Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Glaring Evidence Shows The Need For The Dubia

If there are lingering doubts as to the necessity for clarification of the mess known as Amoris Laetitia (or as I call it, Amoralis Lamentia), let these facts show why the dubia must be taken seriously.

Today it was announced that Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has ordered his priests to give Holy Communion to adulterous Catholics.  In other words, he is ordering his priests to commit mortal sins of sacrilege in offering Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers AND to contribute to the mortal sin of sacrilege on the part of those who desperately need the medicine of repentance.  Of course no faithful priest can do that.  Such is the way that Amoralis Lamentia is emboldening those who care not one whit for the Sacraments of Matrimony, Eucharist and Penance.  Recall that one of the dubia questions deals with this very topic.  We pray for these priests as they are being put into a horrible position, that they have the courage to withstand the evil even as it emanates from their own bishop.  We pray even more who will acquiesce to this sinful suggestion with glee.

This same bishop also ordered his priests to welcome "LGBT families".  That phrase in quotes is an oxymoron.  Two same-sex adults in a perverted relationship can never constitute a true family.  No real "family" can exist in a situation based on mortal sin.  Again, McElroy is commanding his priests to validate sinful situations - something that no priest can ever do.

We see similar affirmation of mortal sin in the Archdiocese of New York.  Joseph Sciambra has details of a "retreat" being offered to those embroiled in perversion at St. Francis of Assisi parish.  Apparently that parish is quite a cesspool in that regard.  And let's not ever forget what happened in my own parish over four years ago when Father Marcel Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion from a flaming lesbian and was punished by Cardinal Wuerl for being a faithful priest.

So now one can see the confusion that Amoralis Lamentia is causing.  I believe this confusion is being intentionally created.  The progressives in the Vatican do not want to overtly state their intentions to junk the Traditions of Jesus Christ so they wish to do so by subterfuge. This is why so many of them hate the dubia-letter posted by the four cardinals; it is forcing the progressives to be up front about their goals, and they understandably find themselves threatened.

We saw the utter defensiveness of some a few days ago.  Today we saw a reaction from the Vatican that can only be called "lashing out in fear and guilt".  The Dean of the Roman Rota, Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, actually threatened the four cardinals by saying that they could have their cardinalates stripped from them - for daring to ask for clarification.  Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture also took note of the fear and guilt that seems to be all over Pinto.  Cardinal George Pell came to the defense of the four cardinals, wondering how anyone could actually disagree with a question.  He's right; by definition, a question is not a statement of fact or opinion so there's nothing in it with which one can disagree.  Will we soon hear that Pinto is drawing aim at Pell's cardinalate?

We must continue to pray.  Pray that the pope indeed does clarify AL to be in conformity with the timeless teachings of the Church.  But if he won't let us pray that the festering boil of heresy will come to a head so that it can be lanced and healed quickly.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Pope Francis Rigidly Promotes His Progressive Priorities

I thank Vox Cantoris for pointing out the pope's mindset that underlies his rhetoric and actions in two areas.  Let's look at priestly formation, for starters.  Rorate Caeli analyzed a talk that the Pope gave to a group of Jesuits a few months back.  In it he lamented "rigidity" in the priestly formation in traditional circles.  Notice how he slyly insinuates that when a young man is "too confident, rigid and fundamentalist", then he might be "mentally ill".  Of seminary teaching he laments "educating in light of overly clear and distinct ideas".  Then he talks about the "dynamics of personal discernment, which respects the law  but knows how to go beyond."

There's much to unpack here.  First, let's look at the phrase "overly clear".  Most sane people would agree that clarity is a good to be desired.  Clarity is tied to truth.  How is it possible to be "overly clear" or "overly truthful"?  If one lessens the truth or clarity, then one is engaging in dishonesty and obfuscation, right?

Now let's address that second quip about the "rigidity" indicating "mental illness".  This is nothing short of slander directed at young men, aspiring to the priesthood, who exert much effort to follow God's immutable commands.  And yes, God's commands are quite clear.  For instance, "thou shalt not commit adultery" does not admit of any exception.  Does the pope find that "overly clear"?  Well, perhaps he needs to take that up with the Author of that "rigid"command.

This dovetails right into that last quote: "respect the law but know how to go beyond".  If one is going beyond what God's law says is permissible, he/she should drop any pretense of "respecting the law".  "Respect" is just a mental game played by those who would justify thumbing their noses at God's law, and ultimately God Himself.

So, as far as Pope Francis is concerned, is everything up for "discernment" and "accompaning on the journey"?  Is everything to be considered free of "rigidity"?  Surprisingly, NO!  There are some matters, according to this pontiff, that are to be considered set in stone, that admit of no divergence of opinion whatsoever.  These are matters that are indicative of his real loves and mindsets.

Today he addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding "climate change".  He said it's "indispensible to create a regulatory system that includes inviolable limits and ensure the protection of ecosystems" blah-blah-blah.  "Indispensible"!  "Inviolable"!   Hmmm!  Sounds like rather "rigid" language to me!  Where does "knowing how to go beyond" fit in with this paradigm?  So the Teachings of Jesus Christ as revealed through His Church is subject to "gray areas" but "climate change" junk sciene is sacrosanct?

Let's look at this "regulatory system".  Who will be controlling this "regulatory system"?  The pope never got around to divulging that teensy detail, but one can imagine that the UN (Useless Nincompoops) would have their hand in that, along with George Soros and other assorted oligarchs.  Over the years I've done many posts on the menace of environmentalism.  As you read the posts, you'll notice that one underlying motive to this movement is the deconstruction of western civilization and its Christian roots.  In particular, pay close attention to this post, noticing the three motives that seem to be underlying this junk science (and watch the video).

Unless we believe that the pope is a total idiot, we must concede that he is in cahoots with the progressives and their agendas.  Owing to his position as Vicar of Christ, he is poised to spread the poison of progressivism.   Many Catholics at one time were naive in their disbelief of this problem.  While some continue their pollyanna-esque blindness, an increasing number are admitting that the ever-mounting pile of evidence is shattering their illusions.  Some of these, though, are now trying to ignore the problem, pretending that it has no relevance to their lives.  This blog joins with the Remnant in stating that we cannot be indifferent and silent with respect to the harm being caused by this papacy, for souls are at stake.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Who Stays and Who Goes

Amoralis Lamentia has given us a view into the pope's mindset regarding the Deposit of Faith that he's tasked to defend.  That defense is not happening; we see quite the opposite occurring.  But if AL isn't enough, let's remember the maxim "personnel is policy".  It certainly applies in this case as one watches the personnel shifts in various Vatican organizations.  See who stays and who goes.  Particularly look at the conduct of those retaining their posts and those obtaining new posts.

The pope appointed a new apostolic nuncio to Mexico.  He is Archbishop Franco Coppola.  Mexico has been dealing with the topic of gay #mowwidge as has the United States.  The faithful Catholics there have been conducting marches to rally support for traditional marriage.  Coppola scolded their efforts, telling them not to march but to "dialog" with the supporters of evil.  In a sane world, a real bishop would have been encouraging faithful Catholics to step up their efforts and would have rebuked those shilling for perversion.  As you read the LifeSiteNews piece, it's clear that Coppola's sympathies are with the promoters of sodomy.

Getting back to Amoralis Lamentia, the pope last month praised a dissident theologian whose heresies provided some foundation for AL.  This happened during a Jesuit conference last month, and the theologian is Bernard Haring.  Apparently it was Haring who devised the aberrant definition of "discernment" that seems to be a favorite buzz word among the progressive elements.  This "discernment", according to Haring, "allows" for contraceptive use.  He carried on so much that Pope John Paul II forbade him to teach at any Catholic school and stripped him of his "Catholic theologian" title.  So now this pope is praising a dissident for the very behaviors that caused his sainted predessor to discipline him?

Meanwhile, the purge of the faithful prelates in Vatican organizations marches on.  From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, several faithful prelates were ejected.  These include U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Austrilian Cardinal George Pell, and Canadian Cardinal Marc Oullet.  The latter still retains his headship of the Congregation of Bishops - for now.

Now let's look at the Pontifical Academy for Life.  Who got canned from that body?  All of them!  According to One Peter Five, the pope rewrote the statutes of that organization that effectively removed the entire membership.  Moreover, these new statutes state that members may be selected without regard to religious affiliation, and that the new members will not have to take the Jerome Lejeune Oath, an oath requiring members to defend the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death.  Why was that oath excised?

There's an important "side note" in that One Peter Five link.  According to inside sources, many in the Vatican were supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the US presidency.  If that's so, they were supporting sin.  To the extent that foreigners can interfere with our elections, I don't know.  If their support was more than trivial, can it be said that they sinned mortally?  Can it be said that this sin goes all the way to the top?

I suspect there will be more personnel shake-ups to admit more poison into Church structures.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Amoris Laetitia And Dubia - Separating Wheat From Chaff

Slowly but surely the Dubia that the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis is bringing a lot of dissent and heresy to light.  The head of the Greek Bishops' Conference (I won't even attempt that name) wrote to the four cardinals and flat out accused them of heresy.  One Peter Five has the text of the letter, and it is a beeyute!  He opens the letter by stating that the four cardinals should turn in their red caps (I don't know the proper term) and then accuses them of heresy, apostacy and scandal.  One wonders if he actually read the dubia, for all it does is ask the pope to clarify some passages in Amoris Laetitia that seem to contradict the tradition of the Church.  Or maybe he did read them and is simply trying to frighten others into not considering their input.

Cardinal Cupich seems to be mouthing similar things - almost as if they were all given "talking points".  I have written about the sword-crossing between him and Archbishop Chaput when the latter reaffirmed Church teaching in his own diocese.  In an interview, he told Edward Pentin that those who have "doubts and questions" regarding Amoralis Lamentia need "conversion in their lives".  I and others have written extensively about Cupich's dissidence many times.  Please read that list for yourselves for I haven't time nor space to detail just why Cupich may be the one needed conversion.

One wonders if that head of the Greek Bishops' Conference might have such strong words for his German counterpart.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch openly declared his belief that "Christ did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."  He believes that Jesus only offered "solidarity with the poor."  Now that is heresy.  Will the Greek head say anything about that?  Will the Pope have a rebuke for this heresy-spouting bishop?  I think we'll hear crickets and Zollitsch will retain his post.

However, it does seem that the four cardinals are not standing alone.  Polish Bishop Josef Wrobel says "the four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia".  He added that AL "is not written well".  He offered that as a potential excuse reason for its lack of clarity.

Two American bishops share the same last name: Tobin.  That's about all they share.  Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island opined last July that AL was "marked by ambiguity and that's intentional on the Holy Father's part, I think...so people can do just about whatever they want."  This bishop has consistently stood for the truth.  On the other hand we have Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In the previous link I detailed some issues we've had with him.  He called the four cardinals "troublesome".  Well, it might actually be a good thing to be regarded as "troublesome" to a progressive.  We know now why Joseph Tobin received his red hat!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a letter in which he defended the dubia and the four cardinals as a "prophetic voice."  In his letter, Schneider takes aim at the progressive syncophants who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the four cardinals without offering any real clarity, comparing the current situation to that of St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope Liberius.  The letter is worth careful study.

Then there is Bishop Jan Watroba, also of Poland.  He remarked on the ambiguity of AL, saying that he "preferred the clarity of Pope St. John Paul II".  I pray that these three bishops retain their posts and aren't sent to "diocesan siberia", if you get the drift.  I also pray that many more bishops join them to stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews is conducting a petition effort to ask the Holy Father to respond to the dubia.  Please sign and pass along.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Carhart Quits Maryland!

Another reason to be thankful on this Thanksgiving Day.  Who knows why he's leaving Maryland?  Maybe it's the suit about which I wrote yesterday; maybe it's just the straw that broke the camel's back.  Let's pray that he repents before he has to stand before God's judgment throne.

Abortions will still continue up to 19 weeks at Germantown Reproductive Heath Services, and they will continue throughout the state.  Let us continue to pray that all abortions cease.

Read Operation Rescue's report.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Carhart And Germantown Reproductive Health Services Sued For Botched Abortion

On January 19 I reported on yet another botched abortion that necessitated a woman being taken by ambulance to the hospital.  Operation Rescue reports that the woman has filed suit against both Carhart and Germantown Reproductive Health Services for the malpractice that left her disabled and probably unable to bear another child.  The OR report links to the court documents that list both Carhart and the abortuary as co-defendants.

Since Ms. Devine was injured at Carhart's hands, at least four other women suffered as well - three in Germantown.  That of course does not count the hundreds of babies who were torn to pieces at the hands of Carhart and his barbaric staff.  We pray that this suit brings this killing center to a screeching halt.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Catholic Standard Shills For False Unity At Truth's Expense

On page 3 of the Nov 12 issue of the Catholic Standard and here on the online version appears an article entitled "Catholics' Post-Election To-Do List Includes Work For Unity, Healing".  Right there in the title you can foresee the problems in the article.  Instead of focusing on "unity and healing", the focus needs to be on proper catechesis so that Catholics understand Our Lord's teachings on life, sexuality, marriage, family, and the prominence that faith should have in our personal and civic lives.  Without that understanding, any pretense at unity will be that - a mere sham.

However, as we peruse this article, we see no emphasis on truth.  That lack of emphasis is seen in the selection of people quoted in this article.
  • Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis (not to be confused with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island) turned a deaf ear to us when we pleaded with him to intervene in the plans of a local KofC council to rent their hall to lesbians to hold their "wedding reception".  Is that what he means by "building bridges" as he said in an interview?  In that same interview he approved of the ambiguity of Amoralis Lamentia and poo-pooed the efforts of the four cardinals who published the dubia.
  • The National Catholic Reporter is so faithless to true Catholicism that its two bishops have directed the pubication to remove the word "Catholic" from their title.  Of course those directives are disobeyed.
  • Sister Simone Campbell along with her Network bunch, are pro-abortion.  She and NETWORK sided with the Obama administration against the USCCB to support Obamacare's HHS mandate.  When asked whether or not she thought abortion should be illegal, she took a line out of Obama's script and replied "that's beyond my pay grade.  I don't know".  So we're supposed to believe that a leader in "Catholic social justice" doesn't know if baby-murder should be illegal?  In another interview after the DNC convention (during which she publicly praised the NARAL president) she stated "I don't think it's a good policy to outlaw abortion" then went on to slander pro-life people.
  • Father James Martin makes no secret of his sympathy for "gay rights".  He was honored by the dissident group New Ways Ministry for his advoacy of the sodomite lifestyle.
Why does Carol Zimmerman (author of the Catholic Standard piece) call these people "Catholic leaders"?

Let's talk about some of these "divisions".  The only way that there could be "divisions", at least in the general election, is if Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.  A goodly number of faithful priests have outlined why voting for Hillary, who made no secret of her devotion to baby-murder and institutionalized sodomy, would have been a sinful act.  Those who voted for her, knowing of her stances, sinned.  I've posted many times on this blog why it was sinful to withhold votes for Trump.  On those posts are links to homilies/writings of others making the same case.  Still, some have not only withheld their votes from Trump; they magnified their sin in casting votes for Clinton.

Now the Catholic Standard is issuing a "kiss-and-make-up" call, all the while quoting from dissidents who most likely sinned with their votes.  No true reconciliation can happen unless those who voted for Clinton (particularly those who were arrogantly blatant about it) announce public repentance for that sin.  We must face the fact that those who cast such votes betrayed the unborn children as well as faithful Catholics.  If there is not that public repentance, we've no assurance that they won't repeat that sin, should they deem it suitable for them to do so.

I for one refuse to play that silly, deceptive make-believe game of false reconciliation.  It will be asked if I hope to work with those Clinton voters in the future.  I will reply, "unless they repent, NO!"  Now the question is, "do those who sinned with their votes wish to work with us in the future?"  If so, the must repent.  Either way, it's up to them.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Cardinal Farrell's Second Error

In the latest online edition of the Catholic Standard, we see an article regarding the disagreement between Cardinal Kevin Farrell and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia.  I wrote on this a few days ago; please review.  In the wake of Farrell's criticism of the guidelines that Chaput issued for his own diocese, Farrell betrayed a viewpoint that dissents from the Church's teachings on the indissolubility of marriage.  It is fair to say two things about Farrell's error: 1) it conforms to the apparent error of Pope Francis and 2) if this viewpoint is promulgated, many souls will be placed in danger of damnation owing to rotten council.

But Farrell's statements betray another error.  Since when do the bishops need to answer to some "bishops' conference" to "discuss these things"?  The local conferences have no canonical authority over individual bishops; each bishop answers only to God and the Holy Father.  Period.

So let Pope Francis take up any objections directly with Archbishop Chaput - if he dares.  As things stand now, Amoris Laetitia is being subject to scrutiny on account of the dubia issued by the four cardinals.  For now, Farrell may want to stick with the Church's ageless teachings.  They're ageless for they come from God Himself, who is not bound by time nor its changing fads.

A Little Humor In Light Of The Dubia

What is happening with the dubia is ground-breaking and must be covered with prayer.  Still, I must admit that the following caused me to laugh! 😀

Friday, November 18, 2016

Papal Reactions To The Dubia

Tomorrow there will be a consistory at the Vatican to formally create the new Cardinals.  Traditionally before such gatherings, the pope has held pre-consistory meetings with already existing cardinals before the ceremony.  This time he canceled it.  Understandably a number of eyebrows are raised, particularly because Pope Francis has often lauded "dialogue" and "collegiality".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to postulate a reason for this cancellation.  That reason is the Dubia written by the four cardinals, requesting formal clarification regarding doctrinally questionable segments of Amoris Laetitia.  A response from the pope has been requested.  Can anyone doubt that it would seem grossly disingenuous of the pope if he didn't at least mention it at any meeting of cardinals.

The Dubia is formatted in such a way that it must be answered with "yes" or "no", with no "in-between" responses feasible.  In an interview, the pope had this to say: "Some, as with certain responses to Amoris Laetitia, persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life.."  "Discern in the flow of life"?  What the hell does that mean???  Might it be a clever way of saying "go with the flow"?  If so, what flow?  Who/what determines the flow?  Are we even (in the pope's mind) even allowed to ask that question, because, well - the god of surprises!!!  Faithful Catholics have news for him.  Has he considered that at the end of time there will either be heaven or hell?  Doesn't that truth seem to be rather "black and white"?

Elsewhere in the interview he says critics of Amoralis Lamentia "don't understand" that the Church "exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God's merciful design".  As I learned my Baltimore Catechism, Jesus Christ founded the Church to help us get to heaven.  That is done by administration of the Sacraments, as well as promulgation of Christ's teachings.  His teachings on faith and morals are quite direct, "black and white".  One either obeys or disobeys them.

I will post now a video of yesterday's episode of World Over, where Raymond Arroyo interviews Robert Royal and Edward Pentin.  The whole thing is worth watching, but pay close attention between the 27:10 and 29:09 marks, where Pentin relates what his sources told him, that the dubia has the pope "boiling with rage".  While we'd hope for a calm response to the letter, at least we know that the dubia isn't being ignored - at least privately.

Let us pray that the pope reaffirms the Teachings of Jesus.  Barring that, let us pray that these cardinals stay the course and that others join them.  Vox Cantoris has words about that.  Now the video.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Must The Four Cardinals Formally Correct The Pope?

Earlier this week we learned of the attempt of the four cardinals to seek clarification from Pope Francis regarding the heretical statements in Amoris Laetitia.  The questions were formatted in such a way that they must be answered in the positive or negative - no "in-between".  In September they had posed their questions to the pope privately but received no reply.

Yesterday the National Catholic Register published an interview between Edward Pentin and Cardinal Burke regarding these questions.  Towards the end, Pentin asked His Eminence about any "next steps", should these publicized questions not be answered.  The cardinal spoke of "taking a formal action of correction of a serious error".

That more or less leaves the proberbial ball in the pope's court.  Whether or not such a formal action would be deemed necessary is largely up to him.  Unfortunately, he has given us an indication of his inclinations.  Recall that several months ago, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia issued guidelines that plainly stated that divored/remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they live as brother and sister.  He was directly contradicted by Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell.  Farrell plainly stated that those de-facto adulterors could receive Holy Communion while continuing in their mortal sin.  Now recall that the pope picked Farrell to head the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, as well as naming him a Cardinal.  With that in mind, it is reasonable to deduce that with regards to the heresies embodied in Amoralis Lamentia, that Farrell and the pope are of like mind.

Let us pray that the pope will ponder carefully the correction that the four Cardinals are trying to offer him.  But let us be prepared for what will likely follow in the wake of continued papal obduracy.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

USCCB = Underlings of Soros Conducting Communist Business

That does seem to be the order of business at the USCCB meeting that opened in Baltimore yesterday.  They opened their meeting by asking President-Elect Trump, in oh-so-thinly-veiled language, to adopt a policy of blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants.  This, of course, is right out of the progressive marching orders.  As pointed out in the anthology of previous posts, there is plenty of money to be had with regards to illegal immigration (hopefully Trump will shut off that cash spigot).  The bishops are doing the bidding of their puppet-masters; that's why they've put their bid for amnesty front and center.

When a sane, faithful Catholic thinks of issues for which the bishops might petition for governmental action, one thinks of intrinsic evils that pollute our culture.  These evils include:
  • The wholes-scale murder of helpless babies, aka, abortion
  • The growing threat of euthanasia
  • The enshrinement of homosexual perversions as societal norms that no one may question
  • The marginalization of Christians who live out their faith in their businesses
I don't know where the meeting is happening, just that it is in Baltimore.  Would someone who knows please advise via comments?  Perhaps someone in the vicinity can go and lodge a protest there.

One thing we can all do to send the USCCB a message is to boycott the CCHD collection this coming weekend.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Four Cardinals Publicly Seek Clarification On Amoris Laetitia

In September, four cardinals wrote to Pope Francis to seek formal clarification regarding problematic statements found in Amoris Laetitia.  The pope did not reply to them so now they have made their concerns and questions public.  I will publish the complete text as found in National Catholic Register below the jump break, since it is rather lengthy.

The four cardinals are Walter Brandmuller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner.  They have formatted their writing in the form called "dubia", Latin for "doubts".  The questions are structured in such a way that the answer to be given them must be a "yes" or "no".  Consider also as you read this that the answers will have one of two effects: 1) the reversal of Amoris Laetitia, as well as the proceeds of the two synods or 2) the placement of the pope in formal heresy.  I link now to analysis done by LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, Vox Cantoris, AKACatholic.  Several have asked why there are no more cardinals participating and why these four.  They then answered their own question by pointing out that three of these are retired and the fourth has already had influence stripped from him.  They have nothing to lose from a pope who has shown himself capable of punishing those who contradict him.  Please pray for them, the pope and that the filth may finally be swept from the Vatican.  Now the letter, after the jump break.

Lepanto Institute Speaks Truth, USCCB Shrieks In Fear Of Exposure

Some time ago Lepanto Institute exposed the fact that the Catholic Relief Services is acting in concert with organizations spreading the culture of death, itself participating in the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients.  When Lepanto's report was released, the CRS predictably went into "damage control" mode.  Hichborn called them out on it.

The CRS is under the direct control of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The USCCB is having its semi-annual meeting in Baltimore, starting today.  Michael Hichborn, president of Lepanto, penned an open letter to the US bishops regarding CRS's misbehaviors.  Also today Archbishop Paul Coakley, USCCB Chair, asked the prelates in attendance to pay no attention to Lepanto's hours of research and the evidence pointing towards CRS's complicity with evil.  His request is itself a betrayal of fear and resentment at having the dissidence of CRS, along with the USCCB, brought into light.

LifeSiteNews has details of Carolyn Woo's sniveling reaction to Lepanto's work.  I don't think she realizes what she revealed when she claimed that "original sin was kind of abstract".  In her time at CRS, particularly with the cover-up of the "gay-married" CRS vice president, she betrayed an abysmal lack of basic Catholic moral teaching.

As always, the only language that gets the attention of the progressives who occupy high places in the USCCB is the language of money.  Thus, in addition to prayer, we must speak that language by withholding our donations.  It is not time for the annual in-pew CRS collection.  However, the in-pew collection for its national counterpart, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (also under direct USCCB control) is this coming weekend.  I urge all to boycott that collection this coming weekend.  Here are some tools to assist you in this boycott.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Does The Pope Regard Traditional Catholics As Niggers Of The New Age?

Remember three years ago when Pope Francis asked "who am I to judge" when discussing the situations of gay people?  It sure sounds so nice and non-judgmental now, doesn't it?  Contrast that with this screed that he uttered against those Catholics who prefer the Tridentine rite (Extraordinary Form).  He speaks particularly derisively towards young people who prefer that rite over the Ordinary rite.  To wit: "Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

Let's unpack this.  Notice that he equates "preference for the Tridentine rite" with "rigidity".  Then "rigidity" is equated with "insecurity" and "not true love".  The pope is slandering those faithful Catholics who prefer the Tridentine rite, portraying them as "insecure", "rigid" and not possessing "true love".  What ever happened to "who am I to judge?"  Let's address that now.

When the pope uttered that now-infamous quote three years ago, he was applying that to people living in states of mortal sin.  With that, he avoided the task of rebuking sinner, of setting them on the path of salvation.  However, when it comes to those Catholics who do obey Christ and His Church, he is quite judgmental towards them, demonizing their piety.  In this LifeSiteNews piece, read what Anya Proctor has to say about her love for the Tridentine Mass.  Her insights are nothing less than wise and profound.  Do you think this young lady deserves to be belittled by the Vicar of Christ?  Yet such is the treatment meted out to her and to countless others as well.  Liturgyguy believes this screed by Pope Francis to be a direct insult to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Catholic Family News believes that we are being demonized as the new "deplorables" or as I've observed, this is more relegation of us to the status "niggers of the new age".

Temper Tantrums Of The Left

Some precious snowflakes, mainly at college campuses, find themselves "traumatized" by Trump's victory over Hillary.  The administrators of these "institutes of higher learning", are all too happy to validate these temper tantrums since they themselves find their agendas frustrated by Hillary's defeat.  Examples?
There are more such examples.  It's bad enough that we seem to be coddling whining and temper tantrums, but the tantrums are becoming quite violent.  Calls are mounting on social media for the assassination of Trump.  My colleague at Les Femmes put up posts over the past few days of kids being assaulted at school for simply posting their views.  On Pamela Geller's site we see videos of anti-Trump violence being perpetrated by the same bunch that ballyhooed "love trumps hate".  Truthfeed has dug up ads on Craigslist posted by George Soros to gin up the riots that are now occurring.

Some voices of sanity are to be found on the internet.  Reacting to the election, Cardinal Burke said quite plainly in an interview that Trump is preferable to Hillary (#nevertrump people, take note).  Similarly, Franklin Graham posted that "The Lord Saves Us from a Godless, Atheistic Agenda".  He's quite correct.

Now what is the opinion of Pope Francis?  Perhaps the most recent interview with Eugenio Scalfari might offer some clue.  Stating that his main concern is "refugees", he opined that "it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas"  He evinces (once again) his disregard for the statement of Pope Pius XI, "no one at the same time can be a good Catholic and a true socialist."  Moreover, I fail to detect any corroboration for this statement of the pope when he said that Christ spoke of a society where the "poor" and not "demagogues" can "decide".  Who are the poor versus demagogues and what is being decided?  What are the Scriptural references?  Is the pope being intentionally nebulous?  One Peter Five has good analysis.

I glean from all this that the pope doesn't share the opinions of Cardinal Burke and the faithful Catholics who helped propel Trump over Clinton and perhaps saved the United States and western civilization from irreparable harm.

Obana Adminstrative Sourpusses Staff - Contemplating Unemployment

Friday, November 11, 2016

CCHD = Cash for Chaos, Hatred and Disorder

We are all aware of the violence that has erupted in the wake of Trump's election as President of the United States.  One thing this illustrates is the results of poor education that has been allowed to go on for these past few decades.  It is poor by design.  John Dewey has rightfully been called the Father of Modern Education.  How many are aware that Dewey was a signer of the original Humanist Manefesto?

However, the violence in many cities (all of the cities being in states that Hillar carried, oddly enough) isn't just the work of spoiled little snowflakes pitching temper tantrums.  There is organization behind it as LifeSiteNews points out.

One of the organizations behind the mayhem is MoveOn.org, controlled by George Soros.  Soros' infiltration of progressive Catholic circles has been documented.  His organization, Faith in Public Life, several years ago attempted to refute an exposition of the CCHD done by Michael Hichborn.  Much has been written on this blog and others regarding the fact that monies collected by the CCHD were diverted to "community organizing" outfits that are anti-life, anti-God; many of these have been known to foment the kind of violence that has swept up the disgruntled Clinton supporters.

If you haven't done so yet, please watch the video "A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing".  It's long, but well worth the investment of time.  It tells the history of the invasion of progressives in the life of the Catholic Church in the US, focusing on the role of Saul Alinsky.  Furthermore, it details how Alinsky and his cronies in the Church created the Campaign for Human Development for the purpose of diverting Catholic donatons to progressive causes.  Later the word "Catholic" was put in front of the rest of the name.  That is to say that the entire purpose of CCHD was evil from its inception, as opposed to being once noble but only recently corrupted.

During the weekend of November 19-20, most dioeses in the United States will be devoting the second collections to the CCHD.  We must boycott this collection as we've done in previous years.  Many of us are tired from the election, but we must resist the temptation to "tune out and take a break".   The CCHD is a factor in the rot inside both the Church and the United States.  We must starve this beast known as CCHD.  With Trump's election, we've been given a reprieve by God, some more time to pray and work to establish the Culture of Life.  Let's not lose momentum but press ahead, starting by saying #no2cchd.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Election Maps Provide Sobering Lessons For #NeverTrumpers - Will They Learn?

I'm linking now to the election map that was provided by c-span.  One can go to an individual state, click on it, and get the exact counts per candidate for that state.  I have done so for a few states and will post them to illustrate the damage done by third-party candidates (screen shots taken from c-span).  Some of their adherents refuse to acknowledge simple laws of arithmetic; now they cannot ignore the reality before their eyes.

 These are all states that narrowly went to Clinton.  In all but one of these cases (I'll discuss VA later), the votes towards the third party candidate(s) amounted to more than the difference between the numbers of votes given to Trump and Clinton.  Since both Johnson and McMullin hold themselves to be conservative, we can guess that had their names not been on the ballots in these states, at least some of those voters would have cast their votes for Trump,  handing to him the electoral votes from those    
states as well as increasing his popular vote.

Had this been the situation in more states, we might well be looking at a more bleak future for the United States, as well as western civilization as a whole.  I said in my post on Friday that had this been the case this past Tuesday evening that the #nevertrump crowd might well have to answer for blood on their hands.  On Tuesday evening, God had mercy on the United States.
He also had mercy on the #nevertrump folks, sparing them much guilt.

I know some of you are going to whine about this post, asking why we can't just "kiss and make up".  It's very simple; if we don't learn from history we will repeat it - and the next history lesson can well be bitterly devastating.  Even now on facebook some foolish holdouts are still waxing cynical about Trump, seemingly oblivious to the catastrophe just averted.  It
 would have been a catastrophe in which they would have had a role in creating with their constant carping on the fantasy of third-party candidates.

Besides the ones who said they wouldn't vote for Trump, there are actually those who stated their intentions to vote for Hillary (see last week's post).  If they are reading this, they know who they are.  To those individuals - please be advised that as far as I'm concerned, any
credibility that you may once have had as a former pro-life leader has been forfeited by your doing.  Should I deem so necessary, I will divulge your name.

I promised a word about Virginia's situation.  The total of third-party candidates doesn't quite amount to the difference between Trump and Hillary.  However, recall that back in April, Governor McAuliffe, by executive fiat, restored voting rights to more than 200 thousand convicted felons.  Recalling that McAuliffe was once chair of the DNC, we can guess for whom
these felons voted.  Will Hillary soon be joining their number?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Deo Gratias!

Last night God granted the United States - and western civilization - a significant reprieve.  We know that along with massive effort, many prayers and fastings were undertaken so that the disaster known as a Hillary presidency would not occur.  I suggest that these continue and that there be no relaxation of our prayers and efforts in bringing about a culture of life.

I'll have more to say on this later as time permits.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing

This tells a large part of the story how progressivism invaded the Catholic Church and the United States.  Watch this before you vote.  A vote for the Democrats - or simply abstention from voting for Trump - will further this satanic agenda.

A Closer Look At John Podesta

John Podesta is currently directing Hillary's election campaign.  A little while ago we learned that he founded two fake "Catholic groups" to facilitate a "Catholic spring".  Here's an anthology of previous posts.  New information has come out.  Since this fellow seems to be poised to assume a position of influence in a (God forbid!) Hillary administration, it would behoove us to take a closer look at him.

I'll post below an expose that was just released yesterday, detailing not only his career but that of his brother, Tony Podesta.  They have worked together for some time.  There has been some talk of WikiLeaks revealing his connection with a "spirit dinner".  In fact, he was invited to one such event via his brother.  I don't think there's evidence that he actually attended, but his brother seems to be linked with it.  Since he and his brother are closely associated, it bears mention that his brother could be tied up with occultic practices.

Now the expose..

Two Courageous Priests With Cowardly Superiors

The pastor of Immaculate Conception Church in San Diego California is under fire for allowing truth to be spoken in his bulletins regarding the upcoming presidential election.  According to this news report, a bulletin insert stated that "it is a mortal sin to vote Democrat" and that those in unrepented mortal sin will go to hell.  The local bishop's knickers are knotted over those statements.  He ignores one "inconvenient truth" (thanks to Al Gore for supplying that phrase).

Those statements are correct.  The Democrat platform is unabashedly pro-abortion.  Anyone voting Democrat will be cooperating with the mortal sin of abortion by furthering the Democrat agenda with their vote.  I went to the Immaculate Conception website and could not find the flyer in question.  I was pleased, however, to see a column on the election by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix AZ in the Oct 23 bulletin and even Cardinal Wuerl had some cogent words in the Oct 16 bulletin.  A lady named Patricia Mann wrote an excellent piece on moral relativism.  I also see a column by Cardinal Burke therein.  The October 30 bulletin has some clear words about Hillary.  Pray for Father Richard Perozich and other courageous priests.  They are under heavy fire for proclaiming some truth, and that fire is coming from their chanceries.

Let's move on to the other priest under fire for speaking truth - this time, in Italy.  Father Giovanni Cavalcoli, a Dominican theologian who had a spot on a Catholic radio station there, stated that the recent quakes in Italy are divine punishment for Italy's legalization of sodomite #mowwidge.  For that he was suspended from the radio station and drew some harsh - and erroneous - condemnation from the Vatican's assistant Secretary of State, Archbishop Angelo Becciu (said to be close to the pope).  I'll bring in the whole quote from the Register so you can see this as we pick through the copious errors.

The prelate said the Dominican theologian’s words are not in accord with the Gospel, “are offensive to believers and scandalous to those who do not believe.” His words, the archbishop added, “date back to the pre-Christian period and do not correspond to the theology of the Church because they are contrary to the vision of God offered to us by Christ.” “Christ,” he added, “has revealed the face of God’s love, not a capricious and vengeful God. This is a pagan, non-Christian vision”. He also went so far as to say that such comments “offend” the Virgin Mary who is seen as “the mother of mercy who bends over a weeping child and wipes their tears, especially in terrible moments like those of the earthquake."

What a mess!  What would Becciu say of Matthew 23:31-38 and Luke 13:34-35, where Jesus is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem because they rejected Him as Messiah?  Is Jesus "capricious and vengeful"?  How about "pagan"?  And what's with this "offending the Virgin Mary"?  How often did she tell the world at Fatima and Akita that God would rain down punishments if mankind as a whole did not repent?  She specifically said to the Fatima children that sins of the flesh would cause the greatest number of damned souls.  Italy just legalized a major sin of the flesh; why wouldn't God send an earthquake to wake up the world?  Am I saying that God's wrath is the cause of the earthquake?  I've no way of knowing for certain, but I daresay the Becciu has no basis for denying God's hand in the earthquakes.

Western civilization is in dire need of priests such as Fathers Cavalcoli and Perozich.  Pray that they be protected and that more like them, including bishops, rise up.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Some Words Of Plain Truth To NeverTrumpers

Ladies and gentlemen, we're getting down to the wire - the election will occur in four days.  While Hillary's campaign seems to be imploding upon itself thanks to the wikileaks and of course to much prayer, she might still squeak into the White House.  Some #nevertrumpers have been opining that Trump could never win; that does not seem to be such a foregone conclusion anymore.  We can still keep Hillary out of the White House; but only if we all cast our votes for Trump.

Some #nevertrumpers are still living in fantasy land.  They won't accept the fact that their efforts will only ease the way for Hillary to win; some do, but they remain obstinate in their disdain of Trump.  Evan McMullin, one of the "third party" candidates running, makes no bones of his desire to stop Trump even if it means Hillary will ascend to the White House.  A pro-life person whom I know wrote a piece that seems to be an apologia for withholding support for Trump; quite frankly it is shot so full of logical fallacies that it will require its own blog piece to refute that.

I was listening to Mark Levin yesterday.  I didn't catch the entire segment of his show but he asked #nevertrumpers a question.  Come election day, there will only be two alternatives, third-party pipe-dreams notwithstanding.  On that night, whom do you want to see be the victor?  Honestly?  Of course when I ask these questions, I'm not addressing them to erstwhile pro-life leaders who have deluded themselves into actually voting for Hillary.  I pray that God will shake them out of their dangerous delusions in the next three days before they dare affirm the candidate who has promised to promote baby-murder in this country.

Some former #nevertrumpers have awakened and have smelled the coffee.  While they may find him to be abrasive (as do I) nonetheless they do understand that there is a world of difference between Trump and Hillary as far as morals/platform/agendas goes.  I pray many more wake up.  On this blog I have made the case, from the vantage point of Catholic moral theology that not only may a Catholic vote for Trump, but given the circumstances he/she must vote for Trump.

To the left is a rather insipid meme that is making its rounds through facebook.  On the surface it sounds nice and conciliatory, but I believe its author jettisoned logic for sentimentality.  Look at the first sentence.  If that is to mean that we should not bear in mind an incredible irrationality on the part of nevertrumpers when determining whether or not they can be trusted, that sentence is itself a suggestion to sin against prudence.   Let's look at "respect your intentions".  It's not enough to mean well; we must do well.  The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.   I announce this right now.  Should Hillary win and she proceeds to wreak havoc on what's left of our republic, you may rest assured that I will be rebuking - sternly and often - those who denied their votes to Trump for whatever persnickety reason they have concocted.  In denying their vote for the only meaningful opposition she had, they will have assisted her rise to power.  They will have on their hands the blood of each child who will die as a direct result of Hillary's presidency.  Rest assured, I will be loaded for bear - and that goes double for those who have said that they'll vote for Hillary!

Nevertrumpers, I post below another priest's homily with words of reason and wisdom.  Please listen and ponder, not only for the sake of this country but for your own immortal souls.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

If You're Looking For Some Penitential Practices

I know Lent is quite some time away, but Advent does have a penitential aspect.  Or you may just want to do some extra reparation for a personal sin or the general state of the world.  Well, I just stumbled across this nightmarish site and think that it would be useful for some mortification - of the ears and musical sensibilities in particular.  It is a throwback site on which the owner waxes lyrical about the halcyon days of "guitar masses" that were the rage in the 1960s and 1970s.  The musicians then were young and chipper.  Fast forward a few decades.  These masses still exist - with the same musicians with a tad more gray hairs and some pot bellies to boot.

The site is: "Folk Mass Music Original Recordings".  On it are featured clips from the original authors.  I suppose the site owner doesn't know (or maybe doesn't care) that Ray Repp is now living in sin with his male accomplice; I sure hope the site owner isn't paying Repp royalties for Catholic recordings when his life is at serious variance with Catholic morality - so much so that he skates quite close to perdition.

By the way, take a look at that picture.  Is the whole kit and kaboodle engaging in an entrance procession?  What is the GIRM guidance on that?

Let's address what the site owner claims was a purpose of the folk music crap: "Surely after almost 50 years we should all be able to appreciate them for what they were trying to do, help young people of the 1960s and 1970s worship in a distinctive way they could relate to."  A personal note: not only was I one of those "young people" to whom he referred, but I actually played that junk at Mass.  I was not only young but woefully ignorant of real music.  Now why did the purveyors of this "folk music" think that the youth of the 1960s and 1970s  needed their own "distinctive way" to worship (assuming that can be called worship)?  Why did we need something different than did previous generations of young people throughout the Church's 2000-year history?  What caused people (including us) to think that the young of the 1960s were such precious prima donnas that the Church's sacred music was just not good enough for us?  In many ways we harbored such attitudes about ourselves, showing just what arrogant louts we truly were.  Apparently some still have not learned, judging from this website that is nothing more than a trip down "awful memory lane".

Anyway, if you'd like to engage in some musical mortification, have at it.  I won't say "enjoy" for that is not the point and that certainly won't happen!