Pope Francis Channeling Juan Peron?

As we all know, Pope Francis is an Argentine native.  It is said that he is sympathetic to "liberation theology", condemned by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.  Pope Francis' sympathies to it have been evidenced over the past few years. Last week, Leonardo Boff, a leading proponent of the flawed thought system in the 1980s (and former Franciscan priest), said of Pope Francis "he is one of us".  He even indicated that Pope Francis solicited him for input for Laudato Si.  Unless Pope Francis explicitly repudiates this, I've no reason to doubt Boff's allegations.  Recall that over two years ago, a former Soviet spy claimed that "liberation theology" was a thought system invented by the KGB so that Marxist thought could be insinuated in the thinking and policies of various church bodies.  The KGB might well have found a willing ally in Pope Francis.

Liberation theology might not have been the only mental poison that Pope Francis contracted in Argentina.  Recall how Juan and Eva Peron had a virtual stranglehold on that country as they nationalized the economy, driving it to ruin.  Yes, they did much by hoodwinking much of the populace (like the Obamas managed to do for so long), but some heavy-handedness was also used.  Read this wikipedia entry and go to the "opposition and repression" section.  Bearing in mind that this wikipedia piece seems somewhat sympathetic to the Perons, even the author cannot ignore the way that Peron opponents were treated and that the Perons did hold both Mussolino and Hitler in some admiration.

We've seen how the pope seems to be emulating the Perons as he expunges from Vatican posts those who differ with him, just as Peron did at various universities and other places.  On the day after Christmas, Pope Francis ordered Cardinal Muller to expel three priests from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  The order was given without any explanation.  Read the article to get a glimpse of the atmosphere of fear that seems to permeate the Vatican.

There is also reason to believe that the pope (or at least his operatives) are behind the ongoing smear campaign against the four dubia cardinals, particularly Cardinal Burke.  From EWTN, we read that on Christmas Day, Leonardo Boff (yes, the one mentioned in the first paragraph of this post) mocked Cardinal Burke by calling him "the Donald Trump of the Catholic Church".  Come to think of it, that might not be so much of an insult after all, although it was intended as such.  At any rate, we do see signs of a coordinated campaign.  It's eerily similar to the mainstream media campaign that they undertook before the election to sway the voters towards Hillary.  Happily that media campaign was an abysmal failure, but only because people are waking up to the media's lack of credibility.

We bloggers hope to assist in a similar epiphany for Catholics in the pews so that they can understand what is happening in the Church today.  We must pray and act, but in order to do either properly, we must understand the true nature and gravity of the events occurring in the Vatican.

Pope Francis Demonizing Faithful Catholics During His Christmas Address To The Curia

The pope's Christmas Greeting to the Roman Curia this year was singularly lacking of any semblance of Christmas cheer.  National Catholic Register has some commentary on the address, but at the bottom of that article is the full text of the pope's address.  He speaks of the "reform of the curia" and making it "conform to the signs of our time".  Shouldn't it be conforming to God's immutable will?

We then see how he talks of "malicious resistance" to this reform, and how he says this resistance "takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities".  He's taking pot-shots at those faithful Catholics who adhere to God's teachings, particularly on marriage and family, and I believe he's taking deliberate aim at the four cardinals who promulgated the dubia.  Then he calls for "unconditioned obedience" to this "reform".  Where is his call for unconditional obedience to Christ's teachings regarding marriage and worthiness to receive Holy Communion?

Perhaps his ire against the dubia cardinals, particularly Cardinal Burke, may be a motivation behind another recent action of the pope's.  Recall that Pope Francis named Cardinal Burke as patron of the Order of Malta after he ejected Burke from some Vatican posts.  It seems that a senior official of the Knights of Malta was involved in the distribution of condoms.  For that he was ejected from the order.  Lepanto Institute did a very thorough investigation into the matter and found ample evidence that this official was indeed involved in that very anti-life activity.  His ouster was entirely justified.

Now why, oh why, does Pope Francis find it necessary to create an entire commission to investigate the matter?  It seems rather simple to me; an official in a Catholic organization was caught in activities not becoming a Catholic.  He was ejected from his post as a result.  Granted, when other such scandals have been unearthed, it's only when public scrutiny occurs that the offending party is disciplined (and sometimes the offender is retained).  But Cardinal Burke is at the helm of the Order of Malta, and I think it's likely that he took immediate and proper action.  So why does the pope seek to meddle after the fact?  Is he that much of a micro-manager or is this just an excuse to take out some long knives against Cardinal Burke?

In an interview with Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke pointed out that any pope who professes formal heresy would automatically cease to be pope.  In that article, Burke goes into the provisions in canon law for such a scenario.  He also voiced hope that the pope will answer the dubia, to allay possible schism.

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, another of the four dubia cardinals, granted an interview to Der Spiegel.  He too was questioned about the dubia and its implications.  Brandmuller pointed out that "whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”  As we read the article, we are reminded that Pope Francis, in his letter to the Argentinian bishops, did make allowance for unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion; in other words, Pope Francis gave approval for sins of sacrilege to occur.

Now consider both these interviews together.  On the one hand, Cardinal Brandmuller states that someone allowing for Holy Communion to be given to unrepentant adulterers is a heretic and promotes schism.  In that same article, Pope Francis is fulfilling that definition of "heretic" in his letter to the Argentinian bishops.  On the other hand, Cardinal Burke points out that a pope formally professes heresy automatically ceases to be pope.

Faithful Catholics, do we understand the gravity of the situation?  Depending on how Pope Francis treats the dubia, the Catholic Church might well find itself in schism.  If he states formally the heresy that those in public mortal sin can receive Holy Communion, it seems that he will have ejected himself from Peter's chair.  The Church might well find herself in schism.  As hard as it is to admit, schism would be far preferable than the Church being led into error.  As you read further down the LifeSiteNews piece, Pope Francis himself seems to understand that he could well divide the Church.

What Makes For A Humble Pope?

Well, it's certainly not what we heard in the homily during today's 9:30 Mass at St. John Neumann.  Expounding on today's Gospel from Mark 9:30-37, the homilist preached on humility, attempting to tie it in with the pope's visit to the DC area this coming week.  He lauded Pope Francis for not taking on the traditions of his papal predecessors: the crimson robe, the red slippers, the tiara, etc.  The homilist said that "Pope Francis does not need these things" and that because of these choices, Pope Francis distinguishes himself for his humility.

I beg to differ.

Pope St Pius X, with tiara and robe
A "non-humble" pope?

"These things" to which the homilist referred are not mere props intended to puff up the egos of the pontiffs who occupy the chair of Peter.  Rather, they hearken back to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church and towards the papacy itself.  The pope is not just "one of the fellas".  He is the Vicar of Christ.  The traditions associated with that office have nothing to do with the personal proclivities of the individual occupying the Chair of Peter at any given moment.  They are linked with the dignity of the office, an office instituted by Jesus Christ Himself when He designated St. Peter as the first pope.

The homilist elaborated on Pope Francis' refusal of the red papal slippers, saying that Pope Francis felt no need for them since "he had other shoes".  Perhaps both the homilist and Pope Francis need to be reminded that the red color is a somber reminder that the pope must be prepared to shed his blood in defense of the Faith, as indeed many of the popes (particularly during the first few centuries) did.

I do not think for one moment that Pope Francis is the first to feel discomfort at the thought of assuming the traditions of the papacy.  However, it seems that the others understood that these traditions had diddly-squat to do with their personal preferences.  In true humility they put aside their personal opinions and adopted the traditions, vestments, living quarters, etc attendant with papal traditions in order to point to Jesus Christ the King, in Whose stead they acted.

Am I saying that Pope Francis displayed lack of humility by not accepting the traditional garb of the papacy?  No, for that itself is not sufficient basis for such an opinion (although the eschewing of papal traditions has been a harbinger of other problems).  By the same token though, there is no basis for stating that he displayed humility by eschewing papal traditions as today's homilist erroneously claimed.

Deconstruction Of Church Tradition Under Pope Francis

After the grotesque display of satanic idolatry at St Peter's Basilica on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, we continue to see increasingly blatant attempts to deconstruct Church teaching.  Many of these attempts are from high Church officials, including Pope Francis.

Thanks to Toronto Catholic Witness, I was directed to the homily that Pope Francis gave on December 8th to inaugurate the "jubilee of mercy".  This is on the Vatican's website.  Here is the troubling passage: "Before all else, the Council was an encounter. A genuine encounter between the Church and the men and women of our time. An encounter marked by the power of the Spirit, who impelled the Church to emerge from the shoals which for years had kept her self-enclosed so as to set out once again..." (emphasis mine)

I agree with TCW that in that phrase, Pope Francis spit in the eye all his predecessors, some of them saints, blesseds and doctors of the Church, precisely because they acted as shepherds who guarded their flocks.  While this pope might prefer that we take the "smell of the sheep", his predecessors (by and large) sought to preserve the Church in the odor of sanctity.

In a recent interview, Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said that "some form of birth control" might help with "overpopulation" and resultant "food shortage".  He also stated it could help with "climate change".  He then reminded us all of the shameful way in which Pope Francis treated the woman who was expecting her eighth child.  It would be an interesting thing if that eighth child were to confront the pope and tell him a thing or two, but I digress!

He must have realized his Freudian slip for he tried to backpedal, saying only "natural forms of birth control" were acceptable.  I don't buy it; else, why would he have used the general, nebulous "some form" descriptor for birth control?  More importantly, periodic abstinence from marital relations cannot be equated with what is commonly referred to as "birth control".  Voice of the Family is correct in opining that Turkson's remarks do lend credibility to the attempts to divorce marital relations from the procreation of children.  They certainly do make plain the linkage between "climate change" junk science with population control.

According to the Guardian, a Vatican document (name unknown) exhorts Catholics not to attempt to convert Jews to Christianity.  This document is from the Vatican commission for relationships with Jews.  Boys and girls, can you say "ecumenicide"?  You probably noticed during Triduum services that the traditional prayer for Jews to come to Christianity has been scuttled in recent years, so this manifestation of ecumenicide predates the current pontiff.  Now what was that again that we read in the Bible, at the end of several Gospels, where Jesus commands (not "suggest", not "request", but "command") the Apostles to baptize all "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?  Or did the "god of surprises" change his mind?

As I read of this, I think of what St Paul wrote in several of his letters, how he wished that all his brother Jews would be converted.  I also think of St. Vincent Ferrar, who once marched into a synagogue, started preaching and converted thousands of Jews on the spot.  Paul!  Vincent!  Naughty-naughty!  Stop that now!  Leave the Jews (and others) to wallow in darkness!  Don't you know that we must be ecumenical?  Seriously though, how can one talk with a straight face about a "year of mercy" and yet not seek to bring others to the font of mercy, that is, Jesus Christ, who acts through His Church?

My blogging colleague Julie at Connecticut Catholic Corner put up a piece today entitled "The New Age Of Pope Francis' Church".  Read it for I concur with her.  I too pray for a holy pope who will save souls.  At this time, it appears that this pope will not be Pope Francis, but only God knows.  Let us pray.

Is Pope Francis The Mouthpiece And Face Of World-Wide Progressivism?

From One Peter Five we read that a few days ago, at the World Meeting Of Popular Movements in California, Pope Francis released a letter that:

• publicly praises the Alinskyite organization People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO for short) 
• advocates open resistance to President Trump's attempts to bring order to immigration in the US
• falsely declared that "muslim terrorism does not exist"

At that same meeting, Bishop Robert McElroy of the Diocese of San Diego snarked, "President Trump was the candidate of disruption.  Well now, we must all become disrupters."  McElroy was appointed by Pope Francis to his current position.  Since then he has stated that adulterers and gays should "utilize the internal forum of conscience" when it comes to receiving Holy Communion; in other words, this errant bishop is lulling these mortal sinners into heaping more mortal sin on their souls, rendering even more distant the prospect of eternal salvation.  I've written on McElroy in the past.

I would urge careful study of the first two links to understand how this California meeting is setting the stage for "community-organizing" rackets funded by George Soros to dominate the affairs and priorities of the Church hierarchy.  Indeed, the 1P5 piece voices the opinion that since Hillary Clinton has been effectively jettisoned from prominence, that the mantle of "front-man for progressivism" has fallen on the all-too-willing shoulders of Pope Francis.  

There is cause for that opinion, it seems.  Recall how wikileaks played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton as emails were leaked that detailed all sorts of nefarious deeds of the Democrat cabal.  From Gloria TV we now see another revelation from these emails: that Clinton, Obama and George Soros orchestrated the "resignation" of Pope Benedict XVI, using bribery and blackmail to oust him and usher in Pope Francis.  At the time I suspect that they didn't think that Pope Francis would be the front-person for anti-God progressives as they fully expected Clinton to win the White House.  But since both Clinton and Obama no longer wield official sway, the pope could be seen as someone to fill that void.  I regret that he seems to be performing aptly in that role.

Last month LifeSiteNews published a piece called, "2016: The Year That Pope Francis Finally Showed His Hand".  Several of us saw that earlier than 2016 as warning signs did abound. Even to this day, some Catholics refuse to accept that all may not be well with this papacy despite all evidence to the contrary.

Understanding that in most cases "personnel is policy", let's look at some of the seismic shifts in personnel.  We've noted the ouster of Cardinal Burke from his positions at the Vatican.  Now he's been jettisoned from the Knights of Malta while being slandered in the process.  We see Cardinals Muller, Sarah, Pell being treated as though there were targets drawn on their backs.  Meanwhile we see dissidents like McElroy, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Cupich being elevated to roles of responsibility.  Today Judie Brown of American Life League lamented the de facto dismantling of the Pontifical Academy for Life - a council in which she was a member for fifteen years.  Most of the prominent members of that council - including Cardinal Caffarra, one of the "dubia cardinals" - took strong exception to Amoris Laetitia and the confusion caused by it.

In the past 2000+ years of Church history, the Church has had to deal with pontiffs who didn't live up to their office and who in fact were quite evil - Alexander VI comes immediately to mind.  While we cannot say for certain that such is the case now, we'd be dishonest to pretend that the same couldn't be the case now.  We need to pray for the Church and its leaders - many of whom have thrown in their lot with anti-God progressives and wreaking havoc on the faith of millions. 

Pope Francis, The Boy In His Chair, And Resultant Silly Blather

Last weekend Pope Francis was giving a talk in Vatican City when a little boy climbed onto the stage and hugged the Holy Father's legs.  The Holy Father sat him in his chair and continued his talk.

And all the teeny-boppers went bananas! Google the words "Pope Francis boy chair" and you'll see no less than three pages of links, all waxing giggly over this incident.  Not one of these, to my recollection, had the text of the address that the Holy Father gave at the time.  It was on Facebook too; I link to this very telling page, calling your attention to the comments.

Only two of us were so mundane and boring as to ask where the boy's parents were during this incident.  I can tell you if my little boy had scampered away from me at that instant, I would have immediately and rather unceremoniously removed him from the stage.  There would then have followed some "teaching moments" about proper respect and, more importantly, never leaving the side of your parents in a crowd situation.  But I suppose I hoped for too much - not from the boy but from what I'd hope would be the "responsible" adult supposedly watching over the boy.

But there's an even more troubling mindset to be found within the comments.  One of the comments sums it up with "FINALLY a people's pope."  (Yes, the caps are in the original comment.)  Pardon my french, but what the hell does that mean????  Does this individual understand the supreme insult she lobbed in the direction of the still-living Pope Benedict XVI or towards Blessed Pope John Paul II?  Regrettably I suspect she did, as did some of the others.

You can see my own reply, right above that.  I wonder out loud what qualifies Pope Francis, in the eyes of these folks, to be a "people's pope".  I truly believe those qualities are, at best, silly and superficial.  I say that not in criticism of Pope Francis at all, but of those who are spouting such brainless pronouncements about him.  I truly believe Pope Francis would be mortified to hear himself being lauded at the obvious expense of Pope Benedict XVI.  I suspect he'd be more interested in being "God's pope" first.

Why Is Church Militant Laying Into The Pope Emeritus?

Yesterday a Vortex was released that, when taken in conjunction with the one released this past Thursday, paints a puzzling picture as to the modus operandi at Church Militant.  Last Thursday, Michael Voris painted a picture of Pope Francis being victimized and exploited by various villains in the Vatican.  Yesterday he seemed to lay much blame for that situation at the feet of Pope Emeritus Benedict.  He lays out a case for damage done to the papacy by Pope Benedict's resignation, stating "Benedict's leaving of office has engendered a whole host of problems (most likely unforeseen and unintended) and given them impetus."

I for one agree.  I also believe that one of those problems is the papacy of Pope Francis.  That problem is one that Church Militant won't acknowledge.  Ladies and gentlemen, Pope Francis has been in the Vatican for several years now.  This papacy has been one freak show after another and he owns this mess.  Why is Church Militant refusing to acknowledge this "elephant in the living room" and instead portraying the Pope Emeritus as a legitimate scapegoat?  Well, we do have a parallel situation in Washington and the disasters of the Obama administration, don't we?  Years after the Messiah Most Miserable took office, his Minions Most Mindless are still trying to dismiss Obama's bungles by blaming Bush.  More and more, the parallels between Obama and Pope Francis are increasing.

Towards the end of this Vortex, Voris says of Benedict's resignation, "we must be honest enough to look at that and say, yes, he made a mistake (a big one)" and "mistakes must be called out and recognized even when they are distasteful".  True enough.  Now I call upon Church Militant to apply the same logic to the various blunders of Pope Francis.  To take Pope Benedict to task and yet to say nary a word about the mistakes of this current papacy is nonsensical at best.  The blunders of Benedict are now a matter of history while those of Pope Francis, because they are ongoing, are currently inflicting much harm on the Church.  It is the latter that must be addressed, and will be by this blog.

CUA - Cardinal Kasper Does Damage Control For Pope Francis

As stated a few days ago, Cardinal Kasper was slated to give an address at Catholic University of America yesterday.  He did, as scheduled.  What I know of the address can be found at Catholic News Agency.

The main purpose of his address seemed to be to project a particular picture of Pope Francis.  He cautioned against conceptions "which try to appropriate Pope Francis in their own way."  Thus said he who claimed to speak for the pope a month or two ago.  Cardinal Burke's contradiction of that statement notwithstanding, Cardinal Kasper probably does speak for the pope.  It is precisely that which makes Kasper's shilling for Holy Communion for those living in adultery to be so troubling.

Further in the address Kasper said that Pope Francis can be better understood against "the backdrop of Argentinian liberation theology".  That would be the same "liberation theology" roundly condemned by Pope Benedict XVI in December 2009; see this Vatican site - you'll probably need to translate it.

Then he introduces a rather bizarre concept of "theology of the people".  "Theology of the people"???!??!  Pardon my french, but what the hell is that????   He says Pope Francis honors the concept of sensus fidei, but of course that leaves us to wonder how the pope honored the sensus fidei of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, or even that of the synod fathers when he ordered the voted-down heretical paragraphs to be included in the final relatio synodi.

I urge all to read carefully the Catholic News Agency link, for it summarizes quite well how dangerous Cardinal Kasper is to the True Faith.  Moreover, since Pope Francis has yet to contradict Kasper's claim of speaking for him, it is not unreasonable to opine that perhaps he too embraces those same harmful mindsets.

So now you have an idea of what will most likely happen at the USCCB meeting that starts Monday.

Pope Francis Appoints Pro-Abort To Pontifical Academy For Life

The maxim "personnel is policy" contains much truth.  With that in mind, faithful Catholics are aghast at the appointment of a known pro-abort to the Pontifical Academy for Life.  Recall that last autumn, Pope Francis dismissed all the members of that academy.  Now he is starting to reconstruct it to his liking.

The pro-abort's name is Nigel Bigger.  He is an Anglican minister who believes that baby-slaughter should be legal until 18 weeks.  He tried to diffuse our incredulity by claiming that is views on euthanasia conforms to Church teaching (forgive us if we look askance at that claim).  However, all who rightly claim the label "pro-life" are opposed to all forms of murder (murder being defined in Catholic moral theology as "the deliberate taking of innocent human life").  So clearly Pope Francis could have selected from thousands of faithful Catholics who adhere completely to the Church's Traditions regarding life and family.  He might have simply reappointed some former PAL members who were dismissed last autumn.  Why, oh why, did Pope Francis see fit to select someone who is at clear, sinful variance with the Church?  It's worth a reminder that last autumn Pope Francis did away with the requirement that all PAL members adhere to the Jerome Lejeune Oath.  When I wrote that post last November, I asked why the pope saw fit to eliminate that requirement.  I think we now have the answer to my earlier question.

One Peter Five has details of others who were (re)appointed to the PAL.  Two of the more vocal critics of Amoralis Lamentia were not reappointed.  Cardinal Caffarra, one of the four dubia cardinals, was reappointed; but his omission would have stunk to high heaven and would have been a public relations black eye to the pope.  Another troubling appointment was made: that of Anne-Marie Pelletier, a professor who joins the pope in dissenting from Church Tradition on family and marriage.

More and more the progressives at the Vatican are abandoning their facades of fidelity to Sacred Tradition.  In related news, Rorate Caeli informs us that this past Sunday, the Bishop of Santa Fe in Argentina (a Pope Francis appointee) conducted a Mass that can only be called sacrilege.  He announced during Mass that according to the norms of AL, adulterers would be admitted to Holy Communion at that Mass.  Indeed they were.  While he committed mortal sin, as did all those who received unworthily, he was correct in stating that his sacrilege was in conformity with Amoralis Lamentia.

To my friends who insist on wearing rose-colored glasses with regards to this pope, who persistantly think that starry-eyed naivete is a virtue: please cease lying to yourselves and each other.  The sooner you admit the truth, the sooner you can start praying and acting to preserve the Faith in yourselves and those around you.

Pope Francis' Communication Methods: Helpful Or Harmful?

I have written over the past year about my concerns regarding Pope Francis.  See this anthology.  As you can see, some of my concerns stem from the caricature that that some adolescent-minded folks insist on creating of the Holy Father.  In one of my previous posts, I call this the "barneyfication" of the papacy.

Other concerns stem from the communication methods that the Holy Father seems intent on using, despite evidence that such styles are counter-productive at best.  Yesterday, Father Dwight Longenecker, in his blog post, asked the question "Is Pope Francis a Loose Cannon?"  He articulates well many of my concerns and, I suspect, concerns shared by millions.

Below I'll pull two paragraphs from Father's article that should be shouted far and wide, particularly in Vatican City.

Furthermore, shouldn’t a pope realize he is pope and behave accordingly? No matter what the pope’s personal style and personal preferences, he is now the pope and whether he likes it or not, people hang on his every word and action. Yes, yes, we all know that a chat with reporters on a plane or a personal phone call by a pope are not infallible doctrinal statements. The problem is, a huge number of people in the world don’t realize that. Pope Francis should therefore understand that he is no longer Padre Bergoglio and learn that one of the greatest things a pope can do is to not do anything.

There is another problem with Pope Francis’ style which is lurking in the background which I have not heard anyone else commenting on, and it is this: if a person in a public role trivializes that role with a very personal and informal style, then when they want to make a formal pronouncement the chances are that they will not be taken seriously. Make enough gaffes and speak off the cuff enough and soon the world will consider everything you say to be a gaffe and all your pronouncements to be inconsequential, off the cuff matters of opinion.

Hear!  Hear!

Why Is Pope Francis Admired By Unrepentant Deviants?

From Elton John's warped perspective, his adulation of Pope Francis is entirely logical.  A few days ago, I saw on LifeSiteNews that Elton John, entertainer and flagrant gay activist, heaped praise upon the Holy Father for the latter's ill-advised "who am I to judge" quip.  Recall that in 2006, John called for the banning of religion because many faiths don't coddle the sin of sodomy.  Now he says of the Pope, "(he) wants everybody to be included in the love of God."  With all due respect to John, the fact is that he hasn't the foggiest idea of what constitutes "the love of God", owing to his unabashed disobedience to God's just commands.

Unfortunately there are some sadly-deluded Catholics who believe that such adulation from unrepentant deviants is the greatest thing since life's bread.  Mark Shea of the patheos network is one of them.  Because the patheos bloggers are compensated based on the number of hits they receive, I will not link to his piece; I suppose those interested can google it if they wish.  He thinks that because of Pope Francis, John and others "are revisiting what the gospel has to say".  Not so.  They believe that the Pope will help them revise what the gospel has to say.

Later he chides faithful Catholics by stating "Such people don't want the gospel.  They want a little system of order that keeps them safe from the radical demands of love that Christ lays upon us.  They want to keep people out of the Church.."  Note the silly attempt to divorce the Gospel from - wait for it! - the Gospel.  I don't know what he thinks this "little system of order" is.  I think it's a derisive term for trivial things such as the Ten Commandments, the Magisterium, etc - trivialities that were established by God Himself.  Here's a big lesson to learn: if "radical demands" deviate from what Shea calls "a little system of order", these demands have diddly-squat to do with the authentic love of Christ.

Elton John is waxing lyrical over Pope Francis because he believes the latter will attempt to make the mortal sin of homosexual conduct to be acceptable in the Church.  Sadly, I can understand, particularly after the SinNod, how John might have arrived at his conclusion.

Shea seems to think that because a growing number of people, hitherto cold to the Church, are warming up to the Pope, this is a good thing.  Not so - not if these people remain in mortal sin and who now think the Pope will help them dull their consciences.  Perhaps he needs to be reminded that when Jesus walked the face of the earth, He was not popular with all people. After all, one does not find oneself crucified because they won a popularity contest.

To assist in the removal of rose-colored glasses regarding this papacy, I recommend - and will link to - an article written by Pat Buchanan entitled "The Price Of Papal Popularity".  He asks the question, "should the church accommodate itself to a culture as decadent as ours?"  Elton John et al would breathlessly pant in the affirmative.  But of course we are to be the sign of contradiction, speaking truth to immoral power and hedonism that both rules and corrodes our society.

He also said that  "Pope Francis is hugely popular. But his worldly popularity has not come without cost to the church he leads and the truths he is sworn to uphold." Buchanan is correct, and John's statements bear testimony to the veracity of Buchanan's observation.  We have paid a price for the Pope's popularity, as so many - Elton John included - now think their sin is coddled.  So many of us have feared that souls would be scandalized and given bad example by the Pope's questionable doings.  One such poor soul has made that perfectly clear.  Isn't it time the Sheas of this world woke up?

Denial Runs Strong In Surprising Places

As I mentioned yesterday, too many good Catholics are in denial regarding the reality that we currently have a pope who poses a danger to souls every time he opens his mouth.  Am I saying that the pope intends this damage?  I of course cannot say one way or the other, although common sense indicates the affirmative.  I will say, however, that regardless of his motives, he indeed is causing real damage.

Therefore it troubles me greatly when prominent Catholic pro-life leaders advocate the continuance of denial.  When they do so, they unwittingly act as to dissuade their readers from discerning the input that feeds their souls.  Thus these deniers contribute to the spiritual damage already being wrought by the pope's harmful words.

A sad "case in point" is found in an article by Judie Brown, co-founder and president of American Life League.  ALL has always been in the forefront of the Catholic pro-life movement as they have correctly pointed out the spiritual destruction caused by contraception.  The article is to be found in RenewAmerica entitled "The Pope Francis Effect".  While I respect Mrs. Brown highly, I have no choice but to refute this.

Let's bring in the first two sentences:  "Over the last week, considering all the events that Pope Francis participated in during his six-day visit to Mexico and the many lives he touched with his words, his actions, and his very presence, it seems so sad that only one or two sentences from one interview captured our attention. It is as though nothing else happened that week."  The effects of his trip to Mexico are debatable at best, but I won't broach that for now.  Suffice it to say that any (debatable) benefit from his trip was far outweighed by the heresy against morals in his "one or two sentences".  No amount of benefit will mitigate the immense harm and scandal caused by his stated approval of contraceptives.  For example, consider the morning of April 15, 1865.  Can you just imagine someone asking Mary Todd Lincoln, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"  Well the notion that we should dismiss the outright heresy because of the "lives he touched" is similarly preposterous.  Let us consider that his heresy is "touching lives", too.

Proceeding down, she says "the pope was speaking off the cuff".  So what?  It was still the pope who was speaking.  "What he said or didn't say really isn't the problem."  Yes it is, when Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubi and Evangelium Vitae are undermined in the eyes of the world by the Vicar of Christ, the "problem" cannot be overestimated.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect that if it weren't Pope Francis on that plane and instead we had Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Wuerl or some other progressive shepherd on that plane uttering those exact same words, Mrs. Brown's take on the matter would be decidedly different - and rightly so.

She said that "it is troubling to realize that all the good (?) Pope Francis did during his visit to Mexico was so easily overshadowed by one or two silly comments made to reporters".  I'm glad she acknowledged that, at best, the comments were "silly", but actually they constituted heresy.  Refer to what I wrote of Mrs. Lincoln's experience at Ford Theater.  She might have watched a lovely performance, but when the shots were fired, what constituted the real impact of that evening in her life?

Toward the end she says, "it makes me so sad that we are always so prone to jump on something negative rather than embracing the positive.  No, the positive will never take top billing on the nightly news."  A few things..

• It seems that Mrs. Brown, at least in this case, has fallen for the "positive versus negative" codswallop.  I've said this many times and now will say so again.  The "positive versus negative" paradigm has nothing to do with objective truth or falsehood of a given statement or situation; rather it is a paradigm that focuses on the emotional impact that said statement or situation has on its beholders.  Obviously whether a situation is "positive" or "negative" depends on whom you ask and their particular disposition - not the objective merits of the same.
• As far as "top billing on the nightly news", the problem is that the news is abuzz about the whole mess, and viewing what we would consider a "negative" as a "positive".  To wit:
• ABC News
• Inquisitr
• Los Angeles Times
• Wall Street Journal
• NBC News
• The above news sites are on the first page after I googled "pope Francis contraceptives".  Can we all now see the scandal caused by the pope's utterance of heresy?  Please - let's not blame the media for this.  They didn't "bait" him into a trap.  He's a grown-up who is responsible for what he says, just like the rest of us.

My friend at Tenth Crusade, in writing about these matters, states that "we are going to get louder".  Many of the other writes I cited yesterday said the same thing.  I say "amen".

Michael Voris - Doubling Down On Denial Of Serious Papal Problems

Generally I've found Michael Voris and his Church Militant TV apostolate to be very informative and helpful through the years - particularly the Vortex series.  Regrettably though, he's evinced denial of the serious problems that Pope Francis continues to pose for the Faith.  When these episodes have presented themselves, I (and others) have seen it necessary to refute them for they are full of logical flaws.  Indeed, it is only the utilization of flawed logic that would cause one to deny evidence that repeatedly presents itself to the public.  If logical fallacies aren't the root causes of the denials, the latter might be engaged at the request of a donor.  It's one or the other; I don't know which.  At any rate, see here, here, here, here, here

As I did in most of those previous posts, I'm going to analyze the lack of logic posed in this Vortex.  I may not necessarily go in the same order as the script of this Vortex.

• In the first paragraph, Voris acknowledges the problematic and even harmful nature of the pope's repeated erroneous remarks.  As he states, a blind person can see the glaring problems.
• In the second paragraph, his train of thought starts to jump the rails.  He talks of this "industry of blasting the pope for his confusing conflicting statements".  Industry?  First, we are kept busy addressing the confusing statements, but that's because they issue from his mouth non-stop (especially when he's aboard planes).  Second, let's be clear that "addressing the confusing statements" is NOT equivalent to "blasting the pope".  I truly believe that a donor is feeding this script to Voris.  Then he talks of a notion that "everything that's wrong in the Church can be solved by the pope".  That's not a correct picture of the papacy at all.  He does have the sacred charge of safeguarding the deposit of faith.  Unfortunately these "conflicting statements" have had the effect of endangering the deposit of faith.  Is it too much to ask that the pope not pose a danger to the faith?

After The Synod, Bishop Strickland Challenges The US Bishops - What Will It Take?

On Wednesday, November 13, outside the USCCB meeting in Baltimore MD, Defend Life coordinated a Rosary to pray for our bishops.  As he had in previous years, Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Emeritus of Tyler, TX, led the attendees in that day's Rosary.  

Recall that His Excellency was ousted from his diocese by Pope Francis for daring to challenge the bilge that spews forth from the Vatican on a regular basis.  That happened almost exactly one year ago.  That was an insult to not only His Excellency but to all faithful Catholics.  A few days ago, we received word that the Traditional Latin Mass was banned from Bishop Strickland's former cathedral in Tyler.  The Latin Mass was also banned in four other parishes in the diocese.  This move happened exactly one year after Strickland's ouster.  Now, only St. Joseph the Worker parish, entrusted to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, is permitted to celebrate that Mass. I've no doubt this is a direct slap in the face to Bishop Strickland and the Catholics who have appreciated him.  The timing of this move is too coincidental.

Getting back to Wednesday's event, Bishop Strickland led the gathering in the recitation of the Angeles, and then the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary.

After the Rosary concluded, Bishop Strickland read an open letter to the bishops.  The text appears below, and a video recording of his verbal delivery is embedded in this article.  As you will see as you read below, Bishop Strickland rebukes the great majority of his brother bishops, not only of the US, but from other countries.  In particular, he excoriates them for their silence regarding the synod that just recently ended.  The pope's document is found here.  In his letter, Strickland points out the all-too-obvious truth that the pope has abdicated his responsibility to guard the Deposit of Faith, and is endeavoring to deform it into a monstrous mockery of the same.  Indeed, in this synod, Francis has attempted to shatter the structure of the Church into a disparate conglomeration of local "synods", facilitating Francis' abdication of his God-given responsibility as Guardian of the Deposit of Faith.  Indeed, we now see a so-called "Mayan rite" in Mexico, newly approved by the Vatican, replete with pagan rituals and trappings.  We will be hearing of future similar episodes.

Strickland asked the bishops, "what will it take" for the them to act in accordance with their own Divinely-ordained mandates.

We laity are also likewise challenged to take our responsibilities.  He asks "what will it take" for us to speak out if our shepherds won't.  Let's face it, Marylanders!  That is our situation.  Our shepherds aren't speaking out.  In fact, they are openly contributing to the decay of the Church.  I've written enough about that in this blog.  The latest just happened over this election cycle, with the Maryland bishops deliberately hobbling worthwhile efforts to stop the "reproductive freedom amendment", that sadly became a part of our state constitution.

Bishop Strickland is correct.  No more do we dare, in the face of episcopal malfeasance, look the other way and pretend that we don't see it.  We cannot go merrily along in our own parishes and pretend that this ever-worsening debacle won't impact our children and grandchildren.  We must learn our faith ourselves and teach it to one another ourselves, so that when it is preached from the pulpit that same-sex marriage is just an alternative lifestyle or that hell is not a reality or that the Sacraments are optional and so forth, that our loved ones can discern the error and not be afraid to rebuke the one spreading that spiritual poison.

My lay friends, it will cost us.  It may cost us friends in our parish.  We may find ourselves kicked off the parish council, the choir, religious education, Knights of Columbus councils, etc.  I believe that is what is known as "white martyrdom".  We cannot fear it, for we cannot deny the truth nor Our Lord. 

What will it take?  And now, Bishop Strickland's letter.

The Letter Is Delivered

Dear Bishops, 

You gather here today, present-day apostles, as the Church and, therefore, the world stand perched on the edge of a cliff. And yet you who are entrusted with the keeping of souls choose to speak not a word of the spiritual danger which abounds. Today we stand on the cusp of all that has been prophesied about the Church and the abominations which would come forth in these times, a time when all of hell attacks the Church of Jesus Christ, and a time when the fallen angels of hell no longer seek entry into her sacred halls but instead stand inside, peeking out of her windows and unlocking doors to welcome in more diabolical destruction.

I think that St. Jude had men such as many of you in mind when he described men who feast “together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars…” (Jude 1:12-13).                     

Many people have asked what it will take for more than a few bishops to finally speak up against the false messages constantly flowing from the Vatican under the leadership of Pope Francis, and I ask myself the same question over and over: 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

Do you not know that Our Lord will send forth His avenging angels to heap coals of fire upon the heads of those who were called to be His apostles and who have not guarded what He has given unto them?

And yet almost all of you, my brothers, stood by silently watching as the Synod on Synodality took place, an abomination constructed not to guard the Deposit of Faith but to dismantle it, and yet few were the cries heard from you – men who should be willing to die for Christ and His Church.

The Synod’s final document has been released, yet with the sleight of hand which is so characteristic of the Francis-controlled Vatican. By drawing attention to the issues which worried many, they have slipped in what was always their real goal without anyone even noticing. What they were after in the first place was the dismantling of Christ’s Church by replacing the structure of the Church as Our Lord instituted it with a diabolically-inspired new structure of “synodality” which in actuality is a new church that is in no way Catholic.

We now see the prophetic words of Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen unfolding before our eyes: “Because his religion will be brotherhood of Man without the fatherhood of God, he will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content, it will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ …” (Radio Broadcast; January 26, 1947). 

With the push for “synodality,” we see that the enemies of Christ are putting before us, as Archbishop Sheen says: “a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion – one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.”

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

A rudimentary understanding of the papacy leaves us with the reality that Pope Francis has abdicated his responsibility to serve as the primary guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Every bishop makes this solemn promise to guard the Deposit of Faith, but the Petrine office exists primarily to be the guardian of the guardians and the servant of the servants. St. Peter received the office which bears his name when, after the Resurrection, Christ asked him three times, “Do you love me?” and St. Peter responded, “You know that I love you,” thus healing his betrayal as Christ endured His Passion. And Who is this Jesus Who Peter professes to love? He is of course Truth Incarnate; thus St. Peter is stating that he loves Truth. This leaves us with this question, “Does Pope Francis love the Truth that Jesus Christ incarnates?” Sadly, his actions and his policies which promote a relativized version of truth that is not truth at all propel us to a devastating conclusion: the man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter does not love the truth and seeks to reshape it in the image of man. 

There can be no bishop who is unaware of statements that Pope Francis has made that are unambiguous denials of the Catholic faith. For example, Francis has stated publicly that God wills the existence of all religions and that all religions are a path to God. In this statement, Pope Francis has denied an integral part of the Catholic faith. How many souls will be lost who will accept his erroneous statement that all religions will lead to salvation? What I find so difficult to understand is that modern-day apostles, men who are ordained to be guardians of the faith, refuse to acknowledge this and instead ignore or even promote this deadly falsehood. Every bishop and cardinal should publicly and unequivocally state that Francis no longer teaches the Catholic faith. Souls are at stake!

Therefore, I ask again: 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

As successors of the Apostles, this situation must force the bishops of Christ’s Church to answer the pivotal question ourselves: “Do we truly love Jesus Christ, Truth Incarnate?” With a Pope who is actively opposing the divine truths of our Catholic faith, the responsibility falls to the bishops of the world to profess their own love of Our Lord, to guard the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and to oppose any attempt to dismantle the Truth.

Let us return to the fateful conversation between our risen Lord and St. Peter. When Peter responds, “Lord, you know I love you,” Jesus responds: “Feed my lambs” and again “Feed my sheep.” How is Peter to feed Christ’s lambs? With the Truth of course – with Jesus Christ Himself who IS Truth. 

And yet, where are those men whom the Lord has called to feed His sheep? Where are the successors of the Apostles who have promised to defend the sheep with their lives? They sit a few feet away, patting one another on the back, listening to words that they know beyond a doubt are not the Truth, frolicking with the darkness, and blaspheming the very Truth that the original Apostles died to preserve.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

You have words from those who spoke in Sacred Scripture, wisdom from the Sacred Tradition of the Church, and guidance from former Popes and a great multitude of saints that false teachers would come and that the holy faith would be attacked, and yet most of you have gone out into the battle wearing no armor, and have then reacted as one bewildered that his skin has been pierced by poison arrows. You have been given all that was needed to ensure that your heads were not turned by the lies of Satan. Why then have you gone out without the armor of God? It is YOUR responsibility, when you see poison arrows of falsehood falling upon men, to call out to them and say, “Put on the armor of Our Lord which is Truth, and you shall not be wounded.”  

And to the faithful, I put forth the same question –  

WHAT WILL IT TAKE? 

What if your shepherds do not rally? What if they have all accepted thirty pieces of silver, and they remain silent in the face of falsehood which further pierces the hands and feet of Our Lord? Then what will it take for you to speak up?

Many might say that it is not your responsibility; you can live Truth quietly in your heart. However, to speak Truth can never simply be the responsibility of someone else, because God has etched Truth onto the heart of every person. Therefore, Truth is each man’s property as a sacred gift from God. And never can anyone say that they had no Truth in them – and never can a man claim rightly that to find Truth he had to gather it from the wind, or he could only gather it from the words of another. The soul recognizes Truth and is nourished by it, and those who wither away from lack of Truth do not wither because they were given no portion of Truth in their own soul.

Indeed, Truth has instead been so suppressed again and again by such a person – and has been told so often to “stand down” – until it dares not raise its head. And this is why a man finds himself in such a sad state and why when he cries out, “It is not the fault of my own that I had no Truth or that I knew it not when I encountered it,” he speaks in error. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, granting free will to those He loves, which is each and every person without exception, has given the gift of Truth to each and every one of us, so that if there is any predisposition in a man’s heart, then it is the propensity of the soul to vibrate to His Truth. Therefore, the soul when deprived of Truth lies dormant until it withers into something cold and hard. Have you not seen how even the angels of darkness recognize Truth and cannot do other than what Our Lord commands them – and yet they strive to hide Truth from every man unto each man’s eternal damnation? 

So I ask again – WHAT WILL IT TAKE? WILL YOU DIE FOR HIM? 

Bishop Joseph E. Strickland 

Bishop Emeritus 

As I bring to a close this letter that asks the question, “What will it take?” I would like to thank my collaborators, the Apostles and Evangelists, especially Saints Nathaniel and Jude. Why these two? Because they are not the most well-known or often cited of the Apostles and, therefore, I feel a kinship with them because I was an obscure bishop who should have remained obscure.

In the ballroom a few feet from here, men are meeting who could be described as a Catholic brain-trust. Many of them are brilliant, talented men who could have been at the top of any profession they chose, but they are bishops, successors of the Apostles.

Sadly, they are for the most part silent shepherds, unwilling to risk speaking up in the face of evil and destructive forces that threaten the Church. These forces have attempted to silence me, but there was no need to silence these men – they never made a sound.

I ask the faithful to pray fervently that all shepherds find their voices and say with me, “Que viva Cristo Rey – long live Christ the King, Truth Incarnate!”

The Pope's Personnel Appointments Reveal His Hand

"Personnel is policy" as the saying goes.  Again and again, Pope Francis shows us how true that statement is.  See below for three examples.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has been the subject of many of my blog posts (and that of other bloggers).  A heterodox progressive, he chairs the so-called "gang of nine", that inner sanctum of papal advisers.  Since Maradiaga has made no secret of his leftist leanings, we may safely opine that he has the pope's ear precisely because of those leanings.  Today One Peter Five detailed how Maradiaga, in an interview recently given, hurled insults against the four cardinals who issued the dubia in an attempt to mitigate damage being done by Amoralis Lamentia.  I won't rehash 1P5's post here.  Suffice it to say that because Maradiaga is so close to Pope Francis, we might have a decentl inkling of the responses that the pope might make to the dubia.

This past week the Pope appointed heresy-spewing Jesuit Father James Martin to handle the Vatican tweets.  Cardinal Wuerl celebrated the advancement of dissent by inviting Martin to deliver a Good Friday reflection at St. Matthew's Cathedral.  I suspected this reflection might be a spewing forth of pig slop.  True to fashion, Martin did not fail to disappoint us.  I'll highlight one heretical whopper below.

Consider this quote from LifeSiteNews: "Father Martin told those in attendance at the Good Friday liturgy that his favorite theological question to ponder is whether Jesus knew what was going to happen on Easter Sunday before He died."  In other words, Martin completely disregards Jesus' Personhood.  While He has two natures, human and divine, He is a Divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity.  As such, He possesses omniscience.  To insinuate that Jesus didn't know He'd rise on Easter Sunday is to cast doubt on His divinity.

Both Pope Francis and Cardinal Wuerl were fully aware of Martin's embrace of heresy and immorality.  They did not do so in spite of  these serious flaws, but because of them.  He advances their common agenda.

John Zmirak pubished an article yesterday detailing the antics of Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin.  Recall that he was recently given his red hat by Pope Francis.  Tobin is sponsoring, at his cathedral, a debacle called "LGBT Pilgrimage And Mass".  This affair is being conducted by several organizations that shill for perversion.  As Zmirak points out, there is no mention of the need to repent of the mortal sin of sodomy and to embrace chastity.  Long-time readers of this blog will recall that two years ago, while Tobin was still Archbishop of Indianapolis, we petitioned him to put a halt to a local KofC council's intent to allow lesbians to celebrate their debauched #mowwidge in their hall.  Tobin was utter silent.  Of course we lamented that silence.  However, I must now consider the possibility that perhaps Tobin did have his hand in that sordid affair, perhaps directing the council to allow mortal sin to be celebrated on Catholic property free of charge.

Almost concurrently, Tobin has drawn the long knives on Father Peter West, a priest who stands firm for Christ's teachings on life and marriage.  He was formerly associated with both Priests for Life and Human Life International before being called back to Newark.

One might ask, "how could Pope Francis select Tobin to be Cardinal, given his terrible record of fidelity to Christ's teachings?"  Regrettably, I believe Tobin's record is precisely the reason why he was selected.

We'll probably be seeing more and more of these squalid associations being foisted on the Church.

With The Ouster Of Cdl Burke And Misconduct Of SinNod, The "Lovable" Mask Comes Off Pope Francis

No longer can any thinking, alert Catholic believe that Pope Francis is an affable "good ole boy" who likes to live simply and put clown noses on his face for silly selfies.  It is becoming painfully obvious that he is quite skilled in Machiavellian and Alinskyan tactics for advancing his agenda.  These skills have been displayed all too well at this SinNod.

A few days ago, after the release of the interim relatio, Cardinal Burke publicly urged - challenged - the Pope to defend unambiguously the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.  It should be emphasized that these teachings are those of Jesus Christ Himself.  Yesterday Cardinal Pell echoed that challenge.  However, it does seem that the agenda of the SinNod was planned well in advance - and that the relatio may have been written before the SinNod convened!

California Catholic Daily goes into detail about the planned short-comings of the SinNod:

• The prohibition against the publication of bishops' statements, unheard of in any other such gathering
• No mention of chastity or pursuit of holiness
• Over-emphasis on divorced/remarried issues to the exclusion of others (pornography, polygamy in Africa, etc)
• An obvious deference to the opinions of the secular world as to what constitutes "mercy"

Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany appears to be the "front man" for the Vatican apparatus that is pushing for doctrinal changes in regards to distributing Holy Communion to de facto adulterers.  There is much information about Kasper and his thinking; I won't delve into it here lest I digress from the main points of this post, but I do urge all to read it. 

I will also link to a National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin (the same who caught Kasper in a lie regarding his African quip).  The evidence he cites, plus other points cited by others and me (review my postings from this past week) during the past few days, indicates that this SinNod is not much more than an engineered "dog and pony show" conducted to give cover to the advancement of a diabolical agenda masterminded by a select few.  If true, we can only conclude that Pope Francis is one of those select few.  If this isn't Machiavellian and Alinskyan, I don't know what is.

Pope Francis has yet to answer the challenges of Cardinals Burke and Pell for defense of the Church's teachings on families.  Cardinal Burke had some words to say on this, stating that "the Pope has done a lot of harm by not saying openly what his position is", and that the "synod was designed to change Church teaching".  Both Buzz Feed and Rorate Caeli have accounts of this interview today.  In this same interview, His Eminence confirmed that he has been ousted from the Apostolic Signatura.

Some might think my words regarding Pope Francis to be rather caustic. But look at the events of the past few days and consider that they could not have happened without permission from the Pope.  I regret to say that his refusal to affirm Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarried seems to be a glaring signal of things to come.

I close now with a Vortex that was done just after Voris et al got word of the Cardinal's interview.

Close Papal Confidante Flaunts His Perversion In His Cathedral - Part Of The Deconstruction Of Tradition

Last August Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Paglia as head of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute On Marriage And Family.  He's also head of the Pontifical Academy For Life (and perhaps its only member).  It was under his direction that a particularly lurid sex education program was foisted on young people attending the World Youth Day this past summer.  At the World Meeting For Families in Philadephia last year, he mandated that practicing gays would have the same status as faithful Catholics in attendance.  I point out that the latter two incidents occurred before Paglia's appointment to the Institute On Marriage And Family.

One other very troubling event occurred before that as well.  News has arisen that in 2007, Paglia commissioned a piece of pornographic art to be painted in his cathedral church.  It is explicitly homoerotic.  It shows Jesus pulling into heaven via fishnets dozens of people.  In the nets, the people are engaged in various erotic acts.  One of those people bears the face of Paglia himself while semi-nude and embracing another scantily-clad man.  This LifeSiteNews report has more details and pictures.  All this was done on instruction from Paglia himself.  The depiction of Paglia in such a pose leads one to deduce that Paglia himself might be a practicing homosexual.  Obviously the painting within a Catholic church is grossly blasphemous.  As it was done in 2007, no one can doubt that the Pope knew of this.  Because the pope appointed Paglia to his high positions, we can only conclude that the appointments were done not so much in spite of Paglia's flagrant perversion but because of it.  There is an attempt afoot in the Vatican - led by the pope, let's admit that - to deconstruct the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church in favor of some "new world order".

This and so much more points to the horrid place to which Pope Francis is steering the Church.  For the benefit of my friends who insist on remaining in denial regarding this harmful papacy, I now link to a piece written by Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture.  He explains well the role that the Holy Spirit assumes in the process of selecting a pope.  He also points out why it is erroneous to presume that the Holy Spirit directly chooses each pontiff.  As you read the list of poor pontiffs of the past, bear in mind that there is no reason to presume that the same couldn't be happening right now.

I post now a video released by Michael Matt of the Remnant.  Listen closely.  He first elaborates on the scandal of Paul Ehrlich being allowed to speak at a Vatican conference.  At the 4:48 mark he says "If you're not seeing what's really going on here, I'm sorry, but it's just a case of you not wanting to see.."  At the 10:00 mark Matt said he and others sent an open letter to President Trump to investigate possible Democrat influence in the ouster of Pope Benedict XVI and election of Pope Francis.  LifeSiteNews today released an interview with Archbishop Luigi Negri who is close with the Pope Emeritus.  He too states that Benedict resigned "under tremendous pressure".  A few weeks ago I hypothesized that Pope Francis is the de facto designated mouthpiece for worldwide progressivism.  Here's the Message from Modesto that Matt mentioned.   All this is part and parcel of the mangling of the Church into some progressive new world order idol.  Did I say "mangling"?  A thousand pardons, please!  I meant to say "maturing" - you know, like the "maturing" we were supposed to do after the Extraordinary Synod!

Now listen at the 21:00 mark when Matt speaks of obedience to the pope and moral limitations on so doing.  He correctly states that "obedience is subordinate to the Faith".  Starting at 21:57, he says, "when a superior, even a pope, commands that we do something wrong including the instruction to believe something false and contrary to our religion and beliefs, what we were taught as Catholics, the Catholic response is to resist him".  Now going back to that Modesto debacle, McElroy and others pledged to "disrupt" Trump's immigration policies.  We now have major disruption in our Church.  It's time we start considering how we faithful Catholics will - as it were - disrupt the disruption.

We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.  She promised the children that "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph".  Of course that is true but that does not excuse us from taking on the task of Church Militant for if we don't, more souls will go to hell.

Why Does CMTV Urge Us To Blindfold And Gag Ourselves?

First, as you read the following, I ask that you keep the post from Friday in mind.

Last week ChurchMilitantTV (fronted by Michael Voris) replied to some alleged criticisms from other well-respected Catholics.  The latter allegedly criticized Voris for not taking public issue with Pope Francis for missteps and blunders during this first year of his papacy.  The other leaders are Chris Ferrara and John Vennari.  I say their criticisms of Voris are alleged because the Church Militant article linked to no source for them.

Louie Verrecchio, on behalf of Vennari and Ferrara, issued a rebuttal to Voris in the form of a spoof of the Vortex episodes.  I respect Michael Voris highly, and as regular readers know I post almost all the Vortexes in this blog.  However I must concur with Verrecchio on this occasion.  I post the two documents now, urging study of both of them:

• Church Militant statement: http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.php
• Verrecchio reply: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/751b83874a7bdfab126e65e854b51207-193.html

To be honest, I think the CMTV statement is so full of logical flaws as to be rather nonsensical.  I'll point out some of them, and I won't necessarily go in order of the document flow.

I read the articles that it cites.  While they do take exception with objectively questionable things that were done and said by the Holy Father, nowhere do I perceive personal attacks on the Holy Father or his papacy per se.  I wish to point out that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope" are NOT equivalent.  I take a dim view of the obfuscation of that difference.

The author of that CMTV piece (and it may not be Voris!) goes on to say that "it is our judgment that most Catholics should not read these articles".  I beg his pardon, but who does he think he is?  He's entitled to his opinion of these pieces - so let others form their own.  Here are two of the pieces:

•  http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/90-quo-vadis-franciscus
•  http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html

These, and a piece written by my friend at the Tenth Crusade (also touching on this exchange) begin to list our concerns with Pope Francis.  It bears mentioning again that no one is taking issue with any solemn pronouncements by His Holiness.  Regarding lower-level matters, though, we must raise alarms when we see them, for some will regard his actions as having the weight of solemn declarations.  I'd also like to call to mind my blog piece from Friday (to which I linked at the top of this piece).  In it is cited the example of St. Paul confronting St. Peter's erroneous behavior; Peter was the first Pope.

Moving on, we read this head-scratcher.  "Assume, for the sake of argument, that everything one learns from ecclesiastical porn sites and articles is true. Every claim, every allegation, is true. Bad news all around for the Church. Question: how are you a better Catholic for knowing all this, and what is the proper Catholic response?"  First, I take exception to CMTV describing Ferarra's and Venneri's works as "ecclesiastical porn".  Now let's reply to the questions.  First, we are better Catholics for knowing the complete "lay of the land".  We know precisely for what we should pray and we contemplate what action would be advantageous to correct poor situations.  Second, the proper Catholic response is never willful ignorance; that itself may constitute sin against prudence.

I'm going to take a "leap in evaluation" and try to glean the thrust of the following paragraphs of the CMTV tome in one sentence: "We know the Church is in crisis; the proper Catholic response is to focus solely on our personal holiness - nothing else."  If that is the case, CMTV is incorrect on this matter.

Here's another series of incredible sentences from the CMTV piece: "While we greatly admire and are the beneficiaries of the work of those on whose shoulders we stand in the work to help restore the Catholic Church to its authentic glory, we can neither support nor encourage their ongoing, unnecessary and harmful attacks on the Church and the Holy Father. Most Catholics are not even aware of the many disconcerting words and deeds of Pope Francis and his predecessors. Most Catholics have no idea that there were ecumenical events at Assisi or that Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran. Most Catholics, including most bishops and priests, don’t even know that there is a crisis in the Church today. They do know, however, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and, presumably, the guardian and protector of Catholic orthodoxy. Who benefits from attacks on the Rock on whom Our Lord established His Church (Matt 16:18)?"

Unpacking this might require its own post, but I'll give it a try in this one post.  We'll do this "bullet-style".

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll state once again that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope/church" are NOT equivalent.  CMTV, please stop the disingenuous blurring of that difference.
• This paragraph couples the wide-spread ignorance of the crisis in the Church with knowing that the pope is head of the church.  It seems to be accepting, if not condoning, this ignorance.  However, that is a far cry from the message conveyed in a previous Vortex episode in which Voris completely denounced the mental oblivion of the Catholic in the pew regarding the real crisis.
• Can another question be asked?  How about "who benefits from Catholics being kept in the dark regarding ills within the Vatican?"

This post could go on and on, but I'll close it now where the CMTV closes their's - with commentary on Genesis 9:18-27.  CMTV rightly praises the actions of Sem and Japheth.  Does it dawn on the CMTV author (I don't think it's Voris himself), that the two honorable sons would not have known their father needed their ministration had it not been for the tattling (call it "ecclesiastical porn") of their errant brother?  Cham's motives aside, he did alert his brothers to a dire situation, which they then addressed and corrected. Else, Noe might have died of exposure (drunkedness increases the risk of hypothermia).  Similarly, we need to sound the alarm over anomalies that we see in Church life, regardless of their source, so that appropriate actions can be taken.

Actually, there's another more fitting close.  I started this post by citing a Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Thomas Aquinas.  I'll close it with a quote from another Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Catherine of Siena: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence!"

Our Church is rotten.  We must have the courage and holiness to confront the rot where it occurs.  This blog will remain part of that choir of "a hundred thousand tongues".  We need more, not less, such tongues.

Cardinal Sins - And Their Papal Enabler

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris clearly lays out the case that many cardinals are deliberately flouting the Church's authority to coddle those in sexual sin or those who profit from sexual sin.  Missing from his analysis, though, is a forthright admission of why they are allowed to retain their red hats (what are they called?).  More to the point, there is someone who is allowing them to continue their chicanery and perhaps is orchestrating it.  I speak, of course, of Pope Francis.

To be fair, many of these cardinals started carrying on when the Pope's predecessors occupied his chair.  After last October's sin-nod, though, it became quite clear that this current pontiff at least approves of their dissenting behavior - if he's not outright ordering it.  I realize it is the policy of Church Militant TV not to criticize the pope's actions.  That's their decision.  I and many others hold a different opinion.  We will call the spade a spade.  I'll now analyze some statements of Voris' and point out some obvious papal connections.  I'll go in order as they occur in the video.

Shining The Light Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Today's Vortex addresses why Catholic bloggers will continue to shine the light on clerical misbehaviors - despite the whining and pouting of those who insist upon wearing rose-colored glasses in the face of clerical mischief.  It is their evil, more than that of laity, that has so much potential to damage the church simply because of the authority they do wield.  Indeed, untold numbers of souls have been led astray by nonsense from clerics.  Witness the gays who now have reason to believe that their mortal sins are affirmed by Cardinal Dolan as a result of the St Patrick's day parade fiasco.  And yes, witness the millions who now believe adulterers will be allowed to commit the sin of sacrilege with Holy Communion thanks to the grotesque relatio released by Pope Francis.  Yes, I will continue to shine the light - despite the stubborn resistance of some to seeing the truth.  One such individual is Jeff Mirus - more on that below the video.



Mirus penned a piece recently, to which I link now.  I'll unpack a few salient points - but not all for I don't have time for that.

Let's look at the second paragraph.  Since you'll have it open in a separate browser window, I'll interject my comments in red throughout this copy.  "Every few weeks (or perhaps every few days), Pope Francis says something that annoys or even appalls those who like their Catholicism neat and tidy.  His "neat and tidy" quip is really quite condescending.  That's a cheap shot, Mr. Mirus - for shame!  At any rate, we prefer the faith being portrayed clearly and unambiguously, for the sake of poor souls who really do need the truth with no gimmicks for the sake of their eternal salvation.  Pope Francis seems to enjoy not only shaking things up (which he has admitted) but speaking colloquially, and therefore with less theological and pastoral precision than might otherwise be the case. My readers know that I don’t think this is nearly as dangerous as many do,  for those who are not oh-so-sophisticated to wade through sloppy presentations, the lack of theological precision can well damn them nor do I think Francis is attempting to push the Church in an unacceptable direction I cannot divine whether or not he's attempting to push the Church in a bad direction; regardless of his motives that is in fact what he's doing."

Let's look at this one.  "I don’t think Francis thinks in the categories of left and right, liberal and conservative, that so many Western Catholics use as a kind of ecclesiastical shorthand to categorize conflicts over doctrine, liturgy and moral principles. Rather, I think Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted, And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a BIG problem on its own, when so many don't know the basics of faith and morals.  Even bishops, as evinced by the nonsense from the Sin-Nod last October display ignorance of their faith.  In their case I hope it's ignorance, lest they be culpable of serious sins but is really fed up with clericalism and formalism (call it systemic rigidity or riskless ministry) which prevents the Church (in her members) from being profoundly evangelical and constantly engaged in sacrificial service to those who are materially, morally and spiritually poor. This does lead to misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are  half due to our own inadequate categories of reflection  So what does Mirus call it when so many, of diverse perspectives and levels of Catholic knowledge, glean the same messages from the Pope?  When anyone attempts to communicate, he/she accepts the responsibility of communicating their message clearly.  It just isn't acceptable to blame the recipients of the message for repeated failures to communicate clearly."

Here Mirus shows evidence of swallowing the "god of surprises" kool-aid.  "In the challenge of love, God shows up with surprises…. So let yourselves be surprised by God: Don’t be afraid of surprises, afraid that they will shake you up.  Don't you think that depends on the nature of the particular surprise in question?  They make us insecure  Really?  Why should they?  but they change the direction we are going in. True love makes you “burn life”, even at the risk of coming up empty-handed."  Why this fetish regarding "surprises"?  Are we aware that God is immutable?  That His word doesn't change?  When we come across anomalies and are surprised by the same, maybe - just maybe!- that sense of "surprise" is really a warning from our good sense to stay away from the source of alarm.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to unpack this entire mess from Mirus (at least not in this post).  I will look at one last thing.  "We have a standing joke in my household. When I express an opinion about Pope Francis, my wife asks: 'How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?'"  I echo Mrs. Mirus' question, not only to Mr. Mirus but to all who refuse to take off their happy-clappy rose-colored glasses.