Shades of Windswept House – UPDATED with a new interview about the late Card. Bernardin


There is MORE. McCarrick’s victim was also abused by Bernardin. He’s on the record in a video interview with Michael Voris.


Do NOT watch any of this with children present.  And if you are at all hesitant on hearing it yourself… just leave it alone.

The basic idea is that McCarrick set up his victim to be abused also by Bernardin.

This seriously creeps me out.  Back in the ’80’s there were rumors about Bernardin too.

__ Originally Published on: Jun 21, 2019

A quick post… y’all should go over to Church Militant and see the report about Chicago’s Card. Bernadin and Card. Cupich.  HERE

Do any of you remember Windswept House?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in ¡Hagan lío! and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. oledocfarmer says:


    The “black mass” story implicates Charleston Bishop John Joyce Russell. Bishop Russell was later named Bishop of Richmond and inconceivably advanced the career of the notorious Bishop Walter Francis Sullivan. It was even rumored at some point that Bishop Russell regretted promoting Bishop Sullivan.

    But now it all looks completely purposeful. When the pieces start coming together….the picture is often quite unexpected.

  2. Greg Hlatky says:

    Is this why Cupich laid off denying Communion to the aborticomaniac legislators?

  3. excalibur says:

    Father Malachi Martin was right about many things. Perhaps he was indeed attacked by a demon that lead to his death.,

    I note that when a bishop said that he hadn’t heard the name of Jesus Christ used in discussion in Baltimore, the bishop of Detroit then seemed to have some sort of mental spasm over that.

    Many of these bishops do not believe in Jesus, or not the way they should. Like the demons mentioned in James 2:19.

    Look at the new document from the Vatican, the Amazon is now revelation! It is later than we think.

    And recall what the late Cardinal George is supposed to have said about his successors. I know that you, Father Z, have mentioned that more than once in the past.

    Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.


  4. rollingrj says:

    IMVHO, there are times when it seems Church Militant engages in yellow journalism and sensationalism. As much as I appreciate the reporting done by Voris, Niles, et. al, I take a lot of what they say with a large grain of salt. I hope that is no more than a healthy skepticism.

    Having said that…

    IF what is being reported is accurate, this is a big bombshell. Now we wait to see if any follow-up produces any fallout.

  5. Geoffrey says:

    I always thought the whispers about Windswept House being based in truth was balderdash… until this pontificate.

    [That’s the thing. You have to sift the narrative carefully for the details. Some of us were in a position to recognize the references and the characters who were fictionalized.]

  6. arga says:

    I just read the full report by the Church Militant. It’s not very credible; how do they know the accuser didn’t make the whole thing up? Have they tried to find the accuser and interview him? What really sounds fishy is the accuser’s claim he was assaulted in a “satanic rite.” It seems quite possible the whole thing was made up. I am no friend of Cupich, but the Militant report is grossly unfair.

  7. The Astronomer says:

    I remember it well, Father. The Rev. Dr. Malachi Martin was my best friend and spiritual director from 1991-99. I’m the Executive Producer of the Netflix motion picture “Hostage to the Devil,” the bio-documentary of Malachi Martin.

    When I asked him when the ecclesial malfeasance asserted in “Windswept House” would be made clear, he replied “…not until after I’m playing a harp.”

  8. SanSan says:

    Astronomer: If we don’t have Netflix how would we get to see your documentary?

  9. SanSan says:

    Arga–didn’t you see all the correspondence? Do you need a dead body in front of you?

  10. oledocfarmer says:

    I can understand the skepticism, but I think in this case, the facts support the narrative:

    1. The accuser — a female — has written several letter to several prelates (including the accused) and dicasteries about the incident, and her claims are consistent.
    2. The accuser eventually traveled to Rome to present her case.
    3. The accuser has passed a polygraph exam..,and that evidence is admissible in civil court.

  11. WmHesch says:

    Two things:

    1) Hopefully Church Militant isn’t presenting as “breaking news” the same story that’s been circulating in trad circles for 20 years

    2) In the “Special Report” it says the Nunciature assigned it a “case number”… anyone familiar with such correspondence knows letters are assigned internal reference numbers, but that doesn’t mean it’s a “case number”.

  12. TRW says:

    The link below leads to an article that has some very interesting details and FACTS about how interconnected the perpetrators and offenders were and are. Worthy of consideration is the fact that Bernardin was mentored by one of the main players(from the American hierarchy) who lobbied strongly for use of the vernacular and all manner of liturgical aberrations …before, during and after the Council: Archbishop Hallinan. If you look at who the principle consecrators were for some of the worst of the worst, it can shed light on who their mentors were. There are episcopal networks that aided and abetted each other in their wicked pursuits . Of course, it is not always the case that the principle consecrator was their mentor , but there do seem to be connections. The rot goes deep.

  13. Roy Hobbs says:

    A “Who’s Who?” for Windswept House…

  14. DJAR says:

    arga says:”I just read the full report by the Church Militant. It’s not very credible; how do they know the accuser didn’t make the whole thing up? Have they tried to find the accuser and interview him? What really sounds fishy is the accuser’s claim he was assaulted in a “satanic rite.”

    Bernardin’s accuser is a “she.”

    For another instance alleging Satanic practice in the clergy, google “Murder of Margaret Ann Pahl.” The allegation actually resulted in a conviction in the unrelated murder.

  15. carndt says:

    A bishop in Scotland is going to publicly excommunicate two people due to the fact that they will not accept the teachings and authority of a heretic pope(Francis).

    He’s either a heretic for what he says against Doctrine, Scripture and Tradition and/or not the Pope because Benedict resigned in error of Canon Law.

    I believe that Benedict is the Pope. And Francis conclave is invalid.

  16. robtbrown says:

    1. The news in the CM is not the stories. Many of us have heard the same for some years. Rather, the news is that CM has documents referring to them.

    2. Whatever the objections to Francis, these scandals didn’t begin under him. JPII named Bernardin to Chicago, and McCarrick was promoted three times under the same pope.

    IMHO, there were two factors that led to this situation. A homosexual network is obviously one. The other factor is a group of clerics with their heads in the sand, who thought the tales of the network were nervous exaggerations. The sand had heads from clerics everywhere, from the Curia to heads of formation to parish priests.

    3. I read Windswept House some years ago and found nothing in it difficult to believe. And, IMHO, anyone who did time in a house of formation in the 70s and 80s with eyes open would have had the same reaction.

    4. From the events of the past 40+ years it is obvious that a priest who was a practicing homosexual was treated better than a priest who wanted to say mass using the 1962 Missal.

  17. robtbrown says:


    Two of the members of the Curia with their heads in the sand were Cardinals Sodano and Re.

  18. Hidden One says:

    Sometimes it is difficult to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, as charity requires, but I’m going to keep trying.

  19. robtbrown says:

    Hidden One,

    I don’t know what you mean by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. The news, going back to the letter of Vigano’, should not cause anyone to suspect every cleric of perfidy and immorality. That McCarrick and Bernardin were loathsome people with a taste for ecclesial careerism was obvious. Both habitually hedged anything doctrinal.

    On the other hand, if I see a cleric who reminds me of Liberace or Freddie Mercury, I begin to be a bit suspicious.

  20. arga says:

    I must be blind. I have read the CM story four times. There is no link to any of the documents CM claims to own, and the victim is never named and no pronoun is used to indicate whether the victim was male or female.

  21. Supertradmum says:

    Years ago, Cardinal George told a priest friend of mine that if he had to get rid of all the gay priests in the archdiocese, he would lose 33% of his priests. As late as 6 years ago, there were still gay seminarians in the diocrse. He did not tackle this problem. He did not create it but he did not clean his house.

  22. My husband read “Windswept House” three times. I called him into the office, sat him down and had him watch the Church Militant video. Throughout the whole thing he kept saying, “Well Duh! Finally someone is telling it like it is, why did it take so long?”, etc.

    We’ve lived in Dallas under several Bishops and he’d found a connection between Bernadine and the bishop at the time, as well as others when he read the book. Said Bishop was very questionable to say the least. We were also involved in the ousting of Cliff Garner known as “Tex” on St. Sebastian’s Angels forum. During a parish meeting the auxiliary Bp had concerning ole Tex one night at the parish during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Dallas we were shocked that this Bp was siding with Cliff Garner. He was very questionable as well and after he left to go to NJ we all found out why. I held in my hand a whole month’s worth of Tex’s nasty threads from that forum and waved it around saying it was proof. Of course the only one interested in seeing it was an elderly lady on the front row, a big contributor to the parish. I told her I didn’t think she had the stomach to read it. The next morning good ole Cliff was gone, left in the night and is now “married” to his boyfriend at the time. This is the kind of thing that trickles down from those in the church who are on the “other team”.

    My husband saw so much just in this diocese in 25 years that he could point it out in “Windswept House”. We also saw many signs of it in Clovis NM when we lived there. That is a whole different story and not pretty.

    May God have mercy on the two Bp’s I am referring to as both have passed from here to the Judgement Seat.

  23. MB says:

    Good old Malachi Martin! When they introduced Fr. Pedro Arrupe’s cause for canonization, he was the first person I thought of!

  24. Supertradmum says:

    Malachi Martin was a genius, a better than good writer, and had fantastic insights, which became rather prophetic. His Vatican insiders fed him great information, and as a Jesuit, he had more than feedback; he had experiences with his wayward peers.

    However, he was not and is not a saint. He had a rebellious side, which led him to sedevacantism, and was rather “iffy” in his life. The question of his laicisation remains open. If he WAS laicised, and some critics say he asked for this, his continued saying of Mass and acting as a priest-exorcist were out of order–the actions of rebellion against the rules. Indeed, he lies waiting the great judgement, next to a woman who was his live-in companion for years. Even if the relationship was non-sexual, this fact remains yet another example of Martin’s eccentric behaviour, despite his genius. I do not impose any malice or cynicism onto his memory, and do not believe, as some do, that he wrote just for filthy lucre.

    Many writers, including myself, chose to write, sometimes, “faction”, which is fiction imparting truths which no one would believe if one wrote a serious article on a particularly shocking subject, such as satanism in the Vatican.

    I do not doubt his facts or his fiction, although I do not agree with all his conclusions of his studies and input from his sources. Windswept House, imho, is his best book, as he managed to communicate the truth through fiction—the revelation of nasty and supposed fantastical events things through a gripping story. Martin’s instincts were good. However, his private life and his odd spirituality, especially at the end of his life, remain grist for the Devil’s Advocate’s mill.

    I have always thought he was murdered and still do believe this–he knew too much and would have continued, in some manner, to share what he knew with the large, Catholic public.

  25. iamlucky13 says:

    @ SanSan
    “Arga–didn’t you see all the correspondence? Do you need a dead body in front of you?”

    No correspondence was shown. Mr. Voris reported he has copies of the correspondence.

    That said, his description of what is in the documents is specific enough to provide some level of credibility. These documents may also, it sounds like, be in the hands of the Illinois Attorney General’s office, and may later become public as a result of their investigation. If substantiated, that will cause further, serious scandal to many of the faithful. If it’s true, I hope somebody in the Church with access to the documents starts publicly cooperating, or this only gets uglier going forward.

    Keep in mind also that the correspondence is reported to be the testimony and further efforts at seeking a proper response of the victim. It is not acceptable to simply dismiss it, but I also struggle to believe all of it. One of the challenges I’m having with this is the sheer level of evil alleged.

    These are extremely grave accusations being made, so while I do believe they must be taken credibly and investigated if such correspondence does exist, I also believe they merit compelling evidence in order to make conclusions about them, as do any grave accusations.

  26. veritas vincit says:

    Just watched the Voris interview with James Grein. Harrowing. Graphic. (I second Father Z’s cautions). And all too believable.

    I remember hearing of an accusation against Cardinal Bernardin years ago dating to his time when he was in Cincinnati (the same time period as Grein alleges). The accuser later claimed to have been mistaken and Cardinal Bernardin offered “forgiveness.” I now have to wonder why his earlier accuser recanted.

  27. Kathleen10 says:

    There is no limit to the depth of satanic depravity and the church is filled with it. Outsiders cannot really conceive how vile it is, we only see vague glimpses or some human fallout. We can guess from what we’ve now heard about molestations and sexual abuse of boys and young men. Sharing children for sexual use is almost more vile than a human being can tolerate mentioning but it is not too much for these men to do. We already know some of them have done it. They are evil men to the core, soul dead zombies in clerical garb. Who else would propose such relentless destruction of the church, the faith, and the West, but evil men. Now in the Amazon they are telling us we should include shamans and consorting with spirits as part of Catholicism. We should be beating down the doors of our local chancery. God help us.

  28. tho says:

    The revelations that are coming out are akin to breaching the Berlin Wall. The Spirit of Vatican II should go the way of the USSR, all we need is a prelate, who will stand up with credibility, and lead the Church Militant back to our traditions.

  29. cajunpower says:

    There are a lot of inconsistencies with Grein’s story as it has evolved. I don’t doubt that he was molested by McCarrick, but it’s odd that he is only now coming out with this Bernardin story – after the papers regarding Bernardin had been publicized by Church Militant.

    I have no problem believing that any of the allegations against Bernardin are true, but why didn’t Grein come out with this story in any of his many interviews before? Did he tell anybody about Bernardin?

    Was Grein even in the Chicago area at the time he claims? Was McCarrick in Chicago at the time Grein says he was there? Bernardin was, at the time, Archbishop of Cincinnati. Was he in Chicago? It should be easy enough to establish whether all three were all in Chicago at the same time in June of 1977.

    As it stands, this is a flimsy accusation that we would all dismiss out of hand had it been made against Brett Kavanaugh or Cd. Pell. Let’s see some corroboration. Church Militant has provided zero.

  30. The Astronomer says:

    Supertradmum says:
    24 June 2019 at 12:02 PM

    However, he was not and is not a saint. He had a rebellious side, which led him to sedevacantism, and was rather “iffy” in his life. The question of his laicisation remains open. If he WAS laicised, and some critics say he asked for this, his continued saying of Mass and acting as a priest-exorcist were out of order–the actions of rebellion against the rules.

    Reverend Dr. Malachi Martin was not a sedevacantist. He was released from two of three vows of his priestly vows as a Jesuit: 1. Poverty, so as to make his way as a secular writer, and 2. Obedience, as he was leaving the Jesuit order due to its rapid descent into modernism. His release came in the form of a Vatican rescript I saw from St. Pope Paul VI. He was not involved in ANY inappropriate way with his landlady Mrs. Livanos; if people take umbrage at their burial arrangements, you can take it up with the Livanos family or his estate. The Jesuit order themselves in April 2004 confirmed that Martin was a valid priest his entire life and was not defrocked/laicized, marking a radical change in Jesuit policy concerning Father Malachi Martin – they acknowledged his status as a life-long Roman Catholic priest. The actual confirming source was a letter from Jesuit Fr. Tom Widner, Secretary for Communications of the U.S. Jesuit Conference on behalf of Jesuit Fr. Vincent O’Keefe, former Vicar General of the Society of Jesus. According to Fr. O’Keefe, Malachi Martin was dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience, but not the vow of chastity. At the time Martin requested release from his vows, the Vatican was not dispensing priests who so requested such dispensation from the vow of chastity or celibacy. Fr. O’Keefe also pointed out that Fr. Martin never married.

    Tom Widner SJ,
    Secretary for Communications
    U.S. Jesuit Conference
    1616 P St. N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-1420
    202-462-0400 Fax: 202-328-9212

  31. The Astronomer says:

    P.S. Fr. Widner was Secretary for Communications of the U.S. Jesuit Conference until 2011, when the role was assumed by Ms. Tracey Primrose, who currently remains in that role.

  32. de_cupertino says:

    the unseemly garment…

    Seriously though, failing to uphold the Church’s moral teaching and the sanctity of life does seem to go hand-in-hand with personal depravity.

  33. Supertradmum says:

    The Astronomer,

    You post is interesting and useful. However, the information you shared underlines my view of Fr. Martin’s eccentricity. Enough said.

  34. Chris in Maryland 2 says:


    Grein does give details that can be verified easily – for example: he says he was in Wisconsin because he was stationed there in the Navy, at age 19. There was (and perhaps still is) a Navy base in the Milwaukee area on Lake Michigan, and military records are publicly available, so his statement on that seems verifiable.

    Given that the Church already found McCarrick guilty of sex abuse against minors largely based on Grein’s testimony, Grein has significant credibility.

    As to your question about why now, Grein gives a very plausible explanation: his attorneys advised him to focus on McCarrick first. That was probably sound advice, since the charges against McCarrick were proved true. If Grein has not followed his attorneys advice, and Grein is speaking the truth about Bernardin, then Grein would have drawn fire from sources protecting Bernardin in Chicago.

    Also, Bernardin was a longtime friend and housemate of the notorious serial sex predator Rev. Hopwood of South Carolina (where they both were ordained). And stories indicate that when Hopwood was being investigated in early accusations against him in South Carolina, and Bernardin was already in Chicago, it was a Chicago law firm that got involved and arranged “secret settlements” to protect a Hopwood.

    And CM is simply stating that they hold copies of documents involving Bernardin that were somehow leaked to CM from Chicago AD files.

    Summing up, thevthings CM and Grein are saying are huge accusations, and they are saying things that can be tested and verified by third parties.

    If Voris is making this up, and he has nothing to back this up, then he will have utterly destroyed his credibility. So he is putting everything on the line by doing this story covering Grein’s accusation.

    Also, CM has already proved itself credible in the Staten Island “Gay-for-pay” story about the priest (I think his name was Micelli?) who was stealing cash to pay for his gay hooker. The AD of NY refused to comment for years, stonewalling the parishioners and CM etc…until late 2028 or early 2019…when Cardinal Dolan publicly ordered Micelli to request being “laicized.”

  35. Rouxfus says:

    “Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this papacy [JPII], the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who worshiped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized boys and each other; of nuns who performed the Black Rites of Wicca, and who lived in lesbian relationships…every day, including Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least the tacit permission of certain Cardinals.” [Fr. Malachi Martin, Windswept House, 1996]

  36. Liz says:

    I remember in one of my adoration hours in the late 90’s (or early 2000’s) reading Bernadin’s book which happened to be there in the church, and about how somebody had accused Bernadin, but that he (Cook, I believe) took it back on his deathbed or something. I remember feeling so sorry for the cardinal, being falsely accused. It makes me sick to think of that poor victim and the lies that must have been told about him and was probably he forced to recant his story? It’s all so disgusting. I have been praying for victims a lot this whole week. It’s so heartbreaking to watch them. God haver mercy.

  37. Matt C. Abbott says:

    Well said, Chris in Maryland 2.

  38. dallenl says:

    I am concerned some less about the openly defective leaders in the Church than I am about the ones who are genuinely opposed to authentic Church doctrine and are deeply burrowed in and causing great harm. We can deal with those who stand out because of their ineptness and unsuitability; the others cause the rot within.

  39. Charivari Rob says:

    Chris, two thoughts…
    1. Though the Church is vague about what constitutes “credible accusation”, I agree that establishing opportunity – some proximity in time & space that makes it believable that the two persons could have met – must be part of it.
    2. There’s a limit on how far we can go on assessing credibility based on guilt in a previous case. There was a case of a priest somewhere here in the Northeast. Guilt established in a previous case. New accuser came forward alleging abuse in same locale & time frame as other case. Accounts showed later accuser’s statement was almost verbatim to first accuser. At that early stage of investigation, can’t really know whether it was “serial predator following same M.O.” or “copycat accuser for reasons unknown”.

  40. Pingback: A confluence of promptings leads Fr. Z to rant and to make a plea to bishops. | Fr. Z's Blog

Comments are closed.