Pope Leo XIV Breaks The Record For How Many Errors Can Be Crammed Into One Statement

Several weeks ago, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, announced his intentions to bestow upon pro-abortion and pro-gay U.S. Senator Dick Durbin a "lifetime achievement award" for his support of - you guessed it! - illegal immigrants crashing through our southern borders.  This award was supposed to have been bestowed in November  

Immediately Bishop Paprocki and Archbishop Cordileone urged Cupich to cancel that award.  Other bishops soon followed in their condemnation of that award.  In the words of Complicit Clergy, Cupich told them to "pound sand".  Of course Cupich holds the slaughter of babies to be of little importance.  Recall that as Bishop of Spokane, Cupich forbade his priests from participating in the local 40 Days for Life efforts in his diocese.

Pope Leo was asked about this Cupich-Durbin scandal.  He responded by adding his own verbal manure to the pile.  Not only does he trot out the "seamless garmet" tripe, but also slanders faithful Catholics and good pro-life people in the process.  Please watch below the jump-break.

Cardinal McElroy Abets The Sin Of Border-Crashing During Holy Mass

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  This quote is attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda chief under Adolf Hitler.

The US progressive bishops have been most diligent in the application of that nefarious principle espoused by Nazis, as we have seen in their shilling and kvelling for unbridled illegal immigration.  Border-crashing would be the more accurate term for it, for they are in fact acting in blatant disregard for our nation's immigration laws, and the bishops are cooperating with that sin by encouraging and excusing it.  They are even, with our tax dollars granted to various Catholic Charities offices, particularly the ones in Texas, facilitating these sins, participating in the guilt of that sin themselves.

On Wednesday September 28th at St Matthew's Cathedral in Washington DC, Cardinal McElroy at Mass dutifully recited the progressive script when it comes to the aiding and abetting of border-crashing.  The event was the World Day of Migrants and Refugees.  When McElroy wasn't slandering the border control agents who are simply defending our borders and removing the border-crashers by yammering about "the government's campaign of fear and terror", he blasphemed Our Lord by stating that He doesn't regard the border-crashing.  Here is the exact quote:

"In the Gospel today, Jesus demands that the central perspective we must bring to understanding the moral legitimacy of the campaign of fear and deportation being waged in our country today springs from the bonds of community that have come to tie us together as neighbors with the undocumented, not the question of whether sometime in the past individuals broke a law by entering or remaining in the United States,"

How dare His Eminence use the Holy Name of Jesus to condone the breaking of legitimate laws?  These "undocumented" are criminals because they snuck through the border.  Notice how he talks of those who "lived beside us for decades"?  Did he bother to ask whether or not these "undocumented" attempted to rectify their situations in all the decades that they've been here?  Yes, that question was merely rhetorical for we know the answer to that.

I am suggesting, at the very least, that any and all donations to the Archdiocese of Washington cease immediately.

USCCB And Catholic Charities And Pope Francis - Part And Parcel Of Human And Drug Trafficking

See for yourselves.  Pope Francis is using Peter's Pence funds to facilitate this abomination.  HT to Complicit Clergy.

The Texas Border Situation And The US Catholic Hierarchy - More Than Meets The Eye

We all know by now that Governor Greg Abbott is taking action, as per his rights and duties as Governor of Texas, to secure the southern border, of which Texas forms a large part.  The Biden administration has been dismantling the wall that President Trump took great strides in building.  Biden et al took great umbrage at Abbott, insisting that federal employees be allowed in Texas to continue the demolition of the wall.  Abbott is refusing, correctly chiding the federal government in its dereliction of its constitutional duty to protect from invasion while citing his own to protect Texans.  So far, 25 governors from other states have stood in solidarity with Texas, issuing statements of their own. 

The Catholic hierarchy, from the pope on down, have been waxing indignant over Abbott's measures.  They snivel on how Jesus and the Holy Family were refugees (they weren't!) in a foreign land, how the razor wires are cruel (only if attempts are made to cross at non-checkpoint locations) etc, etc.  Would that their angst was merely misguided.  Alas, there may be some ulterior motives.  Over the years, various Catholic Charities offices in Texas have been receiving federal grants, to the tune of millions of our tax dollars, to facilitate the "processing" of illegal immigrants.  Now please read the first article in that last anthology of posts.  Read how immigrant children were hurried out of a local Catholic Charities office and stuffed into a luggage compartment of a vehicle.  Only when a reporter blocked the car and called the police did that truth come out.  So now we seem to have prima facie evidence that Catholic Charities, and by extension, the US Catholic hierarchy, are actively involved in child trafficking.

Thanks to Canon 212, I saw today a post from Complicit Clergy, detailing why so many US bishops support Biden and despise Trump.  Oh, by the way, count Francis in with that bunch.  They published financial statements from the USCCB showing the drop in Federal funding while Trump was in office and the dramatic climb once Biden stepped in.  As you examine the various charts, you will notice that many of these Catholic agencies deal with immigration.  We know that among these immigrants are many children with a high percentage of them either alone or accompanied by unrelated adults.  It is reasonable to suspect that many of these children are being trafficked for sale into sexual slavery.

The Catholic hierarchy, as we saw in the April 2021 blog post, is involved in that trafficking.  Are they deriving profit from such trafficking?  Are any of those defenseless children being used by their colleagues who may be sexual perverts?  We have seen too many accounts of perverted clergy raping young children.

As I examine the charts, I do take issue with Trump on one thing.  It would have been far better if he had ceased funding the USCCB and these other left-wing cartels completely, not giving to them so much as one red penny.

Below is last week's episode of the Anchor team, where Michael Hichborn discusses the situation in Texas and how it relates to the Church.  Please watch it.

Resume

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-republican-governors-band-together-to-support-texas-in-its-fight-to-secure-the-border

Catholic Charities Knowingly Engages In Human Trafficking

Complicit Clergy produced the expose that is below.  Truth be told, it is no surprise that Catholic Charities is all on board with human trafficking, including the rapes of women and children, the usage of children to portray an image of families coming across the border.  Apparently the children are being used multiple times, being drugged so as not to react with fright to total strangers holding them.

After you watch this video, please read the anthology of posts that I did about Catholic Charities over the years.  You'll see that Catholic Charities has collected millions of tax dollars to "resettle" border-crashers (by the way, "tax dollars" means your dollars extorted by the feds).  Now one wonders if they might be receiving funding from other sources such as drug and prostitution cartels.

One of my first forays into picketing faux-katholycs was a picket of a DC Catholic Charities Gala that featured pro-abort AFL-CIO leader John Sweeney and now Mr McCarrick as co-chairs.  Many of the "katholycs" entering into the swanky affair gave us the finger and utilized language that would have done the town drunks proud.

Not only is Catholic Charities involved in scandalous, if not criminal activity, but Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Campaign for Human Development are as well.  I won't say they are compromised, as though their original purposes were noble.  Rather, I will say that the undermining of Catholic faith IS their original purpose.  Give them not one red cent of your hard-earned money and encourage others to do the same.  Many truly worthwhile charities exist that would be more worthy recipients of your contributions.

The Left Faking And Exploiting The Rio Grande Drowning

All left-wing pundits and progressive bishops are going ballistic over the drowning deaths of a border-crasher and his little girl.  Some have gone so far as to blame President Trump when, at most, the child had been on US soil for a few minutes.  To be sure, their deaths were sad, but not both were victims.  The child was - of her parents' stupidity and lawlessness.

Louis Verrichio of AKA Catholic has some thoughts on the whole scenario and the picture that has succeeded in causing rational thought in the left to be even more addled than usual.  I invite you to take a look at it and to ponder the very existence of the photograph.  How indeed did that photographer just happen to stumble on that sad scene?  If indeed it was a coincidence (mighty far-fetched), wouldn't a responsible, truly caring response be to ascertain the condition of the two before snapping pictures?  For all this person knew, maybe they were still able to be assisted.

If anyone lacked compassion and decency here, it was the left-wing media who probably positioned their corpses face-down in the water for cheap photo-ops.  It is they who exploited and yes, victimized, the two dead people for the sake of their own insipid narratives.  I'm sure that fact is not entirely lost on the progressive bishops, so the shame of that exploitation lies on their heads as well.

Are Texas Bishops Violating RICO As They Cover For Border Crashers?

On Friday, Church Militant TV released a Vortex that states that the Diocese of Dallas TX may be in violation of the RICO statute owing to its sheltering of illegal aliens, that is, border-crashers.  That bishop is Edward Burns

The Dallas diocese is a suffragan of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, headed by Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sillar.  Listen to his "statement on immigration".  He clearly parrots the progressive talking-points and obfuscates the all-important fact that these "immigrants" have crashed our borders knowingly, flouting US laws right at the onset.

In the video, Voris opines that the motives of the Texas bishops may by the filling of their pews.  I might add that another, perhaps more overriding motive might be the filling of their coffers.  Nearly four years ago it was revealed that Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823 thousand in federal grants (i.e., our tax dollars) to "resettle refuges".   Two years ago, we learned that one of those "refugees" that the Diocese of Dallas assisted went on to commit acts of terrorism in Ohio.  I daresay that this diocese has the blood of those injured on their hands.  How many more thugs and terrorists will these bleeding-heart and brain-bereft progressives in miters aid and abet?  Given Garcia-Sillar's sniveling, enough to keep the federal $$$ headed their way.

Since the local police departments seem to be in cahoots with the Dallas chancery, we may wish to ask Governor Greg Abbott to investigate this matter, and insist that he not demure simply because bishops are involved.  It is his responsibility to protect the citizens of Texas from invading threats, even if conniving bishops are aiding and abetting the invasion.  It does appear that they are violating RICO statutes.  Voris says that there will probably be updates to this latest bishop scandal.

When The White House Is More Catholic-Friendly Than The Vatican

Yesterday's Vortex comments about the Trump administration and how it has already accomplished much good in the US.  Of course the progressives are raging and snarling against him.  That also includes progressives in the Vatican.


We need to realize that there is still much to be done.  With Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton, this nation - and perhaps western civilization - dodged a fatal bullet.  God granted us a reprieve, some breathing room to try to turn this culture around.  There are hopeful signs.  Ironically enough, the situation at the Vatican continues to deteriorate, as I and my blogging colleagues have amply demonstrated.  If one had told me five years ago that I'd trust the White House more than the Vatican, I would have looked at them as though they sprouted a third eye ball.  Yet lo and behold, here we are.  The Trump administration gives all indications of at least being respectful to traditional Christianity, whereas Vatican officials - including the sitting pope - display their hostility.  Vox Cantoris reports that the papal long knives are already pointing at the backs of the three bishops of Kazakhstan for daring to defend Christ's teachings on marriage.

The American Spectator recently ran a story on how Trump and the Pope differ on illegal immigration.  Koons illustrates from various papal and theological writings throughout the centuries how Trump's and conservatives' positions on illegal immigration are in conformity with Catholic social teaching whereas progressives in the Church hold positions that dissent from tradition.  Last year Father George Rutler took strong exception to progressives who likened illegal immigrants to the Holy Family as they fled into Egypt, going so far as to call such likening blasphemous.  I think he's correct.

Support Of Illegal Immigration Is Inherently Sinful

If a parent steals something and gives it to his/her child, is the child penalized when he/she is compelled to return the stolen goods or make other reparation?  Common sense - and Catholic moral theology answer "no", for the child should never have come into the possession of the goods in the first place.  Let's add another dimension.  Say the child receives the contraband as a minor, then becomes aware of the theft when he reaches the age of majority.  Is he/she required to make restitution?  Again, the answer is yes, for he/she may not knowingly accept benefit from the commission of sin.  Should they do so, they themselves become guilty of cooperation with the sin of their parents.  I link now to a post that I created several months ago; therein is a video that explains the nine ways in which a person can become an accessory to the sin of another, thus incurring guilt for his own sin.  Bear all this in mind as you read the account below.

We all know that President Trump has decided to undo the patently unconstitutional stunt initiated by the Messiah Most Miserable known as DACA (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals).   Compare the screed spewed from the USCCB to the statements issued by both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security.  While those impacted are children of illegal immigrants, it is important to note that they are now adults as opposed to non-emancipated minors.  They are now responsible for their own lives.  If they haven't taken measures to correct their own immigration status, they have no one to blame for the consequences but themselves.

I became aware of this account of a "dreamer priest", Father Rey Pineda, through a facebook friend of mine.  As I read this account, I detected no trace of him trying to rectify his status.  He went to school in Georgia and then discerned a vocation; "he felt God was calling him to be a priest but his spiritual path was blocked.  He was a dreamer".  Excuse me, but isn't part of priestly preparation to remove moral impediments from one's life?  He knew he was here in disobedience to legitimate national laws: laws that have basis in Section 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Now recall the video that I mentioned in the first paragraph, and count the ways that Father Pineda actively cooperates with the sin that his parents committed:

• Consent - That is evident in the absence of any steps to correct his status.
• Defense of evil done  No where does he express regret for the flouting of U.S. law.
• Partaking as a "dreamer".  If his seminary formation was facilitated by the dream act, then his priestly formation would be an ironic act of cooperating with sin.  I hope that's not the case

Other ways that he might be cooperating with the sin of evading US immigration laws would be counsel, provocation, praise.  We cannot say "silence" is a chosen means of such cooperation, for he is quite strident in his crowing about his sin.

So his deportation would be a loss to his flock?  Really?  Who would really seek him out in the confessional, knowing he doesn't give a whit about legitimate civic law?  We Catholics are called to obedience to such laws and not only when convenient.  The sacrament itself would be efficacious since it doesn't depend on the worthiness of the minister, but his counsel might be suspect.

One troubling aspect about the hierarchy's embrace of progressive positions is that church authorities too often strike hands with politicians who foment the Culture of Death.  Father Pineda did precisely that by his partnering rabidly pro-abortion Dick Durbin.  Thanks to Pineda's own celebration of his sin, he lent to Durbin a credibility that the latter simply doesn't deserve.  By the way - this is the same Dick Durbin who questioned the Catholic faith of an Appeals Court Nominee.  Got that?  Durbin is very supportive of the Catholic faith of a potential puppet, but takes a dim view of the Catholic faith of a Trump nominee.  That's whom Pineda - this shill for illegal immigration - helped to legitimize.

Let's get back to DACA and illegal immigration in general.  If you haven't yet, please read the linked press releases of the USCCB, White House, and DHS.  If you noticed the USCCB waxing hysterical, you are quite correct.  I won't rehash it all, but the USCCB and Catholic Charities are funded by the feds.  Part of that funding has to do with the number of immigrants - including illegal - that they process.  The amount of funding is based on headcount!  Yes!  If the number of illegal immigrants in this country declines, so too does the amount of funding that the Church hierarchy receives.  Maybe the USCCB's overly-vaunted concern for "the strangers we must welcome" is not completely altruistic.

DACA as promulgated by Obama was patently unconstitutional.  Congress needs to act on this matter, and act first and foremost for the citizens whom they represent - who voted for them and who pay their salaries.

Yoo-hoo! Chuck Short! USCCB! Wakey-wakey!

You who dare prostitute the moral authority of the Catholic Church to do the bidding of your progressive puppet-masters and sugar-daddies in your shilling for unbridled immigration, face these two accounts of what happened here in Montgomery County (here and here) right now!  Because of your reckless clamoring to have our national borders effectively dissolved, you share much of the moral guilt for what happened to that young girl!

Are all the federal grants that you receive for being the good little progressive lemmings really worth it?  Sadly, I suspect you would answer in the affirmative.  Hopefully, under President Trump's watch, despite your callous disregard for the people of this country, the story cited above won't be repeated - at least not as often as you might allow.

Co-Opting St Patrick To Shill For Immigration Law Breakers

Well why not?  Liberal Catholics doing the bidding of progressives and George Soros have no compunctions about grabbing onto whatever straw they can to make their immoral case for border-crashing illegals.  Archbishop Eamon Martin of Armagh, North Ireland is a direct successor to St. Patrick himself.  He had the audacity to call his sainted predecessor an "unlearned refugee and an undocumented migrant".

The liberties he takes with the facts of St Patrick's life are grossly inaccurate, if not downright dishonest.  Patrick never sneaked into Ireland as a refugee and migrant.  He was brought to Ireland by Irish as a slave, very much against his will.  He could only be called a "refugee" when he fled his masters - and returned home.  When he did return years later to spread the Faith, he certainly was no refugee and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that he broke any law in so doing.

Not to be outdone in fact-twisting is Chuck Short, former Secretary for Justice and Service at the Archdiocese of Washington.  He has a piece in the March issue of the Parish Times (page 1 that continues to page 34) that does the same gross injustice not only to St. Patrick but to all faithful Catholics who call for law and order as we assimilate immigrants into our society.

"The Irish who we celebrate this weekend"  This is a direct quote, something I would never write for two reasons.  First, the grammar is terrible.  It should read "the Irish WHOM we celebrate this weekend"  When referring to the object of a verb, "whom" should be used.  The second, and far more important reason is that we are celebrating St. Patrick on March 17, not the Irish (By the way, if it makes a difference, I am of predominantly Irish descent.)  This insistence on adulterating feast days with ethnic gee-gaw only serves to distract from the Faith.

The current surge in anti-immigrant sentiment is an affront to this sacred history of American Catholicism as well as our American values.  Notice they typical deliberate obfuscation of the differences between those who literally crash our borders versus those who respect our laws and customs and follow the law in so doing.  Such obfuscation is not only blatantly dishonest but it is the sin of slander against faithful Catholics who do not believe that we should be rewarding the sinful conduct of illegals in this country.   I and others will continue to call progressives like Chuck Short on the carpet when they pull dishonest stunts like that.  They will not be allowed to define the terms for addressing this matter of illegal immigration.

Archdiocese of Washington's El Pregonero Shilling For Hillary

The Archdiocese of Washington has two periodicals: Catholic Standard and El Pregonero.  The latter's ostensible purpose is to serve the needs of Hispanic Catholics within the archdiocese.  It seems these Catholics are being ill-served.

It was pointed out to me that an article in today's edition is shilling for Clinton based on her policies for fomenting illegal immigration.  Completely lacking in this article is any mention of her promotion of baby-murder.  Bear in mind this is an official publication of the Archdiocese of Washington.  If you (like me) don't read Spanish, there is a site that will translate for you; it's www.worldlingo.com.  There are probably others as well.

I've been told that there may be other articles within the publication that also serve to drum up support for Hillary.  In a publication that ostensibly serves the Catholic Church, this is completely unacceptable.  Hitherto they have gotten away from it for they have escaped the scrutiny of us bloggers who are English-speaking.  No longer.  Like their English-speaking counterparts at the Catholic Standard, they will be held to scrutiny by Catholic bloggers.  Hey - if the DC chancery refuses to do its job, I suppose it's up to us laity to take up their slack and combat the errors and heresies that flow from supposedly Catholic publications.

Canonize Father Hamel? There's Cause For Pause

Already on the blogosphere there are calls for the canonization of Father Hamel, the French priest murdered by Islamic terrorists while saying Mass in his parish church.  Of course I understand that he was murdered by Islamic terrorists because they despise the Faith and that is a factor in the canonization process.  I don't believe that's an overriding factor and there may be other facts to consider.

From an account of a prayer service to honor Father Hamel comes the unsettling news that his church contributed land to local Muslims so that they could build a mosque.  The local mosque leader is mourning the priest who, in his words, "helped us to pray to allah".  Ponder that.

The first of the Ten Commandment is "I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no false gods before Me."  Yet this parish, quite probably with the connivance of Father Hamel, gave material and formal cooperation to the act of idolatry.  What else is "helping to pray to allah" if not formal and material cooperation with that mortal sin?

Some might think I'm judging Father Hamel.  However, isn't the rush to canonize him prematurely its own form of rash judgment?  I think there are two "takeaways".

First, let us continue to pray for his repose and cease the presumption of instant admittance to heaven.  We just don't know.  Why deny him the prayers and sacrifices needed to mitigate any possible purgatory?

Second, the western civilization simply must stop coddling these terrorists, as that French church did. Sadly but predictably, we heard bleating from the Pope, who "challenged" Poland to lay aside its well-founded concerns about opening their borders to potential terrorists.   Closer to home we heard Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville Texas likening deportation of illegal immigrants to abortion.  For him to claim that deportation of illegals, which is a moral action, is equivalent to an inherently immoral action shows a complete ignorance of Church moral teaching.  The coddling of these terrorists by Church hierarchy is nothing more than someone kissing the hand that stabs them in the back.  I regret that Father Hamel learned that the hard way.  Must more good people die before we wake up?

Is The Pope Hell-Bent On The Death Of Western Civilization?

I don't have to rehash the sad account of Father Jacques Hamel, the French priest who was murdered by Islamic terrorists.  He was beheaded while saying Mass in his parish Church.  I will point out that the French, over the past few years, have literally opened their borders indiscriminately to thousands of middle east "refugees", among them Islamic terrorists.

The pope commented on the murder as he was flying to Poland.  Yes, it is another plane interview with its own slew of inanities.  He correctly stated that it's a war, but then went on to opine that "all religions seek peace" and then started on a "war of interests, money" etc.  He is exactly incorrect when he said that the murder of Father Hamel had nothing to do with religion.  In fact, the two murderers were affiliated with the Islamic State and were engaged in Islamic rituals during the beheading.  In fact, terrorists consider beheading to be mandated by the quran.  Yet the pope tries to reduce the motivations for such barbarism to be "money and interests".  Consider how he reduces the motivations to materialistic advantage.  Is that not rather symptomatic of a progressive and even socialistic mindset?

Last week LifeSiteNews gave us a glimpse into a book written by Cardinal Burke.  He addresses a variety of topics in that book, including the encroachment of Islam.  He states - correctly so, I might add - that Islam is, because of its own creeds, inherently unable to coexist peacefully with other religions (think about that when you see those silly "coexist" bumper strips on cars).  He said that it's important to understand the differences between Islam and Christianity.  I might add that one key difference is, contrary to liberal pipe-dreams, Muslims worship a false idol, not the One True God.  He said that Islam, according to its own doctrine, must also become the state.  Look at Dearborn Michigan.  We need to wake up, both to Islam and the threats of unbridled and illegal immigration.

The LifeSiteNews piece also mentions the warnings of Cardinal Sarah uttered last year about the dangers of Islam.  In the wake of Father Hamel's murder, Cardinal Sarah issued another warning as he asked how many decapitations would it take for European leaders to realize the situation in which the West finds itself.

Other clergy are sounding the alarm as well.  Father George Rutler, a priest from the Hell's Kitchen area of New York City, wrote of the destructive influence of pacifism and called on the west to wake up.   Sadly some refuse to acknowledge the truth.  Following the progressive scripts to perfection, Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville TX likened the deportation of illegal immigrants to abortion.  In other words, he reduced the victims of abortion to political props to justify his progressive proclivities.  Conveniently he forgets that several of the 9/11 terrorists waltzed across the border like so many others.  How many more of these do we now have in the U.S.?

When will our bishops and yes, pope, man up and face the fact that Islam is opposed to Christianity and stop coddling it?

From The Flighty Interview Department - Pope Francis Slandered Donald Trump And More

While returning to Rome from Mexico earlier today, the pope gave yet another disgraceful interview.  Rorate Caeli has the full text of the interview.

When asked about Donald Trump's proposals to curb illegal immigration (Note - The word "illegal" was not mentioned in today's conversation.  That omission, both on the part of the reporters and pope, is utterly disingenuous.), the pope remarked that Trump is not Christian because of his policies.  Ladies and gentlemen, his meaning is clear for he was asked about Trump by name.  My!  Whatever happened to "who am I to judge"?  Or is that phrase reserved only for those who engage in mortal sin that is applauded by progressives?

Those questions are not merely rhetorical.  When was the last time Pope Francis denounced any of the Democratic candidates as being "not Christian" owing to their support of baby-murder, gay perversion of marriage, etc?  For that matter, when did he openly upbraid Obama for ensconcing the funding of abortion in his Obamacare hell-care bill?  I didn't think so.  As evidenced by his chiding of those who adhere to Catholic tradition over the years, the pope is merely continuing his trend of rebuking those holding to common sense if not the Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentlemen, every decent Catholic knows that nations have not only the right but the morally-binding duty to control their borders for the sake of their citizens who have first claim on their solicitude.  In an anthology of posts here, I've linked to a number of sites giving authentic Catholic teaching on the matter, including Summa Theologica.  Quite frankly, it is Trump who seems to be of like mind with the Angelic Doctor as opposed to Pope Francis.  By the way - look at Vatican City via Google Earth.  Yes, it is surrounded by (gasp!) a wall!

Moving down a few paragraphs, the pope is asked about "abortion" and "avoiding pregnancy" for those exposed to the zika virus as a means of settling for the "lesser of two evils".  The pope rightly threw out abortion as a "lesser of two evils", calling it a crime.  He then spoke of "avoiding pregnancy", citing Pope Paul VI's permitting of the use of contraceptives to nuns who were raped.

This is the first I heard that any pope condoned the use of contraceptives for any reason.  I frankly find that difficult to believe.  Most, if not all, contraceptives have abortifacient qualities; that is, they cause the death of the newly-conceived child.  That is why the Church specifies that the only means of spacing children is periodic abstinence during a woman's fertile period.  The pope, by introducing contraceptives into that plane conversation, left an erroneous impression that the usage of contraceptives is now morally permissible.  It is not, by any stretch of the imagination.  Now did the pope mean to leave that impression?  If we say "no", then we must conclude that he's a dunderhead who has no idea what he's saying.  However, after three years, there can be no more room for doubt.  He knows what he's doing and saying.  This bodes ill for Holy Mother Church.

By the way - his trip to Mexico raised some eyebrows.  Rather than rehash it here, I'll link to Catholic World Report.  Read the comments.  They give evidence that many people are waking up and realizing that there is a menace in the Vatican.  Pray for our pope and Church.  Keep your eyes open and rose-colored glasses off your faces; and help others remove their blinders.

Illegal Immigrants Use Little Girl In Shameless Stunt For The Coddling Of Their Behavior

During the parade yesterday, a little girl of Mexican origin rushed through the barricade and handed a note to the pope asking that her illegal-alien parents be allowed to stay in the United States.  Here are some pictures.  It all looked so sweet and spontaneous, but a with a little thought, we can deduce that it was staged.

Consider that if someone else had tried it, security would have been all over that person and he/she would have been unceremoniously ushered away.  I daresay they would even have stopped another child for terrorists have been known to use children as suicide bombers.

Now it's been confirmed - by the progressive illegal-immigration shills themselves - that this spontaneous lovely-moment episode wasn't so spontaneous after all.  Truth Revolt has some details on the plot, as well as the contents of the note given to the pope.  From the Blaze we hear that they simply repeated a similar stunt they executed in Rome several years ago, again exploiting a child.  It was reported that Secret Service agents initially tried to stop her, but the pope waved her over.  I don't know if that was true or if that was just part of the act.  Assuming they weren't in on the stunt, I would hope they are severely disciplined for their negligence.  They are answerable to their superiors, not to the pope who doesn't know diddly-squat about security.  I suspect that if they aren't disciplined then it's a reasonable possibility that they were in on the stunt.

If nothing else, these illegal-immigrant panderers have shown that they don't really care for their own.  What normal parent would ever let their little child go into the street out of their reach?  Ladies and gentlemen, can we say "endangerment of children"?

The video of that episode is going viral.  Let's also spread the truth regarding the deception and lack of ethics of those who engineered this stunt.

New Chicago Archbishop - A Harbinger Of Disaster For The Church

In many ways, the Church hierarchy in the United States was already a mess, with liberals occupying the Sees of key dioceses.  By appointment of Pope Francis, one more such individual, Bishop Blaise Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago to replace the ailing Cardinal George.  Many of us recalled his abysmal wafflings in not standing for true morality.  I wrote over the years about his derelictions, including the forbidding of his priests' participation in the 40 Days for Life campaign and being one of the cowardly bishops who refused to protest Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in 2009.

It didn't take him long to get started on his progressive rampage.  He apparently wasn't pleased that more women weren't involved in his installation Mass and made quite plain that he wants more women involved in "leadership".  Well that should just inspire more priestly vocations (yes, that is sarcastic)!

This past Sunday on Face The Nation, Cupich said of pro-abortion Catholics receiving Holy Communion that "the grace would be instrumental in bringing them to the truth".  What grace?  Is not Holy Communion a Sacrament of the Living?  I'm no moral theologian, but it seems that no grace could accrue to someone in a state of mortal sin until that sin is properly confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Otherwise, instead of grace comes the guilt of the sin of sacrilege.

Two other things that he said during that interview are, to be frank, whoppers.  First he stated that "I would not use the Eucharist, or as they call it 'the Communion rail', as a place to have those discussions in which people should be excluded from the life of the church."  This language has a very familiar ring to it!  Go back five years.  When Cardinal Wuerl was asked about denying Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, he said he wouldn't because the Church "doesn't use communion as a weapon".  My!  They do have those talking points down pat, don't they?

Then Cupich said that "the Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion; it's also a time of forgiveness of sins".  It sure does sound like His Excellency is getting some sacraments confused with one another.  The "time of forgiveness of sins" particularly mortal sins (as is the support of abortion), is within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  It is that authentic forgiveness of sin (requiring real repentance, by the way) that is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily.  Else what you have is an occasion of the mortal sin of sacrilege.  Period.

Last week I observed that the USCCB and many bishops seem to have forgotten that their first job as bishops is to save souls.  Read this post, particularly the first paragraph that quotes the Baltimore Catechism on this matter.  It seems that not only has Bishop Cupich forgotten that basic truth, especially with regards to so-called "immigration reform" but he even had the unmitigated audacity to declare that "immigration reform", as defined by progressives, is God's agenda!  In his nonsensical statement, he says that "God has called us to a better life".  What defines this "better life"?  A life lived for God, marked by obedience to His laws, prayer, reception of the sacraments - or merely a more advantaged life?  The two aren't necessarily opposed to each other, but neither are they equivalent to each other.  It seems His Excellency doesn't get it.

Under this current pontificate, must we dread similar episcopal appointments in the future?

US Bishops Push For Amnesty - Part And Parcel Of Larger Corruption?

The US bishops seem to have interpreted last week's elections as a referendum (in part) on the Obamanista regime's attempt to grant large-scale amnesty and loosen our borders.  To be fair, they are correct in understanding that most people of common sense understand these policies to be crippling to the US and helpful to no one in the long run.

They - that is, the leadership of the bishops - are in a tizzy over this development.  As you might recall, they've been caught accepting millions of dollars (through grants to Catholic Charities) for the express purpose of absorbing the millions; see this link.  If those big ole' GOP meanies get their way, why, that spigot might be stopped!  Note: "spigot" in this context means millions of our tax dollars flowing into corrupt Catholic Charities coffers.

Therefore, in complete disregard for the will of the American citizens - you know, the ones whose wallets are being raided for these Catholic Charities grants - the bishops, from their meeting in Baltimore, are urging that we support the Messiah Most Miserable in this latest power grab.  Here are details from Huffington Post.  I know, some of you are going to dismiss that link as liberal wishful thinking.  Would that were true - but they're right as you can see from this USCCB-controlled site.

But might there be another motive besides the filthy lucre?  Might someone in high places in the Vatican have a stake in allowing the influx of Central Americans, including Hondurans, into the US?  The "Hondurans" reference might give you a hint of my theory.  It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras might be pulling a lot of strings to get the US bishops to screech for de facto open borders.

Does he have the influence?  He most certainly does.  As the acknowledged leader of the group of eight cardinals selected to advise the pope, he has the pope's ear and consequently many churchmen might be inclined to pay him quite a bit of deference.  If you read a bit of that article, you'll notice that one goal of their's is to give more power to the various bishops' conferences; at this time, they have no canonical authority over their member bishops.  Of course this would include the USCCB.

This leader of the Council of Cardinals has shown himself to be a counselor for evil in the various dealings that he has.  He is president of Caritas International.  This organization sits on the International Council of the World Social Forum.  In other words, Caritas has an active role in setting goals and priorities for the World Social Forum.  Among the goals and priorities of the World Social Forum is the promotion of abortion and homosexuality: two anti-life realities that are completely contrary to Christ and the teaching of His Church.  Please read this report by American Life League and watch the related video.

The Tablet has an article about the bishops' debate regarding Holy Communion for divorced/remarried - that is, adulterous - Catholics.  Cardinal Kasper led the way, but Maradiaga was right beside him.  Cardinal Burke stood for the Church's teaching as it has stood for nearly 2000 years; last week he received persecution from his brother bishops in high places and yes, the pope.  Remember - Maradiaga has the pope's ear.  In his piece entitled "Burke And Another Translation Error", Robert Royal rightly includes Maradiaga in a list of "unreliable counselors" to the pope.

I have here an anthology of posts dealing with Maradiaga: Caritas (discussed above), his envirowhackoism, and his push to get the US to assimilate Hondurans into the US.  He seems to be working in concert with the Honduran president to ship as many of their problematic citizenry into the US as possible.  See here and here.

So this gang of eight wants the conferences to have more power?  Let us pray that they - at least the USCCB and its state counterparts - are abolished.  This bunch is trying to amass power for itself, as its push for amnesty illustrates.

The USCCB's Corrosive And Deadly "Social Justice" Teachings With Their Poster Boy John Sweeney

Yesterday John Zmirak published an article called "The Myth Of Catholic Social Teaching".  I commend it to your reading.  He basically states that the Magisterium speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.  Some issues such as abortion and contraception involve the direct commission of mortal sin.  Those are intrinsic evils; no amount of debate is permissible.  We do not commit murder - period.

There is also the matter of care for the poor.  That is a charge laid upon us.  However, good people can disagree as to the best methods to implement such care.  Sometimes it's clear that those in high places of the Church are exercising faulty logic in their approaches to matters such as alleviating poverty, etc.  In those circumstances, we are not obliged to give obedience to those directives as they do not carry magisterial weight.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said so himself when he attempted to have a letter delivered to a US bishops' meeting.  It said - in part - "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

It is becoming all too clear that the USCCB advocates progressive positions on matters such as illegal immigration, self-defense rights, and even the atrocities being committed by Muslims in the Middle East.  I blogged on the muslim matter last week, chiding the USCCB for urging more useless "dialogue" with thugs.  I've no doubt that the USCCB dismisses my words.  Sadly, they probably also dismiss the words of Archbishop Emil Nona, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul.  He and four other Mosul bishops have been driven from their dioceses, along with countless thousands of their flocks.  He warns that what we see there could well be a harbinger of things to come in the western world - that means us, folks!  I will quote the archbishops's own words: "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.  You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.  If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has issued his own, very similar warning.

I think there are two things Archbishop Nona is trying to say.  First, the US bishops must stop their simpering and groveling pleas for "dialogue".  They are an abysmal waste of time at best and at worst, they serve to distract us when we should be preparing for real action to protect our families and our very culture.

Second, we must stop "welcoming them in our homes".  That means we must stop the floods of immigrants that pour across our borders.  Make no mistake about it; the bulk of illegals are young men, not helpless little waifs.  How many of these young men are muslim terrorists?  We don't know because there is no effective screening of those who cross the Rio Grande.  But again, we hear the USCCB telling us to "welcome the stranger".  Never mind that these "strangers" may well be murderers awaiting their orders from their muslim commanders.  By the way - there are reports that ISIS groups are in Mexico, planning an attack on the US with car bombs and the such.  USCCB, shall we "welcome those strangers"?

A gentleman named John Snyder posted an article on Crossmap a few days ago, taking the USCCB to task for their stance on gun control, given the threats of terrorism that are looming in the United States.  I quote one salient statement:  "USCCB should terminate its disgraceful support for the criminalization of private handgun possession. Such criminalization would eliminate the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, including terrorists.  Catholic clergy should abandon pacifism and see reality for what it is. People need guns for protection. As Christ Our Lord proclaimed, 'The man without a sword must sell his cloak and buy one,' according to Luke 22:36"  Hear!  Hear!

So why, oh why, does the USCCB insist on parroting the Obamanista's talking points on illegal immigration, muslims and gun control?  In a word, follow the money, for the USCCB certainly does.  I wrote an article for Defend Life recently (look on page 7 of this link), detailing the obvious links between the USCCB shilling for porous borders and allowance of everyone crossing the Rio Grande.  The money trail was so blatant; they aren't even trying to hide it.

There you have it.  One consequence of the USCCB's wrong-headed stances on these issues will most likely be an increase of murders, if not outright terrorism - both because they favor unfettered admission through our borders AND the removal of our ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

"But that's merely conjecture!" some might say.  Fair enough, but it's reasonable to believe this to be a very solid probability.  AND we have evidence of current corrosion of faith and morals by USCCB-esque social teaching.  That evidence comes from the mouth of the corrosion victim himself - John Sweeney!

John Sweeney
Thank USCCB social teaching for this!

Sweeney was recently honored by the AFL-CIO for his union work.  The erstwhile head of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU, at that award function, credited "Catholic social teaching" for giving him the impetus for his work.  I've detailed a lot of his work here and here.  The second link details the two occasions in which I led pickets of Sweeney public events.  I know I gave you a lot to read, so I'll close with a picture showing the beneficial impact of "USCCB social teaching" on John Sweeney.

Recall what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said - there are areas regarding prudential judgment in which we can disagree with Church leaders.  Many times, particularly with the USCCB, we must oppose them outright.

Blind Bishops Following Governmental Grants

In the August 13th issue of The Wanderer, we see published an article by Dexter Duggan entitled "Bishops on Wrong Side of the Fence".  This is in reference to the US bishops' take on the massive influx of illegal aliens coming across our southern border.  He makes a number of salient points on which I'd like to comment.

First he correctly opines that "no matter how good the original intentions of a political strategy that has produced damaging results, the USCCB needs to make its overriding priority the advocacy of justice and reform in immigrants’ home countries, not lawbreaking focused on forcing entry into one country alone, the United States."  But as we all know, the bishops continue to echo the Obamanista's demand for amnesty and porous borders.  We see NYC Cardinal Dolan sidling up with rabidly pro-abortion Chuck Schumer to shill for "immigration reform".  (Get a load of that picture; it's almost as disgusting as the picture of Dolan yokking it up with the Messiah Most Miserable at the Al Smith Dinner in 2012).  After calling citizens concerned about this massive influx (that is, people like me) "unbiblical", "inhumane" and "un-American", Dolan garnered some well-deserved criticism by Ann Coulter; I stand with her on this.

Moving down the Wanderer article, we see some statements by Barbara Wilson, a California reporter and commentator who has corresponded with the Wanderer.  She too hit some nails on the head.  She said, "As for the hierarchy of the Church, bishops are glib in their comments about caring for the stranger and now say that amnesty is ‘pro-life’  This smacks of too much politics for me.  On top of that, they ignore the millions of dollars Catholic Charities collects on contracts with the feds to house and care for illegals in locations across the county.  I attend church regularly and have never heard that Catholic Charities in the state has a fund to care for immigrants and many churches are offering temporary housing,  thus the dependence on federal largess.  I think their whole attitude is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical, and is, quite frankly, politically motivated. As someone said, ‘What would Jesus say?’”

Ain't it just peculiar how the bishops don't like to mention that teensy detail of the millions of dollars that Catholic Charities received for the express purpose of handling the burgeoning number of illegals - illegals that, at the time of granting, had not yet arrived?  I suppose when one considers that the bulk of funding that Catholic Charities receives comes from federal grants (that is, our tax dollars at work), one might understand the lack of mention here, but even that is too much to swallow.  A number of us have detailed some of the financing and other political maneuverings that have paved the way for this artificially-induced influx of illegals, the bulk of whom are not innocent little tykes fleeing desperate situations.  See here, here, here, here, here,  I realize that these posts (with related links) are a lot to read, but it's important that you invest the time to do so.  This is information that you'll not read in the lame-brain main-stream media, be that media secular or diocesan.

Let's move on now to another excellent article, this one written by Christopher Manion entitled "A Plea to America's Bishops".  He touches upon the tragedy in Iraq and Syria and the fact that Christians and other minorities are literally fleeing for their lives, as countless relatives have been butchered by Muslims.  He also makes mention that the response of many western countries - including the United States - has been one of passivity and indifferentism.  At a parish in Rome where he met with several mid-east refugees, the Pope basically told them to "move on" and "encourage one another".  Cardinal Wuerl's letter to the priests (see below) indicates that the Pope has sent "a significant sum of money" there - money that will run out.  While in Jordan, His Holiness thanked that country for welcoming Syrian refugees, then went on a tirade that laid the onus of the massacre on "arms dealers".  With all due respect to His Holiness, he's all wet on that one.  Those Muslims engaged in jihad are squarely to blame, not "arms dealers".  I don't believe "arms dealers" are supplying the knives that the jihadist monsters use to behead babies nor the scaffolding on which they hang and crucify Christians.  But I digress.

Manion goes on to ask why the US bishops aren't as solicitous for the welfare of these mid-east refuges as they are for the free passage, amnesty and perks for the illegals coming across our southern border.  The fact is that many if not most of these "children" coming across our borders are teen-aged boys - many of them with gang-related tattoos all over their bodies.  "Fleeing gang violence"?  No, they're bringing gang violence, often by recruiting other members in the retention centers.  Whatever else they are, they are not helpless refugees, as are those fleeing for their lives in the mid-east.

Manion ends by asking "that our bishops will focus their efforts on the Iraqi Christians. Ask them to join us in urging our government to welcome them as the legitimate refugees they really are."  Sadly, I don't think that will happen.  The US bishops are too much in the back pockets of the feds.

In this week's edition of the Catholic Standard, there was a goodly bit of focus on the mid-east situation.  Truth be told, how could they ignore that elephant in the living room?  In it was published a letter from Cardinal Wuerl to his priests stating that prayers and Masses should be offered.  Clearly these are needed, but where are the suggestions for practical assistance?  Would His Eminence had been so ethereal if the topic at hand was the illegal immigrants?  I think not!

The bishops will follow the dictates of the Obama regime as much as they can without forfeiting too much of their moral capital.  The Obamanistas, in turn, have shown a disturbing partiality to Muslim leaders and positions.  It may well be that they share the jihadist ambition for the destruction of Christianity in the mid-east; heaven knows they certainly are trying to marginalize Christians in this country.  As long as the US bishops insist on prostituting themselves by accepting and even soliciting governmental grants, they will slavishly follow the lead of the Messiah Most Miserable.  We may safely assume that our borders will not be porous to those from the mid-east AND we may also assume that no federal grant money will be made available to Catholic Charities to accept mid-east refugees.

We must pray for our bishops, even as we boycott every "social justice" appeal for money that they put out.  At this time, their concept of "social justice" comes at the direction of the progressives in power.