With All Due Respect, Michael Voris, You Cannot Put Lipstick On A Pig

Well, you can try, but you'll only engage in an exercise in futility.  In today's Vortex, he tries to chide those of us who are rightly concerned about the nonsense spewing forth from the Vatican.  Voris trips all over himself while so doing.  I'll elaborate before I post the video.

• Look at the title: "The Most Misunderstood Pope In History".  Doesn't that make you want to ask why, in all the church's 2000-year history, Pope Francis has earned this title?  Please don't blame it on the internet and blogs, for they were in force during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  These two pontiffs never had too much trouble making themselves understood (efforts of left-wing media notwithstanding).
• From 1:03 on, we hear an apology (?) for the pope's "off-hand way of talking".  "Does he guard his words and consider that he should be much more circumspect in what he says and to whom?  Well, it's just clear that's not his style...That's who he is.  He has become the most ill-quoted and misrepresented pope in the history of the church".  Leaving aside (for the moment) the exaggeration in that last sentence, can we see "cause and effect" being made plain?  If anyone is careless in his speaking and with whom he speaks, he can expect all sorts of misquotes and misinterpretations to ensue.  These misquotes, etc are an expected result of sloppiness in communication.  That's true for anybody, as common sense dictates.  When the speaker holds a position of great responsibility, his/her moral responsibility for misunderstanding increases commensurately for greater is the damage that can be done.
• Let's elaborate on the "that's not his style" quip.  For now I'll consider Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, for they too dealt with hostile newsprint and electronic social media.  I'm quite certain that both men had their own "styles".  However, it seems to me that they never let their "styles" dominate their considerations in how best to communicate their message.  They were willing to lay their "styles" aside so that the truths that they were trying communicate would not be obfuscated by delivery styles.  They no doubt hoped to minimize any media distortion.
• At 1:26, he continues.  "Does he need to stop talking to so many people in such an off-handed fashion?  Well, that argument might be easily made, but face it, he's not gonna do that; that's not who he is."  We'll stop right there.  His "off-handed fashion of talking" is not an indelible feature of "who he is", any more than it would be for any of us.  What is now an indelible feature of "who he is" is that he is the Vicar of Christ.  He holds great responsibility.  Granted, not all - in fact, very few - of his words will bear the weight of Church teaching.  BUT many will place great stock in the most careless quip he utters.  Right or wrong, that's a fact; will His Holiness continue to cause scandal to them? 
• At 2:04 he mentions the interview (second one) with Scalfari and the subsequent "Vatican clarifications".  He opines that the list  of speculations is growing monotonous.  Be that as it may, please review the three previous "bullet points" for the most probable causes behind this malady.
• At 3:21 he states that "even the Vatican itself doesn't know what the Pope said and then has to run around to find out what he said, who he said it to, and put out all kinds of fires whipped up in part by Catholics".  The first part of that sentence may well be correct.  It does seem like internal communications in the Vatican are an abysmal disaster.  Why doesn't the Vatican know what he said?  Without that basic knowledge, how can adequate translations be prepared in any timely fashion?  It is that disheveled state of affairs that is the cause of "all kinds of fires", not the Catholics who dare to notice and state what is all too achingly obvious.
• At 3:40 he mentions the interview regarding "civil unions".  Noting the various definitions that different nations place on given terms, might it not have been prudent of His Holiness to at least alert his communication office so that they could have prepared appropriate and timely translations?  That might have helped prevent some of the hub-bub that Voris decried.

Moral of story?  Pray that the pope learn from these disasters and take responsibility for what issues forth from his mouth.  Real spiritual peril can result.

By the way - recall the first Scalfari interview?  You know, the one that really wasn't an interview for it had not been reviewed by the Vatican but still managed to be posted to the Vatican website?  It was pulled down in short order - but guess what?  After the subsequent interview a week or two ago, the first interview reappeared on the Vatican website.  Father Zuhlsdorf's blog has more detail - and today it came down again!  Is there any kind of coordination in that office?  I wrote a little ditty to (dis)honor this state of affairs; it can be sung to "The Hokey-Pokey".  I'll post it before the Vortex.

They put the interview in.

They pull the interview out.

They put the interview in,

And they spin it all about.

They spew Lombardi's nonsense

And they turn it inside out.

That's what it's all about!

Obama, Bishops And Child-Trafficking

My colleague at Les Femmes has noticed that this massive immigration of children from locales south has all the stench of child-trafficking.  Oh, many nefarious purposes can be served with this sudden influx of immigrants:

• Michael Voris pointed out that the Texas political landscape could be drastically altered
• This is a perfect implementation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
• The bishops think they might increase their numbers in the churches, although these immigrants have historically become secularized in the US.

On Saturday, I proposed the possibility that the bishops who accepted grants from the government to facilitate the massive immigration are now complicit in child-trafficking.  Perhaps it wasn't their intention but they cannot now ignore what is transpiring before their very eyes.  Because it is quite possible that they are blind to the child-trafficking because of the grants, I'll call the grants what they most likely are - bribes.

The bodies of small children have been found on the shores of the Rio Grande after drowing therein.  We also hear that parents of girls about to be shipped here give their daughters contraceptives - in case they're raped on their way to the US.  What kind of parents, or government would expose their children to that risk of violence?  What kind of bishop is complicit and silent in the face of the kind of travesty to which Mexico and the Central American countries are inflicting upon their own children?  A bribed bishop?  Readers, if any of you think that's impossible, please explain your reasoning.

Another blogging colleague at Connecticut Catholic Corner has this to say about the Pope's remarks on illegal immigration.  Spot on.

Carhart's Fifth Abortion Botch-Job In Germantown Results In Another Woman Taken Away By Ambulance

Almost two weeks ago in Germantown Maryland (July 2) an ambulance pulled up to Germantown Reproductive Health Services and took yet another injured woman to the hospital (presumably Shady Grove).  Since Carhart set up shop there and started murdering babies in the latter parts of their pregnancies, four ambulances have rolled into that parking lot to take women to get real medical help.  In reality, Carhart injured five women; the first, Jennifer Morbelli, was taken to the hospital after her family could not reach Carhart.  She subsequently died.

Operation Rescue has more details here, along with video.  You will note that this incident required the assistance of two ambulance crews.  OR suggests that the Maryland Board of Physicians be contacted and that we demand an honest investigation.  I concur, with a caveat.

In November, the entire State of Maryland government, from the governor on down, is up for election.  I'd suggest that all Maryland citizens of good will do all in their power to keep Anthony Brown from moving into the Statehouse after his boss Martin O'Malley leaves.  As long as the Democrat party of death holds the reins of power, there will be no honest investigation of these abortionists.  Why do we think Carhart set up shop in Maryland in the first place?  O'Malley, Brown and Joshua Sharfstein have been openly wined and dined by Maryland NARAL at their various fundraisers.  Should the Dems retain power, they will NOT upset their gravy-trains.  No success in cleaning up Germantown will occur until we see clean-up in Annapolis and in Montgomery County.

The Pope And Voris On The Immigration Situation

First I'll deal with what the Holy Father said - versus what some dream that he said.  Today he issued a message to an immigration colloquium happening in Mexico City.  He said, "I would also like to draw attention to the tens of thousands of children who migrate alone, unaccompanied, to escape poverty and violence: This is a category of migrants from Central America and Mexico itself who cross the border with the United States under extreme conditions and in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain. They are increasing day by day. This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin."

"These children be welcomed and protected".  By whom?  At first glance this could appear that the Holy Father is joining the chorus of southwestern US bishops who are clamoring for a de facto collapse of our national borders to our south.  But consider what is going on.  The Central American kids are being shuttled by Mexico, in hurried and unsafe manners, to the Rio Grande border.  The Holy Father today spoke to Mexican leaders, not US leaders.  Might he not have been chiding them for just shoving the Central American kids north instead of welcoming and protecting them?  He also spoke of "promoting development in their countries of origin".  This is a far cry from Cardinal Maradiaga's thinly-disguised rant that he and his president be allowed to ship their problematic children north rather than take up their own responsibilities towards their own citizens.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the southwestern bishops may have more than humanitarian interests in the immigration of these children, having received millions in Federal grants over the years in preparation for their cooperation.  Michael Voris has a take on this that I didn't consider, particularly as it relates to changing the political landscape of Texas.  Here is today's Vortex.

Another Papal Interview - A Planned Debacle?

Remember last October when Pope Francis granted that interview with Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica?  That's when he let loose with less-than-papacy-worthy comments such as:

• "Proselytism is solemn nonsense". 
• "Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them."

I need not elaborate (I would hope) on why these statements are problematic if not downright heretical.  I did elaborate on some reactions and "damage-control efforts" here and here.

One might have hoped that the Holy Father would have learned not to give interviews at all, let alone to Eugenio Scalfari.  Alas, such was not to be!  In fact, we may have reason to believe that the resulting chaos was intended.

Last week saw another interview - with more lunatic quotes.  In this conversation (not recorded again, by the way), the Pope allegedly estimated that 2% of priests are pedophiles. That's 1 priest out of every 50 priests; I'd call that a bit of exaggeration to say the least.  He also stated that there was "room for maneuver" when it comes to priestly celibacy, going so far as to use the term "problem of celibacy".

Immediately Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See's Press Office, went into "damage control" mode - much as he did last autumn after the first fiasco interview.  Here's his statement, published in Zenit.  Just as he did last year, Lombardi attributes the indignation about the off-kilter papal remarks to words that "cannot be attributed to the pope".  He ended his statement with this about quotations: "Is this an omission or explicit recognition that this is an attempt to manipulate some naive readers?"

Father Lombardi sounded quite indignant.  I might be inclined to believe him - if this all wasn't a repeat performance of the first interview and its subsequent damage-control.  When this interview with Scalfari happened last week, both the pope and Fr Lombardi knew what to expect.  I'm coming to believe that they wanted this subsequent hub-bub to occur, so that tradition-defying statements could be issued, with responsibility for those statements being attributed to a "straw-man" - in this case, Scalfari.  The only other possibility is that the Holy Father, the Director of the Holy See's Press Office and others are incorrigible dunces who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  That statement is very relevant, in two respects.

1. Either it refers to the Holy Father and his underlings in the Vatican who are (seemingly) falling for the wiles of the Scalfaris of the world.  OR
2. It refers to the Catholic populace at large, who are being asked/cajoled/browbeat into believing that the Vatican is simply an "innocent victim" rather than cunning manipulators of the trust of the Catholic faithful.

Pope Francis is the Holy Father.  We must pray for him.  In order to do so, we must look at situations with rose-colored glasses removed.  We must have no hesitancy in facing what is plain as day.  Of course (I speak particularly to my fellow bloggers), we must not be silent.

Catholic Bloggers, We May NOT Surrender To Francis-Funk!

Two months ago, I put up a post to exhort my fellow bloggers not to throw up their hands in the face of the pandemonium emanating from the Vatican.  Please review it.

I am not the only one to notice the malaise that has recently manifested itself in the Catholic blogging community.  The ones I'll cite below are observations of Catholic British bloggers.  They write on the heels of the de facto quashing of their (and my) fellow blogger who authored "Protect the Pope".  The blogger is a deacon who was stifled by his bishop for standing for Catholic tradition.  As an ordained deacon, he is bound by obedience to his bishop.  Most of us, being lay, are not so constrained - or shackled and gagged as the case may be.

Father Ray Blake of England, four months after the stifling of Protect the Pope, put up a piece asking "Where Have All The Bloggers Gone?"  His concluding sentence troubles me. I quote, "Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church.  Today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence".  William Oddie of CatholicHerald.UK, elaborating on Father Blake's piece, seems to agree with him.  He admits that much of the silence has been caused by the uncertainty from the Vatican and the subsequent discouragement felt by Catholic bloggers.  I encourage you to read both pieces and their accompanying comments.

With the notion that "loyalty is expressed through silence", I take strenuous exception.  Think about it.  What message is communicated when we are encouraged to be silent about the Pope in order to be loyal to him?  That itself is rather uncomplimentary of the pope; silence often communicates its own message rather unmistakably.  Would Father Blake et al ever dream that silence about Pope Benedict XVI and his writings would have been a proper expression of loyalty to him?  If not, what's the difference?

Let me take a minute to explain why I will continue to point out gaffes emanating from papal interviews and the Vatican.  Not every utterance of the Holy Father constitutes Church teaching - certainly not the interviews, off-the-cuff remarks, etc.  There are those Catholics, particularly converts, who might have the idea that everything the Pope says/does is representative of Church teaching.  Now think back to Holy Thursday, when Pope Francis broke Canon law to wash women's feet.  One person was understandably confused.  She reasoned that if Church law could be broken with impunity on Holy Thursday, why should anyone hold Church teaching about contraception in any higher regard?  I came out point blank and stated that the pope is a human being and what he did was a violation of Church law; I don't know his reasons and I don't really care.  He erred.  What else could I tell her?  Anything else - including silence - would have been a blatant lie to her face.  She deserved better than that; she deserved the truth.  I did not make the pope look bad in so doing; he did that by himself.  Later I will post on the ridiculous notion of the Pope going to preach at an evangelical church - with no intention of preaching the fullness of truth to them.  Don't they deserve better than that?  My fellow bloggers, if you come across a fellow Catholic with similar questions looking for answers, will you wallow in your on dejection and just shrug your shoulders and walk away in silence from that hurting person?

Another blogger named Mundabor proposes that "Now, More Than Ever, It Is The Right Time To Blog".  He's right.  This is no time to surrender to despondency, discouragement and even cynicism.  Too many bloggers have been doing precisely that, I regret to say.  Just during the past few weeks I pulled from my blog roll (right side bar) two Catholic blogs that had been essentially abandoned by their owners (one for over a year); will I have to purge more?

Fellow Catholic Bloggers!  This is no time to go wimpy-wobbly against our blogging apostolates!   I think I remember one of the comments on the other two blogs, written by a Catholic blogger.  He/she wrote that they didn't blog because their heart wasn't in it after the election of Francis.  To that I reply, "So what?  Blog and speak anyway!  You don't feel like it?  What difference does that make?  Shake off your doldrums and start hitting your keyboards again - now!"

Additional Information Regarding Illegal Immigration - Including REAL Church Teaching

Yesterday I raised a number of questions about the sudden increase in the number of children being sent from Mexico and points south of there to the United States.  I had suggested that perhaps the children were seized from their parents.  Another possibility might be that Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and other countries are emptying their orphanages and juvenile detention centers and literally dumping their problems and responsibilities into our laps.

Read about the deal cut between Mexico and Guatemala.  They call it the Southern Border Program to Improve Passage.  It sounds so nice and official, doesn't it?  Unlike the US today, Mexico takes its border control responsibilities seriously - particularly to its south.  However, Mexico is cutting its immigrants a break, provided that their ultimate destination is the United States via our porous southern border.  People coming into Mexico will receive a "Regional Visitor's Card", allowing them to stay in Mexico for up to 3 days - enough time for them to make their way to the northern border.  Of course other countries such as Honduras and El Salvador will be sending their migrants through Mexico, too.  Wanna bet that the Obama regime is in on the scheme?

We also hear that on Friday some Central American leaders pressed Vice President Biden to "improve migrant rights".  One might wonder why Biden didn't retort that these countries should be addressing their national ills that would impel their citizens to leave their countries.  But again, Biden is in on the scheme.  One of these (so-called) Central American "leaders" was Jorge Ramon Hernandez, president of Honduras.  He threatened to continue the rapid influx of Honduran children "unless immigration reform" happens.  That's nonsensical.  Suppose the US "reformed" immigration to his liking; does that mean he'd stop sending Honduran children?  But wait!  Let's leave that irony aside for the time being!  Didn't we just read of another Honduran leader trying to cajole the US into accepting Honduran children - "problem children" to be precise?  Read yesterday's post!  That other Honduran leader, closely echoing his president (and NOT Church teaching) is Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga.  They're spouting the same talking points, hoping we won't notice.

As far as Church teaching goes on the matter of immigration, might not the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas have something to say on the matter?  Here is the second part of the first part of his work; scroll to Article 3.  John Horvat has commentary on it.  Time prohibits me from going into a full analysis.  Suffice it to say that the Angelic Doctor clearly states that a nation has the right and responsibility to control who gets to enter into the nation and if/how immigrants assimilate into that nation.  St Thomas states that the nation's leaders have a responsibility to secure the best interests of the nation and its citizens.

Getting back to the massive shipment of Central American children to the US, one must wonder if the USCCB is being complicit in what may be a child-trafficking scheme.  With the millions of grants they've received these past two years, do they care?

Regarding Illegal Immigration, Here Are Questions The Liberals And USCCB Refuse To Answer

I'm going to follow up on yesterday's posting with some observations and questions - mostly questions, for there seem to be many questions that aren't being asked.  Who know?  Perhaps these questions are being actively stifled.  Well, I'll ask them (in no particular order) and hope that this serves to wake some folks up.

Today I received my newsletter from Help Save Maryland, a conservative organization in Maryland.  They in turn reprinted a National Review article, called "The Moral Crisis On Our Southern Border" by Victor Davis Hanson.  He rightly points out that the bulk of these children are not Mexican; rather, they hail from Central America.  Since Mexico (ironically) has much tougher immigration policies than does the United States, how can it be that these children were not turned away at Mexico's southern border?  Did Mexico admit them because they wanted them shipped to the United States?  If so, for what purpose(s)?

Hanson asks some questions that bear review, and I'll "copy-and-paste".  What sort of callous parents simply send their children as pawns northward without escort, in selfish hopes of soon winning for themselves either remittances or eventual passage to the U.S? What sort of government allows its vulnerable youth to pack up and leave, without taking any responsibility for such mass flight?

These questions deserve answers, as do the following questions that arise because of Hanson's.

• There are thousands of kids coming across.  Did their parents willingly send their children abroad, or were they pressured to do so?  I have difficulty believing that thousands of parents could be so roguish and callous as to just send them away on a train.  Could it be that those children were seized from their parents?
• Assuming that the kids were indeed sent ahead of their parents to be tools for their own immigration to the US, what tracking mechanisms (if any) were put in place so that these parents could eventually find their children?  The whole procedure seems so hodge-podge (at least north of the border) that I don't see how any reunion would be possible.
• Regarding the de facto abandonment of these children by their parents OR the seizure of the children from their parents, why do we hear nary a peep from Catholic bishops on either side of the Rio Grande regarding this practice?  When it comes to deportation, the US bishops are among the first to pitch royal snit-fits about "disrupting the unity of families".  Now that the families are being shattered south of the border in the process of the kids coming here, where, oh where, is that noble indignation of the bishops?  Why do we hear crickets on that score from the USCCB?

Rush Limbaugh pointed out a few days ago that the mobilization of all these kids was no spontaneous event; there had to be a considerable amount of organization to pull it off.  I bet even Limbaugh did not know how much the Church establishment was part and parcel of all that coordination.  Father Z reprinted news that he in turn obtained from Liberty News.  As early as 2010, dioceses along the Mexican border received grants from both Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security for the express purposes of preparing them to receive this increased influx of illegal immigrants.  So when you hear of border dioceses "opening their doors", etc, realize that a large part of all this "generosity" is your tax dollars at work.  The chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Migration, Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, told attendees of the conference last week that "it is not because we have a political agenda..it is something we are impelled to do".  Yes, I'd imagine that millions of dollars in DHS and HHS grants would be quite "impelling".  As for "political agendas", how else will the Democrats buy enough voters to keep them in power?

At that same Migration Conference held last week, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, president of Caritas International, gave yet another pitch at trying to inflict a guilt-trip on good people wanting to defend their borders.  His failure to do so was overshadowed by his inaccurate knowledge of world history.  He stated, "Can you imagine if St Paul tried to get into Europe nowadays? Rather than being welcomed with unusual kindness he would probably be classed as an undocumented migrant and sent back home."  Your Eminence, most of the western world at that time, including Europe, was part and parcel of the Roman Empire - and Paul was a Roman citizen.  Under no circumstances would he have been considered an immigrant, let alone illegal.  Earlier he made a similar (and common) gaffe about Jesus "living as a migrant".  He is referring to the Holy Family's flight into Egypt.  I point out that at that time, both Egypt and Israel had been subsumed into the Roman Empire.  So here we see yet again more conflation of Scripture and world history on the part of these progressives.

In that same speech he made a startling admission (probably inadvertently).  "Many of these children are from my own country, Honduras. They flee gangs who want to induct them into a life where they will surely die a violent death at a young age."  Your Eminence, before you come to the US to chide us for defending our country from a swell of immigrants that we cannot assimilate, you and your brother Honduran bishops would do well to address the problems in your own country that seem to be making life in Honduras miserable.  You will not be addressing the issues in Honduras by shipping them north of the Rio Grande!

By the way - the House of Representatives has nixed Obama's $3.7 billion "emergency request".  Will that dry up the DHS and HHS grants to the churches?  We hope!

Pelosi And USCCB Make Buffoons Of Themselves Over The Illegal Alien Situation

With the rather "sudden" influx of young children being put on buses and being shipped to the US - rendering them illegal immigrants, the USCCB is once again doing obeisance to their progressive sugar-daddies by getting behind Obama's request for nearly $4 billion to (ahem!) address this problem.  They are being lauded and cheered in this foolishness by none other than Nancy Pelosi.

She has taken the occasion to wax lyrical about the "eloquence of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops" in their discussions about the influx.  Pssst!  Hey Nancy!  A couple of points!

1. They ceased calling themselves the "National Conference of Catholic Bishops" several decades ago!  They are now the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops!  Got that?
2. You certainly had no fond words to say when they were actually acting like Catholic bishops in decrying abortion and the contraception mandate!  Your fondness for their eloquence seems to be attuned to whether they are going lockstep with the Cloward-Piven strategy versus the Magisterium!

As far as these busloads of kids coming in, has it dawned on these USCCB types - and their brother bishops south of the Rio Grande - that they should be rebuking their parents for just shoving their children away from them?  Has it dawned on them that they should be urging these parents to (wait for it!) raise their own children?

I for one think it's rather telling how all this seems to be happening in a coordinated fashion.  How did all these Mexican children come to be on those buses?  There are thousands of them; the collection and shipping of the kids to the US took some effort, and not just on the part of "desperate parents".  Of course the USCCB seems to be cheering on the influx - almost as on cue.  Are these kids meant to be the vanguard for their parents, so that they can join them (and become Democrat voters)?  I mentioned briefly the Cloward-Piven Strategy.  I'd suggest all read up on it, for we are seeing it being implemented right now.

Father Marcel Guarnizo: We Must Defend Life And Family Openly

Father Marcel Guarnizo (yes, the same who was expelled from the Archdiocese of Washington because he withheld Holy Communion from a practicing lesbian two years ago) gave an interview to Zenit that was released today.  Father is now working with the World Congress of Families and is focusing on training Catholic leaders in central and eastern Europe.

In this interview, Father expressed hope that he sees in Russia and other eastern countries that have suffered under tyranny for much of the twentieth century.  He believes that signs of vitality that he sees there might offer some hope for western Europe and the United States of America, both writhing in the throes of the culture of death and the resulting demographic winter.

Let's take Father's words to heart.  Everyone of us - particularly the ordained - has a responsibility to speak out in defense of faith and life.