All Essays Copyrighted by Pauly Fongemie

VISION 2000, PART 2:

(Begun 1988, updated, 1992, 2007)


Midwives of modernism. I selected this title because those who control the flow of catechetical material, programs, and the decidedly modernist spin of our only diocesan newspaper, THE CHURCH WORLD [out of business at last, to be replaced by a social gospel full color glossy monthly magazine], belong to primarily two groups: The nuns and laywomen who formulate and speak at diocesan workshops, and what is euphemistically called "the Chancery Crowd". They comprise the professional and semi-professional class who are working to implement their vision of the new age church they call 'Woman-Church' or a lay-centered church based on the goals of a radicalized feminist spirituality, autonomous from the authority of Tradition, traditional sacerdotal orders as we know it. Be advised that I use the lower case c for their "church" unless I am citing a specified phrase used by them, because I do not consider them a Church in the ordinary common understanding of an organized body of beliefs. When I use the capital C I refer to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. They speak of transforming the Church into a church free of hierarchial structure through a process they describe as giving birth, hence the title. 

How are they undermining the authority of the Church here in the Diocese of Maine? What I am about to relate to you is my own analysis of the complex network that has been operating for several years, under the guise of catechesis, ministry explosion, and the "false" spirit of Vatican II [False equals real]. It is a chronicle of a complete breakdown, unwittingly and even deliberately in some instances, assisted by our bishops, and the diocesan paper, the editorial staff of which serves as the gatekeeper to control "dissent". By dissent I mean Catholics who persist in defending Catholic Tradition. These revolutionaries have said that they remain in the Church for the express purpose of undermining her; they reject the totality of Tradition, most of the Magisterium, the supreme authority of the Vicar of Christ, deny the Sacraments in some aspects, sometimes even the need for one or more, and reject Catholic dogmatic theology, both doctrinal and moral for the most part. In other words, they are no longer Catholic except in name only.  Where necessary I will name names. The criteria used was the one provided by Bishop O'Leary when he requested that I provide the names-----he wanted all of the diocesan members. I also include the non-diocesan since this report is being written for Catholics in other dioceses and because the Bishop retired before anything was done. History by right and duty must name names.


"By their fruits you shall know them."
---------St. Matthew 7:16

When I received the invitation to Ministry Explosion, which was held at Holy Family parish on March 12, 1988 in Lewiston, Maine, I did not know that I was to be surprised by the audacity of some the presenters, although there was a hint that the event might be a masterpiece of manipulation in subverting the Magisterium, when I registered, noting one of the workshop titles, 'Lay-Centered Church'. As an eyewitness to what occurred I can conclude that only one phrase is apt: Ministry Explosion went off like fireworks, with the force of a megaton bomb! The fallout is just beginning to take its victims, if the smiles of affirmation, and the hearty applause, are any indication of the extent of damage done to the deposit of the Faith.

One of the suspicious themes of this carefully crafted occasion was the revealing sentiment that, and I quote, "We are all collaborators."
Espionage had definitely been in operation, and apparently for some time. While the word collaboration has also a neutral connotation, I am using it in the sinister sense because treason of the Catholic Faith is involved. Under the circumstances, it was fortuitous that I took scrupulous notes of the speeches by the unscrupulous, who had plotted to misled the unwary.

Before I reveal the shameful corruption of the Bride of Christ at this event, I should like to provide the reader with some background incidents, which taken alone, could appear to be aberrations, but have increasingly disclosed a definite demonic pattern of subterfuge, which exposes these "collaborators" who have appointed themselves what I call the midwives of the New Age church, 'Women-Church', as nothing less than the betrayers of the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church. I repeat, I chose the term midwives because they speak often and conspiringly of 'giving birth' to a new structure. They are high-priestesses of deceit, with the cunning of the serpent in the Garden, Satan, the master of the Big Lie. How has the Big Lie been twisted into "truth"?

For the past four years, a series of seminars and or workshops have been formulated, ostensibly for deepening the faith of parish activists. Among the heretical how-to-sessions at each forum, are sprinkled some strategically placed straight forward ones to lend respectability. With a good turnout, sometimes as many as from three to five hundred, it is correctly expected that enough people, mostly women from the 'feminized' parishes, would sign up for the 'indoctrination cells'. I borrow the term from liberation theology, so currently in vogue. The typical workshop or 'cell' has from ten to twenty attendees. These, along with the usual keynote addresses, have provided fertile ground for sowing the seeds of revolution. These propaganda units serve as hotbeds for cultivating latent antagonisms, lying fallow in Catholic women, daily subjected to the secular rot infecting the vineyard, which I call 'Americanitis', and which leaves the politically germinated laity ripe for exploitation by deftful yeowomen, cunning Medeas, everyone. The soil of orthodoxy has been left untilled by a negligent clergy, uninspired by their Bishops, and other accomplices, such as the diocesan weekly, THE CHURCH WORLD, which is prone to publishing columns by priests who have essentially lost their faith.

Examples are the infamous Richard McBrien, and a diocesan priest, Joseph Lange, [1] who recently implied that devotion to the Blessed Sacrament was related to the heresy of Jansensim, which he said occurred during the pre-Vatican II days. Ironically, his column is titled, We of Little Faith. If it were not so sad, it would be hysterically funny. Expectedly, the modernist editor butchered my column in response.  Another priest-columnist is one who was permitted to write openly of his homosexual fantasies and a "Gay Nineties". As of 2007 he still retains faculties and is a pastor.

As to the matter of our Bishops, they have a long record, no doubt inspired by Bishop Gerety (of late [1988] to be found decimating what is left of the Church in New Jersey with RENEW), of abdicating their authority in favor of the clergy's discretion to decide whether or not to obey liturgical norms. Some priests have privately told me that they feel free to disregard aspects they find "troublesome". Parishioners relate that repeated letters or calls to the Chancery in Portland, have elicited ambiguous explanations or false information.

A few examples are instructive: Bishop O'Leary, who succeeded Gerety, has replied in writing that he prefers to leave the matter of altar girls to the pastors' prudence. Of course, this "absolves" him of the sometimes indelicate job of saying no to little girls who have had their expectations raised falsely. The pastors are on their own. But if the Bishop is not able to lead, the all too numerous confused pastors follow the path of least resistance. Bishop O'Leary is sincere, orthodox, a true believer, but stymied by the willful disobedience, and has opted for what I am certain he considers the prudential approach. Thus, altar girls are a regular presence in parishes that have 'progressive' pastors. The pressure is so squarely on the pastors, that even the orthodox have either given in and continued the practice instituted by a former pastor, in the name of maintaining the peace, or have quietly discontinued the practice, by simply not assigning altar girls to Masses. This last, without instruction to the faithful, in the hopes that animosity will be quelled.

A laity given to easy rationalization by an indulgent or cowed clergy, unconsciously or not so unconsciously, pick up the tacit cues that permit them to disobey, saying as one woman said to me, "If Father can disobey about altar girls, I can disobey about birth control."

While this is no excuse, I hear the rationale, more often than not. And it is most frequently applied to the strictures of the sixth Commandment. Subtleties of the distinction between discipline and doctrine are usually lost on an untutored, pampered laity.

Bishop Proulx, the Auxiliary, had the temerity to open a confidential letter I had sent by certified mail to Bishop O'Leary, who was at the time recuperating from a bout with pneumonia or influenza. Since my letter contained doubts about comments made by Bishop Proulx, on the issue of women's ordination, and The Pastoral on Women's Concerns, I had prearranged with a certain monsignor, who consulted with the Chancery personnel, or so I thought, but he indicated to me that he felt sure that only Bishop O'Leary would open my letter, if only after he was well. The envelope was explicitly marked as to such. I was promised this protocol would be observed because of my grave concerns that Proulx would read my letter.
Instead of a long awaited reply from Bishop O'Leary, I received a letter that can only be described as a paean to Proulx. His self-serving response included his supposedly orthodox views, his continual misrepresentation in the media, and the undue pressure put on him by the Women's Ordination Conference, which had considerable influence on the first draft of the Pastoral. I am certain that this last is true, as he wrote: "a very painful one because at times I was emotionally assaulted by some very angry and hurting women." [2]

He urged me to read the first draft, although it is my understanding that copies of the entire draft are not supposed to be in general circulation. He also suggested that I should join the women's movement; he was naturally upset that "I had lost confidence in him." Bishop Proulx went on about the need for sensitivity toward the concerns of women, although he seems to have overlooked the concerns of this woman. I get the idea that "concerns for women" is a code phrase for indulgence of the embittered feminists, and a callous disregard for the concerns of other women, who are not "women" enough to be included. Proulx, very curiously reasserted that he would be "more comfortable with women priests", a statement that he denied making to the Bangor Daily News, intimating that the paper had misquoted him, yet he repeats verbatim the very statement he insists he did not make earlier. Does he think I have taken leave of my reasoning powers?

In the same article referred to above he said that he "did not understand why God does what He does regarding the issue of ordaining women." What a nifty statement to release to the sharks in the press, hungry for blood, ammunition to use against the Church's abiding Tradition. This incredible statement does not give the public confidence that we can count on our hierarchy to know the mind of Christ as expressed through the Church's Magisterium. I would welcome an opportunity to explain it all to him, but I suspect his 'sensitivity' does not stretch to the wisdom of the Apostles, the Saints and Martyrs, and Fathers of the Church, at least not much. His pleas to be patient ----the incessant cry of the modernist attempting to derail Traditional Catholics----rang hollow. Years of patience have produced open disobedience by some of the clergy and many of the nuns, defiance and rage by the feminists, who refuse to serve, except on their own terms, assisted by a do-nothing, caving-in Chancery.

More examples: A conscientious pastor, who was being gulled by a feminist parishioner to circumvent the liturgical norms for Holy Thursday, decided to check with the Chancery to ascertain that women were permitted to participate in feet washing, as implied by the feminist agitator, only to be instructed that this indeed was allowed, "in the spirit of service." Service to and for what?

And the gall of it all, since the Vatican congregation for liturgical guidelines had just published a letter forbidding the same, and which was sent to all Bishops. The list of such abuses of authority are exhaustive, but the reader has enough to form his own opinion. Those faithful lay persons who attempt to defend what is right, are discouraged through evasive replies and downright lies, marginalized and patronized, rather that be given the accountability they so rightly are entitled to.

An aside here, about the shabby treatment of orthodox Catholics, who are well informed, but are not exactly sophisticated enough to know all the ins and outs of ecclesial "etiquette", unaware that they may at times come off as abrasive, although without doubt well-intended and self-sacrificing: my acquaintance with them over the years assures me of this much. Since the dissenters in charge of the apparatus in the diocese are unable to combat these staunch soldiers of Christ by assailing their arguments, which are impeccable, they must by necessity resort to ad hominem attacks and derision, hoping that the courageous examples will be made "an example of", and thereby discourage others from rising to the occasion. Until now it has mostly worked:

Support for the Vicar of Christ, in a public forum, such as the editorial page of a newspaper, can result in blatant condemnation from the pulpit, with the "offender" rejected for Holy Communion. The interlude following the Mass in question included finger-pointing and stares as well as whispered comments that stung. I know, because this happened to me when I wrote a letter about the Vatican's position in the Charles Curran affair, a position I felt was long overdue. Unfortunately it has occurred to me, that anyone who might have considered adding their public support to the Pope, could be dissuaded by this kind of treatment. [3] Bishop Proulx chose to believe the priest rather than me, although I suspect he really believed me, for I had witnesses I was prepared to produce, and he knew it. I never received an apology, but I accomplished my goal, reduce the possibility that this sort of thing never occurred again. The Chancery was on notice, especially since I informed them that Rome had been notified. I truly believe that Proulx believed me, because if he really thought that I was a liar, he did not castigate me or ask for an apology to the priest I had supposedly calumniated, if that had been the case. Interesting is it not?

One last note on our less than illustrious Auxiliary and his purported sensitivity. Two years of telephone calls to the Chancery, in order to acquire information about listening sessions for the upcoming Pastoral, resulted again, in the royal run-around. In fact, I later surmised that the Pastoral pre-sessions were a 'done deal', that is, only the initiates of the feminist creed had the inside track, with a few carefuly selected traditonal-leaning women as window dressing. So much for 'sensitivity' and 'listening', code words for exclusion. The lack of consideration from the Chancery, (the continual unreturned phone calls, et cetera), is a good example of the appalling lack of inclusion that the modernists claim they seek. Perhaps 'comfort zones' and 'pain recognition' are only reserved for feminists and their Bishop-mentors, whose preferred method is to couch statements with the newly discovered "nuance", with precisely the right amount of vagueness to pass for orthodoxy, while pandering to the pagans among us, who know the score and the buzzwords that fly over the heads of many of the laity who are sincere and trusting. On this issue I once more cite Bishop Proulx:

"As to my pandering to feminists, if you are referring to my efforts to bring about in the Church, a better understanding of the lived experience of women and their legitimate aspirations, I am happy to plead guilty."

Note again the employment of buzzwords, "lived experience" and "legitimate aspirations". Faith is less a revealed systemic belief that directs human work and interaction, but it is experience in the worldly sense that directs faith. Faith in action is no longer a matter of obedience to beliefs ordered to our nature as created in the image of God. As for the matter of the "legitimate aspirations" I consider this a code for the feminization of the Church that has already made sure that holy, humble men with a call to the priesthood will not hear that call or know how to respond if they do. This feminization includes what I term the backdoor approach to the ordination of women. Unduly heighten their expectations, feed on their secularized ambitions, to the point where they feel there is no turning back, eventually present a fait accompli to the Vatican and hope the Holy Father "gives in" like he did with Holy Communion in the hand. The test case is the "altar girl". Those who insist that Traditional Catholics are making mountains out of mole hills over this issue, are themselves guilty of the very thing they accuse us of. For the dissenters know as well as we what is at stake, the seat of authority, and not only that, the very nature of authority itself with the sacerdotal orders secondary, actually. Why, because the agitators no longer believe in the sacerdotal orders in the Traditional, authentic sense. The innocent altar girls and their parents are the pawns in a power play. It is without shame. And because these plotters know we know they must "neutralize" us immediately, so as to discredit our efforts, in the eyes of the rest of the laity and the hierarchy in Rome who rely on the reports from Chanceries more than is prudent at times.

The legitimate aspirations, as they truly exist in accord with the mind of the Church, have already been fulfilled, so much so that the work of the Church, in particular in catechesis, is now considered the almost exclusive domain of women, women's work, which is ironic, since that concept is odious to the feminists. Bishop Proulx goes on to stress that he does "not buy into" the extreme feminist agenda. But that is the problem, the agenda is all extreme: The very idea that expectations falsely raised is legitimate warfare is as extreme as one can get, for it is open season on respect for the very salvation of souls. Women striving to join the ranks of the hierarchy are bound to feel cheated sooner or later, and they will, then to where do they direct their animosity and hatred? The only logical result is a descent into Hell, into the paganism about to be unleashed by Satan and his minions. Duplicity, Bishop, thy name is duplicity, and the Big Lie runs deep:


Three years ago I was present at a Saturday seminar featuring an opening welcome address with a series of workshops to choose from, the pattern that dominates to this day. The name of this seminar, my first of the sort, was New England Journey, which was conducted at Bowdoin College, and which was sponsored by several religious organizations and orders of nuns, among others. Although the proceedings were not under the official auspices of the diocese, I was told that our Ordinary had knowledge of them a priori.

What transpired at this so-called 'Catholic' conclave was so shocking and scandalous, that it is indelibly etched in my memory: Masculine appearing nuns were advocating abortion rights as an acceptable position to take in "faithful dissent", an oxymoron overlooked by the majority of the participants, lobbying for women's ordination, seeking to legitimize lesbian 'spirituality' and flagrantly touting all the other demands of left wing ideology, in the radical rush to turn the sacred city into the secular.

Paganism prevailed as feminism ran amok: Goddesses from mythology were invoked or discussed. What was so abhorrent was the overwhelming approval of the audience, the insolence of the speakers, who strutted in subversive mockery on the stage, deliberately undermining authentic authority, profaning the holy. Heads rolled: Our Blessed Mother was defiled by mocking her obedience and purity, God the Father was nullified, superceded by 'god the mother', to howls of obscene laughter, presenters donned scarves, resembling priestly stoles. Later the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was impudently imitated by a sham liturgy of feminist-pagan covenance, complete with a 'barefoot contessa' style of dance, echoing the sensuous display at the main convocation. Lesbians and women in league with them, openly embraced, their eyes straining to see who was watching, their faces smug and aglow with the delight they felt at shocking some of us, flouting triumphantly the customs of modest decorum, to say the very least.

Serious questions need to be asked: Why the Bishop took no action to alert our pastors, so that they could at least warn the more faithful of the parishioners under their care? More of this prudential judgment, pretend it isn't so bad and maybe it will go away? Why was not this sordid scam exposed by investigative reporting on the part of the diocesan paper, published by the Ordinary? One of their columnists was there. Regular readers of the national Catholic press will not be surprised by these revelations, since similar ones have been related. But a few years ago was like another lifetime in a relatively 'docile' diocese like Maine was. Perhaps that is part of the problem: A lack of diligence by some of the more informed laity, who have allowed themselves to become complacent, trusting too much, but then, when the clergy, who should know better are silent, what can one expect, human nature being what it is? Those of the concerned laity who do work up the courage to ask for explanations are rebuffed as described above. The conspiracy of silence could not be maintained without the Bishops' complicity, who give the impression that they lack the will to rightly assert their authority in matters requiring it, if at all possible. A number of priests have made this observation. When I disclosed my intention of writing to the Bishop about Ministry Explosion, one pastor agreed that the affair was a source of scandal, and that I was justly concerned, but he feared that I would get nowhere. As for him, he was doing his best to stay out of the lion's den until retirement, doing what he could quietly to maintain orthodox standards. He said he admired my 'guts'. He also offered this insight: He said that the laity had more leeway than priests who depend on the goodwill of the Chancery. Homemakers and volunteer educators like myself had less to fear re retaliation. Thinking about this conversation as I write, I wonder if I am a masochist and a buffoon, for I have paid a terrible price in forewarning the Chancery that I will not shut up. But then, my conscience paid a far more terrible price those years I remained silent, "the good little girl who never questioned nuns or priests." The counsel against the criticism of priest by "Mutter Vogel" in The Pieta Prayerbook has tormented our consciences, too, for we are genuinely torn, fearing dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Silence just seems the only middle way. As for me I have chosen to place my trust in God's omniscience and mercy. I won't pass muster with Mutter, but then, Mutter Vogel did not live in such times of public scandal. Private sins and foibles are one thing, organized revolution something else again.

These 'silent streams of erosion' that inudate beneath the surface of dormant fields in the vineyard have wreaked their havoc. The laity are primed for permitting themselves to uncritically examine the trendy syncretism(a blend of paganism and modernism, with woman as the center of worship) that is slowly supplanting sound theology and a transcendent purity in liturgy. We are, with too few exceptions, ill-equipped to detect the stench emanating from Satan's sewers, penetrating the diocese of Maine.

The clever organizers of Journey appear to be Marguerite Stapleton [4], then still calling herself Sister, Dolly Pomerleau of the Quixote Center, and a Jacquie Coleman, who told me that New England Journey is held every other year, with its offshoot, Maine Journey, convened in the intervening years. I have not gone back to determine the extent of its viability.

Stapleton [as of 1988] is a member of the Education Committee of the Diocesan Liturgical Commission, and a member of the Steering Committee of the Maine Forum of the Catechumenate. It must be asked why, if she is a member of these commissions, is not Journey endorsed officially by the Bishop, and why, if she is not engaging in legitimate activity, but is as she appears to be, a rabble rouser fomenting rebellion on the parish level, in the name of education, is she permitted to hold these posts? Her presence on distinguished committees that help initiate and enforce policy serves to establish her as an authority with the laity, placing her in a strategic position to stir up dissent. Something smells, and it is decidely more than the odor of leftover Friday fish.

Coleman styles herself a 'language expert', and she isn't kidding! The reader will appreciate the implicit irony that is found intertwining these midwives' tales. In fact, these women are all 'language experts' skilled at implanting the errors contained in their peculiar brand of modernism deep into the psyches of unsuspecting lambs, by disguising the "new" spirituality in selective doctrine that is suitably adaptable to the treacherous tenets they promulgate in the name of renewal. Wolverines in sheep's clothing are leading astray the flock under the very noses of the Shepherds, with their acquiescent approval. The laity, mostly women, are acting under the assumption that they are participating in the implementation of Vatican II (or should I say non-Vatican III?), as proffered by the feminist workshop presenters, who control the content of adult catechesis on the deanery level. Since almost a majority of the women being indoctrinated are teachers and directors of education in their parishes, the "new" church is being erected slowly, when they go back to put into practice their lessons, imbued with the beguiling blandishments that they are being 'empowered'. The Big Lie runs ever deeper:

A sister Janet Gagnon, of the order of St. Joseph, in Waterville, was engaged in good faith to be the keynote speaker at a CCD teachers' workshop, conducted at my parish, St. Francis Xavier, Winthrop, in September of last year. She arrived filled with "good feelings"-----the new church is a feeling one, based on worldly self-esteem that abhors self-sacrifice-----which permeates her teaching philosophy, along with stewardship, over what exactly, she never gets around to specifying. That certain vagueness again, which is a 'blank check' for each individual to use as a rationale for whatever doctrine or moral imperative he may wish to discard. This religious, who is now out of the habit of wearing a habit, was garbed much like a bank vice-president, replete with small pearl earrings; she instructed us to dissent from the Magisterium, counseled us to "get rid of "undefined "sexual hang-ups", and inserted propaganda about the poor travails of the "misunderstood Charlie Curran". What any of this had to do with teacher training eludes me, but I am certain it had everything to do with teacher retraining, ala Gagnon and her Call to Action cohorts.

Canon law proscriptions do not fare well when competing with renegade nuns on the loose. Defending "Charlie" is a stock item in her snakeoil inventory, incorporated into her traveling goodtime road show to entertain the laity in the small town parishes. [5]