another archbishop called out a Cardinal’s heresy on sexuality, another Cardinal called out the bishops of Germany for openly embracing heresy, and holy priests remain persecuted and removed unjustly from ministry by their own bishops. Even the Pope is in contradiction to his predecessors and Vatican council fathers on the liturgy and otherwise. Cardinal Zen this week called to the attention of bishops the revolutionary sexual deviance promoted by the German bishops, allowed by the Pope to persist to date, and warning that a goal of some at the “Synod on Synodality” is “sexual morality different from that of Catholic Tradition.”

The sex abuse scandal, predominantly victimizing young males, continues to come to light. Liturgical abuses are all too common.  Pagan influence permeates the current hierarchy. The secrecy of the sex abuse scandal has moved to secrecy in “cancelling” good priests. And there are other scandals throughout the Church hierarchy, sadly too numerous to enumerate.

Meanwhile, a supermajority of “Catholics” are apparently contracepting against the moral order. Only a small minority agree fully with the Church on abortion. Suicides are hitting record highs. Teen depression is spiking. In the past several years, youth have been conditioned to embrace heterodox sexuality to the point that 20% of Gen Z thinks they are “nonbinary.”

Such tragically off-course results coincide with a Church hierarchy too silent on orthodoxy, morality and the meaning of the human person, marriage, life, sexuality, and humility. Instead of feeding the flock a foundation for virtues, they largely act as “a disciple of the world,” as Msgr. Charles Pope recently described the suspect “Synod on Synodality.”

As long as all these scandals and improprieties are permitted or endorsed by the Pope and hierarchy, the entire world will suffocate and decay under their poisons. The sanctification of the world is dependent on the sanctity of the Church.

“The world and the church are in a mess because we priests have failed to be as holy as we are called to be,” said Father John Corapi in 1997 at a retreat for priests and seminarians.

Dr. Edward Feser, professor of philosophy and scholastic, recently observed (emphasis added):

A mark of the diabolical disorder of our times is that we face grave problems (in Church, state, education, etc.) which can be solved only by those with the relevant authority, while at the same time largely having the worst possible people occupying those positions of authority.

Finally, restoration of the Latin may be a lynchpin to restoring sanity in the world. The Traditional Latin Mass’s promotion of family and anthropological realities are especially what today’s world not only lacks but often abhors.

Exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger F.S.S.P. stated:

It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself, the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church.

The Mass of St. Gregory
Spanish anonymous, ca 1490

A parallel change in rites also occurred in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, namely the rite of exorcism. While some exorcists deny a difference in efficacy of the older or new exorcism rites, the late Fr. Gabriel Amorth, exorcist of Rome, decried the new exorcism rite and obtained a dispensation to perform the rite rooted in antiquity from 1614.

On the new rite of exorcism, Fr. Amorth said, “Efficacious prayers, prayers that had been in existence for twelve centuries, were suppressed and replaced by new ineffective prayers.” Another anonymous exorcist stated of the new rite: “The new rite will one day itself be subject to a true restoration, which will restore to the obligatory texts of the exorcist the true nature of his office.”

These changes in liturgical and exorcism rites coincide both with the aftermath of the Council and immoral norms of the cultural and sexual revolution from the 1960s and 1970s. The evidence shows that a restoration to Latin in liturgy and exorcism will restrict the current hold the devil and his minions have on the world today.

Ultimately, moral decadence will persist until the Church leads the way back to sanity.

 

#2: The East and Global South move the West to reverse course

Related to the Church dimension is a secondary political one. In the U.S., the current Administration is using a form of financial terrorism against states that do not submit to “LGBT” ideology by withholding school lunch funding that is available to states that do submit.

Western nations also use economic penalties (or even military penalties) to obtain their social demands as an international policy. While Eastern or Southern nations are not immune to corruption, the West had traditionally operated with a brand of freedom and human prosperity. Those days have vanished. The East and South at least appear to have a greater aversion to the degree of moral depravity in the West.

The West’s accelerating deterioration has been noticed around the world. The following is a small sample of countries condemning Western economic and social immorality.

• Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People’s Party) recently issued a statement: “A valid marriage is only between a biological male and biological woman… any equality offered to same-sex couples goes against religious values and seriously affects the interests of every citizen.” Indian citizens also reject the idea to modernize by “follow[ing] Western culture.”
• The group of countries forming what is known as BRICS are allying in large part to insulate themselves from Western sanctions by way of “de-dollarization.” These sanctions are often imposed against countries that do not embrace the West’s sexual proclivities. The West openly admits this, citing a nation’s “climate of intolerance” as grounds for “financial sanctions, visa restrictions, and other actions.” The U.S. currently even has a bill, HR4422, with the intention “To impose sanctions on foreign persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, and for other purposes.”
• In June,130 African signatories wrote to the U.S. Congress warning against funding immorality in Africa. They wrote:

[W]e want to express our concerns and suspicions that this funding is supporting so-called family planning and reproductive health principles and practices, including abortion, that violate our core beliefs concerning life, family, and religion.

Nations represented included: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

• Japanese citizens are opposing so-called LGBT politics because “thanks to” the West, they have seen its “horror.”
• On the current U.S. government’s abuse of the Department of Justice, the President of El Salvador observed: “Sadly, it’ll be very hard for US Foreign Policy to use arguments such as ‘democracy’ and ‘free and fair elections’, or try to condemn ‘political persecution’ in other countries, from now on”.
• At the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill stated there was a link between Western moral values and the war. “For eight years there have been attempts to destroy what exists in Donbas. And in Donbas there is a rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.” He added that having “pride parades” showed a “test of loyalty” to Western sexual propaganda. “[I]n order to join the club of those countries, you have to have a gay pride parade.”
• In November, Russia passed a law criminalizing, among other things, propaganda for “promoting non-traditional sexual relations,” sex-change operations, and pedophilia. Vyacheslav Volodin, deputy of the Russian State Duma, commented: “This decision will protect our children and the future of the country from the darkness spread by the United States and European states. We have our own traditions and values.”
• In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech that proved internationally popular, emphasizing Western notability’s sexual predation of children.

Look what [the Western elite] are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. … Millions of people in the West realize that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy, and it looks like there is no cure for that. But like I said, these are their problems, while we must protect our children, which we will do. We will protect our children from degradation and degeneration.

Meanwhile, Western leaders specifically state that “lgbt” issues are a primary factor in Western opposition to Russia in Ukraine. Four days after Putin’s speech, the Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Robert Moore said: “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights.”

• Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov also cited the West’s exportation of its sexual requirements.

“[T]he [West’s] “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the ‘enlightened Europe.’ All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilizations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

• In March, a Western ambassador from Germany traveled to the African nation of Namibia to criticize them on their growing Chinese population. The Namibian Head of State, Hage Geingob, responded sternly. “Why has this become your problem?” He contrasted the way Namibians are treated poorly in Germany versus how their relations with the Chinese are faring. “[O]ur people are being bullied in Germany. … Talk about Germans. How do you treat us there? The Chinese don’t treat us like this.”
• In September, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also spoke of turning attention to China as a result of Western economic sanctions: “[M]ost countries in the world are looking forward to the Chinese yuan transforming into an international currency, since the dollar is the West’s weapon against developing countries.”
• In a November 2021 interview with British media, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko issued strong condemnation of the West’s tactics. “I really don’t care what they think of me in England or in the USA or EU. Because the whole world has seen what you’re really like.” And, referring to Western interference in Belarus 2020 elections and possibly an alleged attempted assassination attempt in 2021, he added, “What business of yours are our elections? We don’t interfere in the UK or America, in your home, why did you come to ours and start to smash it up?”
• In March, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni finished a speech on economic policy with a comment on Western interference: “On the issue of homosexuals, we shall get time and discuss it thoroughly… The western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by trying to impose their practices on other peoples.”
• Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva explicitly condemned the United States’ role in fueling the Ukraine conflict. “It is necessary that the U.S. stops stimulating the war and talk about peace,” he said in April. Leaked documents pertaining to Russia and Brazil apparently refer to an “the West’s ‘aggressor-victim’ paradigm,” which echoes a sentiment that the West is the aggressor in many international conflicts while claiming to be on defense.
• Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recognized both the West’s interference in elections and propagandization of its sexual distortions. He said “the [EU] federalists are trying to squeeze us out. They openly wanted a change in government in Hungary.” He added: “The EU rejects Christian heritage, carries out a replacement of its population via migration ... and conducts an LGBTQ offensive.”
• A member of Poland’s parliament, Kacper Plazynski, rejected Britain’s criticism of Poland’s efforts to promote the traditional family. “I am enormously disappointed in the unit of the UK’s Home Office which fell for propaganda of a trivial radical left activist about alleged Polish discrimination of gays.” Hinting at Britain’s interference, he added. “It is up to Polish people to decide the shape and form of the Polish constitution.”
• “This is the path of Venezuela and the path of a free economy where currencies are not used to punish countries and impose sanctions,” said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in May, promising to abandon the U.S. dollar.  “The de-dollarization of global trade is an unavoidable reality that we are currently witnessing. The era of unjust sanctions and economic manipulations that harm the people is coming to an end.”
• The concept of gay “marriage” is overwhelmingly rooted in Western governments as this map illustrates.
• In April, a dignitary from the Bahamas vehemently decried England’s effort to push perversion in schools:

You can't come in my country teaching my children foolishness. Don't come in this country. Now you want to be in England, you can teach them all the boogery things you want to teach them in England. But not in the Bahamas. Don't bring that around here. And I also want to say to all you parents, all you parents who have been emailing me, texting me, listen, you all get ready. Because the time will come when all of us are going to have to stand up to protect our children. I think we have to show this government. Because what this government is doing is testing the water to see if we pass it, if we're benign and going to let it slide. We will not let it slide. Not one filthy book will be let in our classrooms and our libraries. I'm going to lead the charge. When I say let's go, I need you all to let's go. Because I ain't letting it happen.

• In July 2023, 21 international endocrinologists signed a letter condemning “the politicization of transgender healthcare in the U.S.”

Examples could go on and on. But this is a flavor for the global resistance to Western immoralities.

Jeffrey Sachs, economist and former UN advisor, recently commented on the West’s dangerous path:

The US is seen for what it is, which is, you know, most of the world saying we don't want to be led by you. Thank you. We'd like to trade with you, would like to cooperate. We don't want to be bombed by you. Thank you. … But we don't want to follow you or have your sanctions regime and so on. … I do think that the weight of the world opinion really coming together to say, come on stop already, is actually going to, one way or another, make the difference. I hope it makes the difference.

If the East and global South are sincere in their rejection of Western immorality, this could pose a problem for those immoralities to persist, even in the West. The current BRICS nations have surpassed the Western-led G20 nations in global GDP. BRICS also stands to control 80% of the world’s oil production. The West may well have to back off their insane immoral propaganda and child abuse if they want any part of commerce that will otherwise be insulated from their control. Or the West can stay the course and be king of the ashes gathering underfoot.

Is it moral to finance a generation of corrupt bishops?

I consider it an error to trust and hope in any means or efforts in themselves alone; nor do I consider it a safe path to trust the whole matter to God our Lord without desiring to help myself by what he has given me; so that it seems to me in our Lord that I ought to make use of both parts, desiring in all things his greater praise and glory, and nothing else. (St. Ignatius of Loyola to Francis Borgia, 1555)

I first drafted this essay in 2019. Recent events by multiple bishops treating orthodox clergy as enemies and the faithful like nuisances has rekindled the content herein. The matters described below are merely a small sample of scandalous pastoral actions, primarily among bishops, just in recent months. Obviously not all bishops, but obviously too many bishops seem intent on steering the ark to perdition. This essay is both an examination of the merits of the argument against financing corrupt bishops and a thought experiment. It provides additional suggestions while welcoming other solutions toward orthodoxy.

The faithful deserve an authentic liturgy, justice among clergy, and truth from their shepherds in season and out of season. Faithful baptized Catholics should take note, they are royal princes and princesses in the eternal Kingdom. They merit the fullness of Christ the King.

A GRAVE SITUATION
With times as grave as they are in today's Church, what recourse do the faithful have for restoration to consistent orthodoxy? If the current trajectory persists, yet another generation of uncatechized souls will stumble unprepared to the evil snares that await. Far too many clergy have remained silent in the face of unbelief regarding the Eucharist, true marriage, life, injustices against faithful priests, or even or the very foundations of Christ's purpose as the singular door through which few will enter the eternal kingdom.

Generations of faithful have been in the habit of contributing money to the church on a regular basis. Historically, one can see the fruits of such practices, such as the existence of some of the most breathtaking churches, vibrant authentic ministries, and a zealous faithful ignited by the very truths of the faith.

Today, such fruits are sparse. And, tragically, too many clergy either refuse to teach critical doctrines in season or out, or they doubt those doctrines themselves. Would it not be welcome to hear, without hesitation and with perfect clarity, the truths of the faith? Would it not be welcome to hear this from the sacerdotal pulpit, from the mouths of the clergy—and not only the priests, but the bishops? Would it not be a tribute to truth and justice if heterodox clergy were sanctioned and orthodox clergy exalted, rather than the inverse we see today.

Years of attempts at so-called welcome "dialogue" with the hierarchy have failed. Without exaggeration, multiple bishops have turned deaf ears or outright ignored the faithful's inquiries on such matters. This is not the relationship of a shepherd and his flock. It is better described as the tyrant and the underfoot. 

What recourse remains?

HETERODOXY PERMEATING THE CHURCH

Eucharist

Consider the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. How tragic it is that the majority of "Catholics" do not believe this foundational truth. A 2019 poll stated that only one-third of Catholics believe in the real presence. Even among weekly mass attendees, the figure is two-thirds. How is this not at 100%? What shipwreck of catechesis was permitted to fester until the figures were this scandalous? And, still, little to nothing is said among most clergy to remedy the crisis. Is it fair to interpret their silence as an attitude of unalarm? If one's house was on spiritual fire, he would act with urgency, in a frenzy, to remedy the crisis of unbelief. The clergy's silence all but shouts their apathy toward Christ being regularly received by unbelievers. Their persistent silence suggests they believe it is okay. This is not okay.

When the Eucharist was denied to then-candidate Joe Biden, who openly and persistently supported abortion, other clergy scandalously swarmed to condemn the priest. Instead of deferring to that priest, or at least citing canon law to support his own statement, Cardinal Dolan went on Fox News to say he wouldn't have denied the Eucharist to the pro-abortion politician. Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich, who was named several times by Bishop Vigano as it pertained to sex abuse and the disgraced Cardinal McCarrick, contradicted his fellow Illinois bishop on the matter of distributing the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki issued a statement forbidding such "Catholic" politicians from receiving the Eucharist and cited Canon Law 915-916. Cupich contradicted Paprocki, saying such sanctions "don’t change anybody’s minds and the politicians have to deal with the "judgement seat of God." Cupich's "mind change" appeal is not only an invented requirement, but isn't even necessarily true. His statement about forgoing judgment in deference to God is an affront to every excommunication or withheld Eucharist by any bishop or priest in Church history. And, he doesn't abide by this supposed rule himself, as Cupich suspended a priest in February 2018 for burning a "gay pride" flag that was at his church. Both Dolan's and Cupich's argument to distribute Communion to the persistently defiant abortion-supporter is devoid of any theological argument supported by Canon Law or magisterial texts on the subject. Their response is political and not theological. 

Read here for Canon lawyer Ed Peters' explanation of the canonical sanction and theological basis for withholding the Eucharist to persistently defiant pro-abortion politicians. A number of Church Fathers echo the sentiment, as well. For example:

With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, says the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine Matthew 7:6, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation. (St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.13p, ca. 743 A.D.)

Bishop Paprocki commented on the dereliction of his peers thusly:

One of the misleading arguments voiced by some bishops and cardinals opposed to drafting this document [on the Eucharist] was that doing so would be divisive and would harm the unity of the bishops’ conference. Yes, we should strive for unity, but our unity should be based on the truths of our faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the constant Tradition of the Church. No one should want to be united on the path to perdition. (Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Catholic Times column, June 27, 2021)

Sexuality

Faithful parents are out there trying to teach their children about the sinfulness and perils of pre-marital sex and cohabitation. Why do their children have to hear these truths from their parents in isolation? Churches regularly, not exceptionally, marry openly cohabiting couples. Where is the clergy's clear rejection of that norm? Why are we at the point where youth can say nearly without exaggeration, "Everybody's doing it." Why do we not hear from every pulpit, not just a precious few, about the damage to couples in such situations or the perils to children growing up in unstable homes? Where are they to lead the battle to destroy this scandalous norm? How are parents supposed to convey that marriage and cohabitation are serious matters when so many clergy have shrugged at the matter? When teens see their parents making these claims about sex, they do not see the clergy backing them up with the same gravity, if at all. The parents have largely been abandoned by the clergy. Where Christ promised not to leave the faithful orphans, too many clergy today have been willing to sell those faithful for 30 pieces of secular praises.  

In keeping with the silent effort to damage families, many bishops have been seen in recent years openly championing organizations and events that explicitly mock and reject Church teaching. Lexington Bishop John Stowe "serves" as "ecclesial advisor" to the heretical group "Fortunate Familes," which celebrated the Obergefell Supreme Court decision on gay "marriage" in 2015, have rejected the idea that homosexual sex is sinful, and have called for the Church (impossibly) to contradict moral dogma on homosexual behavior. It is no wonder that there will be no consequences for a priest in Stowe's diocese, Fr. Jim Sichko, who tweeted on the Feast of the Holy Family that "there are all types of holy families out there, heterosexual and homosexual, married and unmarried..."  As well, Stowe, along with Cupich and McElroy (mentioned herein), are among direct collaborators with the group Association of U.S. Catholic Priests, which has called for women's "ordination" and has welcomed exhibitors promoting gay "marriage,", to name a few of its improprieties. Stowe, and Kentucky Archbishops Foys ad Kurtz were also among those who within hours of the release of a politically deceptive video issued unwarranted public condemnations of Covington teens in 2019.

In April 2019, Newark Archbishop Joseph Tobin, of "Nighty-night, baby" fame, decried the Catechism's language on homosexual behavior. A secular interviewer asked him how he can "welcome" people the Catechism calls "intrinsically disordered." Tobin ignorantly replied, "it’s very unfortunate language. Let’s hope that eventually that language is a little less hurtful." First, Tobin accepted the false premise that the Catechism calls persons of homosexual orientation "intrinsically disordered." It doesn't. The language of CCC#2357 states: "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." Second, when has Tobin ever lamented other references in the Catechism about other sins described similarly. Acts of lying and calumny are called "intrinsically disordered" CCC#1753). Any sexual act apart from its unitive and procreative nature is called "morally disordered" (CCC#2351). Acts of masturbation are called "gravely disordered" (CCC#2352). There are multiple other examples of sinful "disorders" in the Catechism. The very idea of disorder is a theological reference to the human person as he exists in the image of God. Proper order is a foundational concept for morality. Either Tobin does not know this or he is more concerned with whether the truth is "hurtful," as he said. In either case, Tobin delivered a lie gift-wrapped with a bow of false compassion.

As reported in March 2021, the archdiocese of Washington has a $2 million budget for the "continuing ministry" of recently resigned Cardinal Wuerl. As Phil Lawler for Catholic Culture pointed out, that's over $5,000 per day allotted for the undisclosed activity of a resigned clergyman. 

Other life and faith issues
Meanwhile, pro-life advocates David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt continue to face legal injustices after exposing Planned Parenthood for butchering and selling baby body parts. Did a swarm of bishops take to the pulpits and social media in support of this pro-life cause, just as they did to condemn a contextless video of Covington teens in January 2019? They did not.

In August 2019, the Jesuit superior general, Fr. Arturo Sosa, said the devil is not a "personal reality" in contradiction to the Catechism and Pope Paul VI, among other magisterial sources. With such ignorance at the head of the order, it is not surprising how many other American Jesuits are permitted to promote heresy and quasi-heresy.

Many dioceses have been sending funds to the "Catholic Campaign for Human Development" which regularly contradicts Church teaching in its promotion of abortion, contraception, and even the physically destructive notion of "transgenderism" in its campaigns.

In December 2019, it was revealed that Vatican funds were used to promote the R-rated film about Elton John. Also in December, we learned that the Vatican's "Peter Pence" fund, which draws collections from the world's dioceses, gives only 5% of collections to aid those amidst "war, oppression, natural disaster, and disease." In November, we learned more about a Vatican financial scandal involving former administrators who were "jailed for systematic fraud and embezzlement" and millions in other financial losses. Also in November, we learned that Pope Francis granted special appointments to Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, despite the bishop being under investigation for sex abuse and possession of gay pornography. It is reported the bishop is now failing to respond to legal notices. In October 2019, Pope Francis would not address the nature of an apparently pagan "Pachamaa" statue present at the Amazonian Synod. He later apologized that the statue, which was present before bowing worshippers in days prior, was thrown into the Tiber River. Too often, when such confusion comes from Vatican officials and clergy, there is no clarification, such as in the case with the still-unanswered Dubia; or when Bishop Vigano made his famous testimony, of widespread improprieties in the Church, Pope Francis replied, "I will not say a single word" on the matter.

When orthodoxy was actually voiced by the US Catholic Bishops in January 2020, Cardinal Cupich reared his jaws again, this time to criticize his own brethren's attempt to teach moral law. The USCCB statement included concerns regarding the new president, especially: 

"[O]ur new President [Biden] has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences."  

Cupich lamented the process by which the statement was crafted. He then chose to criticize them publicly via the Twitter app, which is itself a non-protocol. He added: "[T]he U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration." Again, Cupich's series of tweets offered zero confrontation of any theology at issue.

ATTACK ON FAITHFUL CLERGY

The organization Coalition for Cancelled Priests was recently formed to aide faithful priests who have been removed from active ministry with no evidence of improprieties given, and in many cases, with no explanation whatsoever. The group even received a detailed endorsement from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who has made similar efforts for orthodoxy and justice in recent years.  

Perhaps the most vocal of these priests is Father James Altman of La Crosse, Wisconsin; who is known for promoting traditional postures such as communion rails and Latin liturgy, and calling out heterodoxy among bishops. On June 8, 2021, Bishop William Callahan issued a removal the removal of the priest from ministry. In a decree, the bishop only calls for Fr. Altman to "spiritually heal and recharge and to address the issues that caused the issuance of this decree." Presumably, the issues were condemning democrat party support for abortion genocide. Late last year, the Bishop said, "His generalization and condemnation of entire groups of people is completely inappropriate and not in keeping with our values or the life of virtue." Much like the bishops arguing for distribution of the Eucharist to abortion-supporting politicians, Bishop Callahan's statement is also devoid of theological analysis. Certainly lamenting about tone and generalization of groups would result in condemning the prophets and even Christ who called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" (Matt. 12:34). As well, there are plenty of priests making condemning generalizations with scandalous tones in public who are not in a bit of trouble with bishops. To boot, it was reported that local media was present at mass the morning of the decree, indicating secular parties were privy to the removal even before the parishoners. 

In the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, Bishop David Malloy removed from his parish Father James Parker, issuing no reason for the removal other than "various concerns," and did not reassign him to another parish, leaving the pastor in a pastoral "prison" or "limbo." It is scandalous enough that the faithful are deprived of their beloved pastor, but the bishop has since ignored their inquiries for answers. Additionally, the diocese opened their June 15 statement addressing Fr. Parker's removal as part of changes in priest assignments "typically announced" at that time of year. Since Fr. Parker was not reassigned to another parish, the diocese assertion is by all measure a false one. This is not a "typical" priest reassignment. It is penal in nature. Further discussion and documents can be read at FB group We Stand with Father Parker.

The Coalition for Cancelled Priests has a number of media resources describing this phenomenon of faithful priests removed by their bishops from ministry with no evidence of improprieties. Interviews with one of the victims, Fr. John Lovell, go into more detail. Imagine the perspective of a young man discerning the priesthood, perceiving the potentiality of being unable to practice his vocation for no apparent reason other than his orthodoxy. The scandal is intensified when one is aware of how many heterodox or outright heretical priests are allowed to persist in ministry while the faithful ones are attacked. 

FAITHFUL REMNANTS
It goes without saying there are a number of faithful bishops and priests. For instance, the authors of the "Dubia" presented to Pope Francis, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Joachim Meisner, Walter Brandmüller still await his answer (Carlo Caffarra has since passed away). In 2018, Auxilary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Archbishop Tomash Peta, and Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga issued a document on the truth of sacramental marriage. In November 2019, Bishop Strickland and Archbishop Chaput rebuked their peers Cardinal Cupich and Bishop McElroy—the former defended the traditional language describing abortion as a "preeminent" moral issue.

And, there are others, but there are also countless other stories of heterodox clergy well. There are too few hierarchical voices enflamed with the truth of the faith, delivered with certitude, and grounded in Sacred Tradition.

Temptation of Christ on the Mount; Duccio, di Buoninsegna; ca. 1308-1311

EXTENT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE TO PARISHES?
In early June 2019, I had a brief Twitter exchange on this subject with JD Flynn, editor-in-chief of the Catholic News Agency. I asked if he thought it was time to suspend diocesan giving in favor of other apostolates, such as "EWTN, Catholic News Agency, Ave Maria Radio, Catholic Answers, etc..." At the time, Flynn was opposed to the idea of withholding diocesan giving, stating in part: "I think it's our moral obligation to support the local Church, qua Church, even if the administrators of that money risk their souls by their choices." He also stated "our first obligation is to support the local Church. The Code of Canon Law says we have an obligation to do so."

At the time, I thought Flynn's perspective was reasonable and acknowledged misappropriations occurring within the Church. However, as I briefly stated in that exchange, I don't think continued giving in the current climate is actually helping the larger or local church. That is what has been going on for decades. The faithful participate, they give in the Sunday basket, and the routine goes on. And, heterodoxy persists from the mouths of too many clergy, without consequence. 

Furthermore, the number of corrupt bishops and their aggression against orthodoxy has seemed to intensify in recent months. The question presents itself: Is it moral to finance a generation of corrupt bishops?

In December 2019, it was reported the Church may pay out upwards of $4 billion in sexual abuse settlements. Are the faithful obligated to contribute to such liabilities?

Canon Law states:

The legitimately accepted wills of the faithful who give or leave their resources for pious causes ... are to be fulfilled most diligently even regarding the manner of administration and distribution of goods... (Can. 1300)

[T]he ordinary can and must exercise vigilance, even through visitation, so that pious wills are fulfilled... (Can. 1300.2)

The faithful have an expectation that their giving will go toward "pious causes." Not paying legal fees for the crimes of perverted infiltrators. Not paying the salaries of archbishops who are opposed to the catechism and ignorant of moral theology. Not paying to keep churches going with bland homilies that avoid teaching the truth about relevant subjects. Not going toward the de-beautification of church architecture. Not redistributed to organizations that openly oppose Church teaching. Not going to support the lives of priests and bishops who tickle the ears of the Church's secular enemies in the media. At what point does one's financing enterprises make him complicit in pastoral crimes?

In June 2019, pro-life champion and theologian Dr. Jennifer Robak Morse was interviewed on Kresta in the Afternoon. On the subject of corruption that can occur when clergy intermingles with civil authorities, Dr. Morse stated: "And I think it is going to come from the people at the bottom. Raising their voices, raising their hands, withholding their money. You know, doing whatever needs to be done."

The situation is dire. The response must be drastic. It is not reasonable to expect collection-basket giving as usual will produce more of the same?

WHAT ABOUT FAITHFUL PARISHES?
As mentioned earlier, there are faithful clergy. And, there are vibrant parishes and religious communities. Should these remain recipients of general giving? Perhaps. Here are the possible pros and cons of giving to faithful parishes or religious communities. The pro is to hopefully to move all dioceses to make every parish exemplary of the true faith, like the ones the faithful support financially. The con would be that dioceses might re-route funds. The argument against giving even to vibrant parishes or religious communities would be to exhort even them to be able to go to their bishops and superiors and say, "The faithful are serious. We must take the faith seriously."

Could suspension of giving result in churches closing or faithful programs disappearing? Perhaps. However, it is also possible that such reductions, such suffocations, will be the means by which the Church is born anew. Bishops must know, unequivocally, that the faithful will not stand for the persistent heterodoxy that has permeated the walls of the Church and the lips of the clergy without consequence. 

WHAT OTHER GIVING OPTIONS ARE THERE?
Diocesan parishes or religious orders are not the only arms of the Church available for financial giving. A number of lay apostolates remain vibrant and faithful, such as the aforementioned EWTN, Catholic News Agency, Ave Maria Radio, or Catholic Answers. There are many life apostolates such as Pro-Life Action League, Live Action, the Ruth Institute, the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Prolife Across America, Waterleaf Women's Center, and more. Others include law firms that have defended pro-life and other Catholic causes, such as Becket Law or Thomas More Law Center. There are no doubt many other good life, apologetic, bioethical, and ministerial apostolates a Catholic can donate to with minimal fear that the funds will support something offensive to the faith.

HOW LONG TO SUSPEND GIVING?  A ROADMAP TO RESTORATION
In the delicate discernment process to suspend giving as described herein, what would be the signal to resume giving as normal to local parishes or religious communities? I would suggest until clear changes toward orthodoxy become normal. These are suggestions one could ask for even as a parishoner or to pursue as a member of a parish counsel. For example, the following, or things like them, would indicate the Church has begun a purification process we can expect to last:

Removal or sanction of heterodox and corrupt clergy/Restoration of faithful clergy
One of the most critical changes must be made among the clergy. As mentioned earlier, there are often no consequences for clergy who advance heretical ideas or enable corruption to flourish. Obviously, the criminal need to be removed and prosecuted. As well, so must there be consequences for clergy who foster heretical ideas, including giving a platform to those who do so. The names and improprieties described above are, scandalously, hardly the only examples. The Church must sanction or remove these culprits from positions of authority. In cases of formal heresy, excommunications should be issued, and appropriate priestly privileges revoked.

When clergy improprieties are permitted to persist without consequence, the faithful can only conclude those up the hierarchy find their improprieties acceptable. No sanctions nor removals have been dealt to the likes of Cardinal Cupich, Bishop Stowe, Archbishop J. Tobin, Fr. Sichko, Fr. Sosa (and multiple scandalous Jesuits beneath him), nor a host of other clergy promoting unsound doctrines or opposing their faithful peers. The truths of the Church are sacred. There will be no purification in the hierarchy until the corrupt are removed from corrupting.

In 1791, Pope Pius VI spoke of clergy causing public scandal, teaching error, and making pacts with secular authorities, not unlike the state of many in today's hierarchy:

Love, which is patient and kindly, as the Apostle Paul says, supports and endures all things as long as a hope remains that mildness will prevent the growth of incipient errors. But if errors increase daily and reach the point of creating schism, the laws of love itself, together with Our duty, demand that We reveal to the erring their horrible sin and the heavy canonical penalties which they have incurred. For this sternness will lead those who are wandering from the way of truth to recover their senses, reject their errors, and come back to the Church, which opens its arms like a kind mother and embraces them on their return. The rest of the faithful in this way will be quickly delivered from the deceits of false pastors who enter the fold by ways other than the door, and whose only aim is theft, slaughter, and destruction. ... We pointed out to [a Cardinal] the error of his opinion in taking the oath, and the canonical penalties which with sadness We would be obliged to apply, stripping him of the rank of Cardinal unless he removed the public scandal by a timely and appropriate retraction. (Pope Pius VI, Charitas (In the civil oath in France), 1791)

In the same vain, there can be no more removal of faithful priests with no theological reasons stated. Those faithful priests whom have fallen victim to these bishops' pastoral crimes must be restored to full ministry.

Eucharist taken seriously

As mentioned above, many of the faithful do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a number of clergy have collaborated with corrupt politicians in devaluing its significance.

Receiving the Eucharist like common food tends to betray the divine reality at work. Receiving the Eucharist is arguably the most important thing we will ever do in our lives. Bishop Schneider has explained the significance of posture in our understanding of the Eucharist, and the advantages of receiving on the tongue or kneeling. Some parishes either use the Communion rail or place or stand behind a small portable kneeler to foster kneeling postures and reception on the tongue simultaneously.

Bishops are obligated to uphold the Church's teaching on withholding the Eucharist from politicians who publicly support mortal sins, persistently and defiantly. The Church has had such sanctions and even excommunications throughout history because the faith is a serious matter.

I wrote last year on how minimizing recourse to lay extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can help communicate the truth of the sacrament. 

These are just some of the types of ideas the Church could advance in order to restore the true mystery of the Eucharist in the hearts of the congregation.

Edifying architecture and music

I also wrote last year about the topic of the importance of epic church art and architecture that better communicates the majesty of Christ. 

Truth from homilies
Certainly there are priests who can deliver homilies that deliver the truth with clarity, no matter the issue. It is imperative that homilies are given in light of the salvation of the souls of the faithful. However, there are too many priests (or deacons) who never or rarely enforce the truth to their congregations on "controversial" issues. Too many homilies are bland paraphrasings of the Gospel, if it is addressed at all. Too many have the effect of coddling the congregation, such as those that never confront the reality of sin. This is both from personal experience and the testimony of many others. Yet, Jesus preached such razor sharp truths that once-followers departed from him on the spot (John 6:60-66). A priest should not fear to do the same.

As mentioned earlier, when too many priests consistently avoid mentioning, for example, the true nature of the Eucharist, we have what we have today—a scandalously large number of Catholics who believe neither in the Real Presence, nor its significance. The importance of the holy sacrament should be trumpeted from the pulpits. 

When the Church marries scores of cohabiting couples, they are in a sense betraying faithful young people in need of the Church's backing. Couples who avoid contraception should have their faith confirmed from the pulpit while those who contracept are clearly explained the perverse, damaging, and sinful quality of such acts. The dangers of pornography should be articulated clearly when such rampant use is so statistically evident. The true nature of marriage between one man and one woman should be explained anthropologically, that the two sexes are not interchangeable pieces that result in the same sacred institution. Sin should be taught from the pulpit in all its forms. Families are broken, tongues are spiteful, the world grows more perverse. Souls are at stake. The priest must equip the faithful with sound doctrine, that they might live in love, and understand the richness of the true faith. The lives of heroic saints should be announced as exemplars of living out the splendorous truths that flow from Scripture and Tradition. All these and more truths facing the faithful today should be trumpeted from the pulpit, to confirm and exhort the faithful, to educate them, to equip them to carry the message to others. This should not come from a few priests. It should come from all priests.

Pope Pius XII stated:

Let priests therefore, who are bound by their office to procure the eternal salvation of the faithful, after they have themselves by diligent study perused the sacred pages and made them their own by prayer and meditations, assiduously distribute the heavenly treasures of the divine word by sermons, homilies and exhortations; let them confirm the Christian doctrine by sentences from the Sacred Books and illustrate it by outstanding examples from sacred history and in particular from the Gospel of Christ Our Lord; and — avoiding with the greatest care those purely arbitrary and far-fetched adaptations, which are not a use, but rather an abuse of the divine word — let them set forth all this with such eloquence, lucidity and clearness that the faithful may not only be moved and inflamed to reform their lives, but may also conceive in their hearts the greatest veneration for the Sacred Scripture. (St. Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, #50, Sept. 30, 1943)

Other signs of serious Church
Celebrating the liturgy ad orientum unites the congregation with the Christians of old. Use of Latin does likewise. Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio in 2007 fostered the use of the Latin liturgy. However, the Church's negligence in teaching Latin in recent decades makes the language shift more challenging to many Catholics. As a transition, bits of the mass could be said in Latin, such as is sometimes done when "Lamb of God..." is said as "Agnus Dei..." And over time, more Latin phrases could be incorporated easily and immediately.

Some, such as Cardinal Burke or Ss. Simon and Jude Cathedral rector Fr. John Lankeit, support a return to the exclusively male altar server to distance that role as simply a participational one or one of mere capability. The role these men have in mind would be one by which young boys experience liturgical life at the altar as part of a vocational discernment. This is an idea very worthy of consideration, especially in times of confusion about the sexes inside and outside the Church.

Any change made in parishes and religious communities should be done so in light of sacred tradition, befitting of the body of Christ. Too often, secular demands have transformed churches rather than the other way around. By holding to traditional sacred themes wherever possible, the Church announces itself as unique, a place that has something to offer that you cannot get in the world. This is a truth betrayed when worldly sights and sounds meet the visitor of a church, when unsound doctrines enter the holy halls and spill forth from the mouths of the clergy. What good is a Church that just regurgitates what one can already get from the world? 

THE QUESTION
It goes without saying, prayer and fasting are an integral part of the spiritual life. This situation is no different. In the opening Ignatian quote, the saint encourages us to also work with what God has given us.

If one agrees that the Church is in need of much reform and purification, then the questions of financial giving to parishes or religious communities include: Should withholding financing to corrupt bishops be plan B in light of their refusal to dialogue or confront theological arguments? Does financing corruption and injustices make one complicit in the crimes of corrupt bishops? 

A natural reaction for some might be concern that this would bring about an end to various church programs. However, this only means those programs would not be funded by parishes. They could still be funded if they were compartmentalized from parish coffers with separate fund raisers or oversight by lay apostolates.

Another objection is that the bishops in league with secular officials will receive their funding from those secular powers in exchange for secular favors. That corruption is a possibility, but those withholding money still won't be culpable of financing the corruption.

Another objection might be fear that parishes will close. This is another possibility if the faithful were to, in large numbers, withhold their money. The question then is whether or not the Church has to get small before it can grow anew. Will pruning, although painful, result in restored vibrancy and life?  This was the thought of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI over 50 years ago:

The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. ... As the number of her adherents diminishes...she will lose many of her social privileges. ... But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. (Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and Future, 1969)

Do we have the courage to go through such a purgation? Does the current situation call for such a drastic reaction as the withholding of money from parishes or religious communities until serious signs of purgation appear? Is financing corruption immoral? These are the questions on the table. May the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the counsel of Our Lady move the faithful wherever God will be glorified.