Falsehoods and Corrections: Setting the record straight about Rachel Mastrogiacomo and Satanic Ritual Abuse
WARNING! This article is graphic and disturbing in nature. It is not for children to see or hear, and adults should discern wisely before continuing. There will be descriptions of a satanic black mass in a password protected link, and many souls will rightly wish to avoid this particular post. If you do proceed, please do pray before continuing.
Currently, and as expected, Rachel Mastrogiacomo is being smeared online by those who look to discredit her personally and cast doubt on the Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) she suffered at the hands of a criminally convicted and defrocked Catholic priest, Jacob Bertrand. Rachel is being presented as a spurned lover, a money-grubber, a seducer of priests, a delusional woman, and/or a flat-out liar. Let’s begin to unravel the lies before we get to the truth of what was actually done to Rachel in the black mass— an exposure not included in the book, as she believed that the surrounding facts and context would make those unspeakable details unnecessary. Turns out, that omission was a miscalculation, as it has allowed for easy misrepresentation, distortion, and even denial of Rachel’s claims.
Let me make it very clear that I am not here to explain why or how a faithful Catholic woman can be groomed and brainwashed by a satanist. That process is explained fully in Rachel’s book, The Devil in Rome, and such grooming and mind-control has happened repeatedly throughout history and continues today. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in what the Church teaches about the reality of Satan, his minions, and their dark powers of spiritual and psychological manipulations (which makes you a sitting duck, by the way).
To repeat: I will not be dealing with any of the grooming and brainwashing process here—we all have access to that information already in Rachel’s story, which she wrote with her blood, sweat, and tears. I don’t mean to be harsh, but I will be blunt: those who publicly question the brainwashing as absurd but who don’t have the good will to read her story do not deserve the time of day. So to be clear, this article is merely to correct the lies and distortions (or legitimate misunderstandings) that have been swirling around the Internet in the months since Rachel’s book was released, and it is not intended to retell her story and how she came to be under the literal spell of a satantic priest, Jacob Bertrand. I am writing this article for people of good will who are confused on the following matters; I am not writing it for those who would defend a satanist no matter the evidence and at any cost.
Let’s go systematically….
Falsehood: “Satanism is extremely uncommon, and there is no way her experience was about actual Satanism. This is more ‘satanic panic’ garbage.”
Correction: Satanism is embedded like a cancer in the Church, deeply entrenched and usually hidden under holy images such as a charismatic priest or a pious-looking worshipper in the pew next to you each week. My friend Rachel Mastrogiacomo is a faithful Catholic who is currently under attack, unjustly, for exposing the (literal) satanic violation of her own life and person. She is far from alone in being a victim of SRA, but in the years following her abuse—and the subsequent criminal conviction of her priest-abuser—she is one of the few that has had the spiritual and psychological strength to actually speak about what happened to her. Most of the victims of SRA have either committed suicide, gone mad, lost their Faith, or are still too fearful and traumatized to speak what is unspeakable.
Do you doubt this? Is this too much for you to believe? Then you have never had an encounter with the truly demonic, much less become a targeted victim of a satanist himself, rehearsing you for a literal black mass. Do you want to be where Rachel has been? Do you want to be under the mind control of an agent of the devil? Do you want to be (quite literally) under an occultic spell? I didn’t think so. Those who scoff and say that something ritualistically satanic surely did not happen to her can't even call themselves Catholic believers—because the Catholic Church teaches, and thus faithful Catholics believe, that Satan exists, that the billions of fallen angels are his minions, and that witchcraft, occultism, and satanism have existed for millennia. And yes, these preternatural agents that prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls exist within the Church and among the clergy, even and especially today.
Falsehood: “The dates don’t line up, and I can’t make sense of the timeline or story, so it’s clearly fabricated.”
Correction: The dates and timeline are clear and consistent, but it’s often easier to see it in a short summary. The targeting and grooming of a virgin, Rachel Mastrogiacomo, for a ritual rape in a black mass began in Rome in the fall of 2009, and the two ritual rapes (referred to as “Point A” and “Point B” in the book) took place in July of 2010. The ritual rape for which Bertrand was prosecuted and convicted by the State of Minnesota took place on July 9, 2010.
After coming out of her trauma and fog and brainwashing (the many details of which are covered clearly in the book), Rachel become brave enough to report the ritual sexual abuse to Church officials in her own diocese of Raleigh, NC in 2014. Diocesan officials in Raleigh then contacted the Diocese of San Diego, where then-Fr. Bertrand was serving as a priest, and Monsignor Stephen Callahan of San Diego showed Bertrand the allegations report, now referred to as the Pendergrass statement. This statement, written in rough form and whittled down from a three-hour meeting when Rachel first went to the Church with her story, is clear: Rachel was sexually injured, and sacrilege of the worst kind was committed by an ordained priest during (a profanation of) the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Bertrand admitted to it, and he was then removed from ministry under the false pretense given to his parishioners that Bertrand was suffering psychologically due to a fire at his parish. He was then sent away to St. Luke Institute in Maryland for several months.
Inexplicably, although Fr. Bertrand’s sexual abuse of a virgin in the context of Holy Mass was known to the diocese, Bertrand was reinstated into parish life in 2015, almost a month after Robert McElroy was appointed as the bishop of San Diego (and about two weeks prior to his official installation). Horrified by this cover-up by the diocese and Bishop McElroy (who had also ignored and covered up Richard Sipe’s infamous hand-delivered letter exposing systemic sex abuse by bishops and priests), Rachel filed a criminal complaint against Bertrand in 2016, in the State of Minnesota where her SRA had occurred.
Minnesota officials saw that the case was strong, and prosecutors charged Bertrand with a sexual felony. Facing up to 15 years in prison for his crime, he ultimately plead guilty (Alford plea) and was convicted in 2018. After Bertrand’s conviction, Rachel spoke publicly to Catholic and secular media. This was around the time of the Cardinal “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick sex abuse scandals and the 2018 “Summer of Shame” that exposed widespread filth and deeply entrenched moral corruption among numerous members of the hierarchy who were abusing, raping, and sodomizing minors, women, and seminarians. It is not a stretch to say that this was and continues to be diabolical evil.
Falsehood: “The story that Rachel tells in early reports are not the same as those in later reports.”
Correction: It’s hard to respond to this claim, because those making it never give specific examples. Instead, they make the general accusation that Rachel has sensationalized the story over time. This is untrue. Her story has never changed. Her vocabulary and understanding of SRA has certainly developed over time, as Bertrand’s behavior was explained to her by exorcists and occult experts long after the Minnesota criminal proceedings and the subsequent round of interviews and articles were published in 2018. It was and continues to be the exorcists and experts in SRA who identify Bertrand’s behavior as satanic. They were the ones who explained, after hearing what Bertrand did during the ritual, that the abuse was likely heading toward a total violation of her virginity through an unthinkable, blasphemous “consummation” in a black mass to be presided over by a Cardinal.
Moreover, while it is very painful for her to do so, Rachel has become stronger and more willing to disclose the vile and unspeakable details of what she endured in the ritual. Trauma is not so easily overcome, especially when it’s at the hands of a satanic priest in a black mass. Tread very carefully here in your judgments, if you have not been in her place.
Falsehood: “Rachel was dating Jacob Bertrand while she was in Rome.”
Correction: Contrary to internet rumor, Rachel never dated her priest-abuser, Bertrand. Those who were in Rome with her may have inferred that because of the amount of time the they spent together. However, Rachel was never romantically attracted to Bertrand and never touched him sexually—not even in the black mass itself where she was ritually raped. He held her hand and kissed her, as part of the “process” to which she submitted, because of how Bertrand had trained her; it was part of “preparing” her for the role of “bride of Christ” and “spiritual mother” of priests—which was really just a recruitment into his demonic circle or coven. Please note that Rachel herself is the source of the information about this boundary violation; she hides nothing, even when it may paint her in a bad light and open her to suspicion and public ridicule.
Falsehood: “When Rachel failed to snag Fr. Bertrand as a spouse, she chased after Rich Mastrogiacomo, also a priest.”
Correction: Rich Mastrogiacomo was a part of the social circle in Rome that included Bertrand and Rachel. He fell in love with Rachel while discerning the priesthood. He declared his love for her to Rachel directly, and he told his formators of his love for Rachel. In return, Rachel told Rich she would never marry him and that he must continue to pursue the priesthood—she was still under Bertrand’s spell (quite literally) and believed she had a “mystical mission” to complete. (Again, the book explains at length about the grooming and manipulation process Bertrand used to brainwash Rachel, and that is not covered here). Despite his misgivings, and under the direction of his formators, Rich proceeded to ordination. Rachel came out of her brainwashed state only after she contacted Rich in order to explain why she was never able to marry him. Had not the satanic priest Bertrand created the chaos and mischief that brought about this misdirection of both Rachel and Rich, they would have married after discernment and before Rich’s ordination, as happens routinely and without scandal. When Rich recognized what had happened, and that Rachel had been the victim of a satantic priest and a black mass that obscured reality, he asked his bishop for laicization to marry Rachel, whom he had loved from the beginning. He was sent for counseling, wherein several evaluators determined that he should have never been ordained, and he was returned to the lay state.
Falsehood: “Rachel wrote her book to destroy Bertrand and vindicate herself.”
Correction: Rachel wrote her book for several reasons: to understand what had happened to her; to explain to her friends and family what happened to her; to protect others who might be vulnerable to Bertrand’s grooming; and to give Catholics the long and documented history of Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church in order to put her abuse in its proper and horrible context and make it harder to brush off claims of SRA today, when the diabolic is so active in our Church.
Rachel wrote the book not only to expose the dark hell she endured by a “holy priest”—of which there are more still active in the Church—but to explain why she stayed Catholic when so many other SRA victims do not. She wanted to encourage others to stand strong in their Catholic faith and not leave Holy Mother Church despite the wolves who seek to devour the sheep. And frankly, it was only after many of her friends (including me) encouraged her for years to write her story in book form that she finally, prayerfully did.
Falsehood: “Rachel is delusional, as maintained by folks like Andrew Likoudis who cites court documents in support of his claim.”
Correction: Rachel is not delusional at all, as she has been thoroughly deprogrammed from the grooming and brainwashing of a satanist in a collar. Since she gained a full understanding of what happened to her, with the help of exorcists and experts in the knowledge of high-level occultism in the Church, Rachel has been able to recount her ordeal with consistency and solid evidence that resulted in a confession and criminal conviction. Likoudis is not only calumniating Rachel, but he is misrepresenting the court documents themselves, which are public.
Here’s how the misrepresentation works. Likoudis, who has been posting his subjective opinions about this case all over the Internet, neglects to mention that the court documents to which he refers were presented by the criminal defense team—Bertrand’s lawyers—to create a narrative that would contradict Rachel’s claims and get their client off the hook. Obviously (and most of us understand), this is what criminal defense attorneys do: they carefully construct and cultivate a narrative in which their client appears innocent. In this case, that meant painting a false picture of Rachel as a “woman spurned,” a priest-seducer, and a crazy woman. The defense conjured the idea that Rachel’s conscience was heavy, and thus she turned herself into the victim, all in order to assuage her guilt.
Likoudis fails to report that, far from being “evidence” against Rachel, these defense motions were rejected by the court outright. They were a tactic to try to get the guilty party cleared, and it didn’t work. The fake narrative easily collapsed, because, aside from this weak attempt at an implausible “blame the victim” scenario, Bertrand essentially offered no defense. Praise God, the truth prevailed, and Bertrand pled guilty. However, Internet “sleuths” like Mr. Likoudis have paraded these rejected filings around on social media as if those fabricated defense scenarios were the truth! Unearthing rejected motions by the defendant does not “crack the code”—it simply shows that folks who do not believe Rachel will, to this day, use the defense’s discredited arguments to discredit her. What is their motive? I’ll let you be the judge. But it’s interesting to note that others are parroting the same baseless arguments as Likoudis, who also posted a review of Rachel’s book before it was even available (the review has been removed). There is little evidence that Likoudis and the others have read the book or the court documents.
The most pertinent court documents, along with the actual word-for-word transcripts from both the plea and sentencing hearings, are available here at Purify the Church. For those of good will, please do click and read. Those who claim that the documents exonerate Bertrand have either failed to read the documents or are simply misrepresenting them (again, I will let you conclude why that might be). Bertrand pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, which is a felony, and sentenced to ten-years’ probation, any violation of which would land him in prison.
Falsehood: “Bertrand’s plea agreement (an Alford plea) essentially mitigates his guilty plea.”
Correction: The Alford plea means that the defendant asserts his innocence although he is pleading guilty; however, it in no way suggests his actual innocence. In fact, a defendant makes such a plea when he and his attorneys know that he is highly likely to be convicted if the matter goes to trial. The Alford plea is used to encourage guilty parties to plead guilty in order to avoid the expense and agony of a trial, and often carries the same weight as a straight-up guilty plea.
In Bertrand’s case, he qualified the use of the Alford plea to deny only that the sacrilegious behavior took place in the context of spiritual advising—but what is key is that he did admit that he engaged in sexual assault during a Mass. It cannot be denied that Bertrand pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, a felony.
Falsehood: “Rachel made her accusations to extract money from the Church.”
Correction: The Diocese of San Diego paid for some of the costs she incurred when undergoing counseling. Rachel never received a dollar of settlement money.
Falsehood: “If Bertrand were such a bad man, other women would have come forward with accusations against him, but none did.”
Correction: Other women did come forward. If you doubt Rachel’s testimony, please read the statements filed by other victims about Bertrand’s sexual immorality, including his housekeeper at the rectory, a faithful older Catholic lady.
Falsehood: “Because the court documents say nothing about satanism or Satanic Ritual Abuse, then Rachel’s abuse was not a case of SRA or a black mass.”
Correction: The court documents do not say Rachel’s abuse was satanism because they are not supposed to. To be clear, the U.S. courts (including Minnesota’s) do not prosecute belief systems or religions, including satanism. They only prosecute criminal acts. The court was not and would never be interested in whether Rachel’s case was occult-related. In fact, the prosecution was adamant that Rachel leave the ritualistic details out of the courtroom. The secular state cannot and does not criminalize rituals, theology, or symbolisms of themselves, so if a criminal act were to occur during a ritual (as happened in Rachel’s case), the ritual aspect itself is (and was) legally irrelevant. The fact that SRA is not highlighted in the Minnesota case is not suspicious—it is routine and expected.
________
Now we get to the part that Rachel (and I, and anyone who has a true horror of blasphemy and sacrilege) never wanted to put in print of any kind. Unfortunately, the unchecked rumors and lies about Rachel have made this part necessary. This link will lead you to some preparatory commentary and then a very basic but disturbing description of what happened at the black mass. So that no one clicks and sees the page accidentally, the password for this link is devilinrome.
______
And finally, because it will come up:
Falsehood: “Leila, you are addressing this issue just for clicks/attention/profit.”
Correction: For those who would ascribe bad motives to my decision to write this piece, please note that I have never monetized my blogs or accepted ads (no judgment on those who do), I provide the full PDFs of my self-published books for free (here and here), I turn down almost all speaking requests (with any in-town speaking offered for free), and I have largely faded from social media (I show up every now and then for a stretch, but I often go dark for months at a time). I receive no money or kickback for endorsing Rachel’s book. God bless you, and please pray for Rachel, for the many other victims of SRA, and for Holy Mother Church.
