Pope Francis Met With Kim Davis Last Week

Reports have it that Pope Francis met secretly with Kim Davis and her husband at the Vatican embassy just before he left DC to head north.  During the meeting the pope thanked her for her courage and exhorted her to "stay strong".  Ms. Davis gave her account of the meeting to Inside The Vatican and her story was corroborated by "vatican officials".  However, Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokeman, while not denying the meeting occurred, refused to comment further.  During his plane ride back to the Vatican, the pope voiced his support for those who engage in "conscientious objection".

I don't know why the meeting had to be secret when the pope openly associated with pro-abortion politicians and other progressives.  Still, the support that he rendered Ms. Davis was vastly superior to the treatment meted out to her by US bishops, who still have yet to mention her name let alone stand in solidarity with her.  Reuters reports that the progressive cabal is "disappointed" by the pope's meeting with Ms, Davis, calling it "divisive".  Well, that's to be expected when truth is espoused.  One either believes the truth or he/she believes a lie; there's no middle ground with that.

I have to agree with some of my friends that along with his visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor, this visit with Kim Davis was by far one of the most useful and beneficial things accomplished during this papal vist.

News Flash! Father Rosica Has Been Healed!

Towards the end of this tome, Father Rosica said that the visit of Pope Francis to the United States caused him to be healed!  Healed of what, dare we ask?  There are several possible maladies that come to mind.

• Perhaps he's been healed of the regrettable (and petulant) tendency to try to sue Catholic bloggers who call his words and behaviors into question.
• Or maybe it's his view of the Holy Family - recall that he called them "irregular".
• Confusing faithful Catholics with the taliban
• His adulation of pope Francis, going so far as to call him "prince of peace" - a title reserved to Jesus Christ Himself

Well, here's hoping and praying that a miracle did indeed occur.  If not, though, I'll not be too surprised.

The Politics Of Defunding Planned Parenthood

Father Marcel Guarnizo, formerly of my parish before he was dismissed for upholding the Church's teachings on worthy reception of Holy Communion, wrote an article detailing his opinion of what the GOP in Congress should do in the wake of the Planned Parenthood videos.  To be specific, he is touching upon the matter of the funding of Planned Parenthood within the federal budget.  As I read the article, Father states that there is no moral impediment to passing a budget that includes Planned Parenthood funding, for 1) they don't have the votes in the Senate, 2) they don't have the votes to override Obama's veto and 3) they have tried before.  While I can see his point, I'm not sure I'd be ready to throw in the towel just yet.

I'd like to focus on two points made under the sub-heading "Material versus Formal Cooperation".  The first one may seem minor, but not from a Constitutional standpoint.  He seems to speak of the members of Congress "signing a federal budget".  No one in Congress signs anything; rather, it creates legislation to be enacted.  The signing of that legislation is left to the President to sign it into law or veto it.  Second, Father states that "a law exists in place forbidding federal dollars from being used for abortions".  While that's true, the concept of fungibility renders that fact irrelevant.

From my days as treasurer of a non-profit, I can speak of fungibility from first-hand experience.  Most np’s have a pool of funds used for general operating purposes (called gen-op for short) with no restrictions on how those monies can be spent.  A hypothetical np might have 5 areas in which they use these funds, and of course funds run rather thin in all areas.  Along comes a donor who will donate, but only to Area A and no other area.  Fine and dandy.  The donor-restricted funds are put into the budget for Area A, and gen-op funds originally slated for Area A can be used elsewhere.  That is fungibility and explains how our tax dollars WILL be used for abortion should the federal budget fund Planned Parenthood.

Let's also consider the fact that while there have been failed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, a vote now would be the first vote taken in the wake of the revelations provided by the Center for Medical Progress.  My opinion is that the GOP leadership in both houses should force floor votes and be prepared to use legitimate procedural means to forestall Democratic attempts to stymie votes.  That does mean that the leadership would have to develop some backbones, for over these past few years they have shown themselves to be quite feckless (actually worse than that, and I'll deal with that topic later in the next paragraph).  In bringing the matter of PP funding to the floor for a vote, each and every Representative and Senator will go on record for his/her vote in the wake of the horrific scandal of Planned Parenthood's sale of the babies whom it routinely murders.  Let any votes for Planned Parenthood be used by pro-life candidates as prima facae evidence why those Congresspeople should not win their next elections.  Should the bill reach the White House for Obama's veto, let that be a campaign issue as well.

As I read Father's article, it seems he wrote this before Boehner announced his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Over the past few years, his wielding of the gavel has been an abysmal disappointment and I daresay betrayal for while he played the groveling coward before the Democrats in Congress, he was actually quite ruthless towards the tea-party members of his own party.  To add insult to injury, it is reported that Boehner will use his final days as speaker to collude with Pelosi in ramming into the budget everything desired by the Obama cartel: Planned Parenthood funding, Iran deal, etc.

I'm also not entirely certain that conservatives in Congress are all that powerless.  If that were so, Boehner would have felt no impetus to resign.  But now comes the news that GOP officials in high places are suggesting that Senate Leader Mitch McConnell also resign.  This comes from Roger Villere, chairman of the Louisiana GOP.  He sees that many conservatives are no longer content with the measly little crumbs that the RINOs throw at us and that we don't intend to have our concerns and values treated like so many pawns in a chess game.

If we can do this sort of cage-rattling within the echelons of RINO leadership, we can give the PP defunding another attempt.  Dan Bongino wrote his own piece explaining why he too believes that there is a moral imperative to put up more of a fight than the one we are currently offering at this time.  If a reasonable budget without the Planned Parenthood funding is put before Obama's desk and he vetoes it, the onus of obstructionism is on him.  And by the way, if the Dems should snark on the GOP for "shutting down the government", one might wonder what they'd think about this stunt from one of their own who is considered "presidential material".

Papal Visit - Ominous Harbinger Of Things To Come

Several hours ago, the pope returned to the Vatican from the United States.  We all got a glimpse into what we may expect from this pontificate - and it ain't pretty!  We heard some snippets of exhortation to respect innocent life, but they were minuscule in comparison with the shillings for the allowance of illegal immigration, climate change, death penalty, arms trade, etc: all the talking points that had progressives (Obama included) waxing giddy with joy.  Jim Sedlak of American Life League penned his opinion of some of the pope's addresses, with which I concur.

Ladies and gentlemen, at best the papal visit was an abysmal disappointment.  More troubling is that progressives of many stripes were allowed to use the visit as bully pulpits to promote their anti-God agendas: from the gay-rights theatrics in New York and Philadelphia to the staged anchor-baby stunt during the DC parade.  Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute put up some commentary on the debacles of last week, noting that these things did not occur in vacuums.  Indeed, they could only have occurred with the connivance of the prelates of the respective venues in which they occurred.

In the first paragraph, I touched upon the various issues upon which the pope dwelt.  Nowhere did he deal with abortion and same-sex #mowwidge with the same treatment as he did the others.  In fact, I don't think he even mentioned them by name.  Speaking of name, one name that was curiously absent from his lips was that of Jesus Christ (with the obvious exception of his Mass celebrations).

When I pointed this out to some other faithful Catholics, they contorted themselves into pretzels trying to justify this glaring negligence.  They said things like:

• "he's being gentle"
• "he didn't come here to argue"
• "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
• "he refrained out of deference to the Jews and Muslims"
• "it's not the time nor the place"

Mind you, all these came from faithful Catholics!

Ladies and gentlemen, since when is it considered argumentative to acknowledge - by name - Jesus Christ, the God Whom we serve and adore?  As far as not being the time nor place, we are exhorted to preach the gospel "in season and out of season".  All the excuses above have a common theme - being "nice".  As we all know, "nice" is not a virtue.  Have you noticed that the enemies of the faith are most astute and diligent in seizing every opportunity to promulgate their falsehoods?  By and large, the mainstream culture applauds them, and we stand still for it in pseudo-respectful silence.  When we dare lift our voices, that same culture shouts us down and too often we comply with their demands for our silence, for we "want to catch flies with honey and not vinegar".  In other words, they define the terms and language of social conversation and debate and we acquiesce to it.  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not legitimate kindness or deference.  It is cowardice, rooted in an inordinate desire to be liked.

Speaking of being liked, Jesus had some things to say about that.  From Luke 6:26 we read "Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets."  Pope Francis was treated like a rock star in the mainstream culture whereas Jesus Christ was crucified.  Think about it.  More importantly, pray.  If this past week is any harbinger of things to come, the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family could be disastrous.

During Pope's Visit, The Gay Agenda Is Shilled Ad Nauseum

At the papal Mass in Madison Square Garden yesterday, the individual chosen to be lector was Mo Rocca, a notorious gay media personality.  Vox Cantoris has pictures of this individual: both in his "native" element and at the Mass where he did manage to come properly dressed.  As he is a media personality Rocca's mortal sin could not have been unknown to the Mass organizers.  And who was the individual with final responsibility for the Mass?  The local bishop - Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

I've chronicled much about Dolan's many insults to the teachings of Jesus Christ, including those regarding sexuality.  Let me list a few, with links for review.

• He claimed to hope for "delicacy" while ignoring the attacks on faithful Christians.
• He was Grand Marshall in the most recent St Patrick's parade, even though they allowed a gay-rights group to march with them.  When Michael Voris questioned him about it at the parade, Dolan had Voris ejected from his presence.
• He allowed St Francis of Assisi parish to host a "pre-pride mass" before the gay orgy in the streets last summer.
• He earned the nickname "Cardinal Bravo" for that was his reaction when a college football start came out as gay.
• He refuses to confront NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, supposedly a Catholic, over his many public sins: support of abortion, support of the gay lifestyle and his public fornication with the First Concubine of New York.
• Several years ago, when Dolan was the main celebrant at St. Francis Xavier and the "gay ministry" was presented to him, he openly evinced approval of their gay-shilling activities.
• Of course he joined in the deafening silence of the nation's bishops regarding Kim Davis' plight last month.

Given this rather long list above, I believe it safe to assume that Dolan knew full well of Rocca's mortally sinful lifestyle well in advance of yesterday's Mass and approved his appearance anyway.

With the above in mind, consider some of the individuals who were placed in positions of authority at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, where the pope also put in an appearance.  Thanks to the work of the Lepanto Institute, we had learned that the president of World Meeting of Families has been a regular donor to pro-abortion political candidates.  Now we have learned, again thanks to Lepanto, that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter was named Honorary Co-Chair of the World Meeting of Families.  In his political career, he has promoted abortion and "LGBT rights".  Lepanto attempted several time to contact the Archdiocese of Philadelphia but they never responded.  It is reasonable to believe that all this was done with the approval of Archbishop Chaput.   Nutter announced that he intended to use this new bully-pulpit to promote the gay agenda and even to bring it to the pope if given the opportunity.  On Saturday, when he spoke before the pope at Independence Hall, Nutter did precisely that.

I'd venture a guess that Pope Francis had no knowledge of either of these atrocities.  The responsibility for these lays with both Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop Chaput.  Given that the pope is headed for the Ordinary Synod on the Family next week, I might opine that these two episodes are more of the #maturation effort.  After all there's only one more week for that.

Sinister Machinations Behind Benedict-Francis Transition

Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium is releasing an authorized biography of his life and was recently interviewed for the occasion.  Let us be very clear that he has demonstrated his heretical positions repeatedly.

• When a law was put to the king of Belgium to liberalize abortion, Danneels advised the king to sign it.
• He called same-sex #mowwidge a "positive development".
• He tried to silence a victim of clerical sex abuse.

During the interview, he revealed that he was part of a cabal of clerics that was organized for the express purpose of stymieing the efforts of then-Cardinal Ratzinger and later to lobby for Cardinal Bergoglio.  They called themselves both the Sankt-Gallen group and the "Mafia".  Isn't that telling?  

Their efforts failed that time as Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to be Benedict XVI.  Both LifeSiteNews and Edward Pentin have more details.  The report states that the group got another chance because "unexpectedly Pope Benedict resigned".  Well maybe that resignation wasn't so "unexpected" after all.

Last month Eponymous Flower put up a post detailing an eyewitness account of other skulduggery to sabotage Benedict's papacy.  Pope Benedict was told by some renegade clerics that they had gathered thousands of signatures to petition for his resignation and that if he did not comply, then leading clerics would break away from the Church.  As we know, Pope Benedict did resign shortly thereafter.  Did this threat of schism influence his decision?  Was this group of renegade clergy also the "mafia" described by Daneels?  If not, did the two groups have members in common?

Ann Barnhardt put up a piece to remind one and all that any cardinal elector who engaged in canvassing during the election incurred the penalty of automatic excommunication and such canvassing would result in the election being invalidated.  The question remains, "did some of the cardinal-electors do any lobbying for specific candidates for the papacy?"  To be clear, lobbying did occur.  Cardinal McCarrick admitted to the same, but he was not an elector.  If electors were lobbying, Pope Francis' election would seem to be invalid.

Many theories have been circulating around the internet to that effect.  Regrettably, Cardinal Danneel's admission along with that of Cardinal McCarrick seven months ago lends basis to the claim that the last papal election was invalid.  I do not believe these two admissions by themselves constitute irrefutable proof of the election's invalidity so for now I must assume its validity.  But no one can gainsay that there are reasonable doubts regarding the validity, for if prelates could scheme so vigorously and unethically to engineer the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, why should we assume that they'd have any scruples against lobbying for a specific outcome in the papal election?

Update - The blog "From Rome" had published some information regarding "team Bergoglio" in February, lending more evidence regarding the charges of conclave-lobbying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep Gosar Was Wise To Boycott Today's Congressional Debacle

Representative Paul Gosar was wise to boycott the pope's address to the joint session of Congress today for it was a bit of an embarrassment.  This LifeSiteNews article has the full text of the thing.  I'll be focusing on some highlights - or lowlights.  Consider, for a little perspective, that the Senate just failed to defund Planned Parenthood: this in the wake of the evidence of their selling of the bodies of babies whom they routinely murder in the dungeons the laughingly refer to as clinics.

Early in his talk he mentions four Americans, holding them up for honor.  They are: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.  It's probably a good thing that today's Congress is GOP-controlled, for he did mention the nation's first Republican president.  Guess who else was Republican?  Martin Luther King!  Yes, he was a Republican.  He was also pro-life.  For that matter, his protege Jesse Jackson was also pro-life early in his career.  Read his defense of life written in 1977 - before he hankered after the Democratic presidential nomination and turned his back on his principles and the babies.  But I digress.

The inclusion of Thomas Merton is most questionable.  Of Merton, the pope says "he remains a source of spiritual inspiration and a guide for many people" and "a thinker who challenged the certitudes of his time and opened new horizons for souls"  REALLY???

Take a moment to examine Merton's life and his dalliance with Zen Buddhism.  Catholic Answers has a fairly comprehensive biography of him, detailing how he became seduced by Buddhism.  Merton told a friend shortly before his death that "Zen and Christianity are the future".  In that article, you'll notice that Pope Benedict XVI took a dim view of Merton and Buddhism,  going so far as to opine that Buddhism would replace Marxism as Catholicism's chief antagonist.  So why did the pope hold up as a model a de facto heretic?  In light of what was just said, it's worth noting that not once did the pope mention the name "Jesus Christ".  Why not?  He's the Vicar of Christ, is he not?  Unlike what Father Rosica said a few days ago, he himself is not a "prince of peace".  Some believe that Rosica just made a slip of the tongue when he plopped that blasphemy; I think it quite possible that Rosica knew very well what he was saying.

As for Dorothy Day, while undergoing a real conversion to Catholicism, she remained confused about a great many things.  To her credit she did make a request: "Don't call me a saint". (ht: St Corbinian's Bear).

The pope addresses many issues: death penalty, climate change, immigration, arms trade, redistribution of wealth.  What's missing from that list?  The legalized murder of babies known as abortion.  To put things in context, let's think about the conduct of this papal address at Congress today.  It took me a good 20-25 minutes to read through it silently.  It would probably take longer to speak it.  It would probably have taken the pope a bit longer than that since he's not fluent in English.  An then there's the breaks for applause, etc.  I would guess from start to finish the entire address took about 45 minutes or so.  If anyone has more precise data please advise via comments.  Now consider some statistics that indicate that a baby is aborted in this country every 20 seconds.  That means 3 babies are murdered every minute.  Therefore while the pope spoke, over 200 babies were slaughtered.  What of the death penalty?  Less than 100 have been executed in the past several years.  So why did the death penalty garner so much attention, while whole-scale baby-murder didn't rate one mention by the pope?

Some additional thoughts can be found at One Peter Five and Les Femmes.  Soon the pope will head to Philadelphia and the World Meeting of Families.  If these past few speeches of the pope are any indication of what may be on the horizon, dark days are ahead.

Pope Preaches Progressivism Rather Than Gospel

A few days ago, US Rep Paul Gosar (R-AZ), a devout Catholic, announced that he'd be boycotting the pope's planned address to Congress.  His reasoning is that if the pope is going to sound like a left-wing politician then he should be treated like one.  He announced his decision on his facebook page.  He was pounced upon by "church of nice" Catholics (or progressives posing as "church of nice" Catholics), saying that Gosar was engaging in wild speculation regarding what the pope might plan to say.  I supported Gosar's decision, reminding all of the pope's rather unfortunate track record.

Regrettably the pope's two addresses today confirmed Gosar's misgivings.  First, I'll link to the remarks that the pope gave as he addressed those with him in the White House.  He went on and on about "climate change".  Given what we know about Laudato Si and the progressives that helped craft that screed, we know the pope is abusing his high position to lend credence to the junk science and socialism embedded in the "climate change" ideology.  My colleague at Les Femmes pointed out that the Messiah Most Miserable applauded throughout the entire sorry spectacle.  He was applauding not only because the pope was shilling for one of his pet projects but because the pope made not one mention of the babies being murdered via abortion.  Statistically speaking, at least several dozen children were murdered during the time it took for the pope to utter his remarks.  Why did he not at least mention the children once?  Did he fear Obama, who has been unabashed about his support of baby butchery and now it seems, the selling of their tiny bodies for ghoulish "research"?  Or.....OR..maybe this heinous sin isn't that high on his priority list?

Having knocked envirowhackoism off the agenda for the day, the pope moved onto the coddling of illegal immigration at the meeting with the US bishops at St. Matthew's Cathedral.  The topic of abortion fared a little bit better; in this address it rated a 5-word sentence.  But that's it!  And even at that, it was merely the first of several issues, in true "seamless garment" "laundry-list" fashion.  The main thrust of his address was encouragement to be conducive to the de facto demolition of our national borders.  I would say that he's blissfully (if willfully) ignorant of the strain put upon our national resources, but I wonder if he's truly ignorant?  Does the phrase "Cloward-Piven" ring a bell?  Again, this is a cause near and dear to the heart of the Messiah Most Miserable for the reasons embodied in the Cloward-Piven theory, not to mention that all these immigrants are seen as a source of Democrat voters.

It would be wonderful if the pope did devote his Congressional address to the plight of the children murdered in the womb at the rate of over 3000 daily.  Clearly the Senate would benefit, seeing how they killed the measure to defund Planned Parenthood.  I hope and pray for that miracle.

A Prince Of Peace Is Coming To Town??!!?

That's what Father Rosica said of Pope Francis' visit to the DC area.  In this clip you'll see both Rosica and Cardinal Wuerl being interviewed on Fox News Sunday (ht Pewsitter).  The commentator is questioning Rosica and Wuerl about US Rep Paul Gosar's announcement of his boycott of the Pope's planned address to Congress.  Both clerics poo-poo the idea that the Pope will be promoting any kind of political agenda, let alone a leftist one (although Wuerl admits to political "ramifications").  When asked if the Pope will broach religious freedom, contraception, etc when he meets with Obama, Rosica emphatically answers "no" (at the 3:40 mark).  Then at the 5:00 mark we hear Fr Rosica call the pope a "prince of peace".  There is so much to unpack I almost don't know where to begin.

Let's start with this "prince of peace" crack.  In all of Scripture and Tradition, only One Person has ever been identified as "prince of peace" and that is Jesus Christ.  No one has dared called another person - even a previous pontiff - as "prince of peace".  That is a title that has always been reserved for Our Lord and Him alone.  Is there some attempt at deification here?

Now as far as lack of political agenda goes, that too is stuff and nonsense.  Does anyone doubt that Laudato Si will not at least be mentioned?  That thing itself is chock-full of leftwing envirowhacko socialistic screed.  Rep Gosar is correct. Read this Breitbart article (and associated links) for his level-headed, truly Catholic thinking.  I commend him for his boycott and hope he's not alone in his principled stance.

In the video that I'll post below, Judge Andrew Napolitano is being interviewed about the Pope's trip.  Identifying himself as a traditional Catholic, he opines that Pope Francis is a "challenge and an obstacle" to traditional Catholics.  Napolitano succinctly states why it is simply wrong for the pope to lend the solemn dignity of his role as Vicar of Christ to his mere personal opinions.

I'll also link to an article written by Michelle Malkin (another Catholic) as she explores the ramifications of apparent papal disdain for air conditioners.  She's correct about all these folks bemoaning "carbon footprints" from their air-conditioned offices or their private jets.  Napolitano mentioned that the pope is charged with teaching on faith and morals.  We'd all be much better off if he paid attention to that mandate.  He is Christ's Vicar, not a rival "prince of peace".

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.

Progressive Manipulation At The Sin-Nod And An Update From The Maturation Department

Remember the incident during last October's sin-nod, when Cardinal Pell rebuked sin-nod leaders?  Pounding the table with his hand, he demanded "you must stop manipulating this synod!"  He said this after it was announced that the proceeds from the small group discussions would not be shared with the synod at large.  After Pell and some others called out the skulduggery for what it was, the leaders and "editorial committee" relented and publicized those reports.  In a subsequent interview with LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Pell made mention of a "radical cadre" working for a very progressive outcome to the sin-nod.

It seems that Cardinal Pell's theory regarding the existence of this cabal has very solid basis.  A few months prior to the sin-nod, Cardinal Baldiserri, aka "Book-Thief Baldi", told Father Rosica that the Church needs to "update" and "be incarnate into time".  He also stated that if the sin-nod reiterated the Church's teachings, the sin-nod would be "meaningless".  I've no doubt he was thinking mainly of the Church's teachings on marriage, family, sexuality.  He might as well have thrown into the mix the Church's teachings on the Seventh Commandment.

Edward Pentin is a journalist associated with the National Catholic Register.  He covered the sin-nod and exposed much of the shenanigans there.  He did such a good job that Cardinal Kasper attempted to ruin his career; Kasper wound up with major egg on his face for that.  Two weeks ago he interviewed with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN and publicized his book, "The Rigging Of A Vatican Synod".  In that book he lays out a good deal of evidence that points to manipulation of the last sin-nod and possible attempts to do the same at the one occurring next month.  Now because this book is an e-book, it would seem safe from the clutches of "Book-Thief Baldi" - we hope!

UPDATE - We now provide an update from the Maturation Department.  The German bishops published today an apologia for same-sex #mowwidge.  Here is the news from LifeSiteNews.  With just a few weeks until the next sin-nod, these progressives are putting their "maturation" efforts into overdrive!

Here is the interview.

Stacking The Deck At The Sin-Nod

This past Sunday I touched upon the mischief coming from way too many German bishops.  Well, the slop continues to ooze forth.  Bishop Franz-Josef Bode is not only advocating that Holy Communion be given to adulterers, but even for "special blessings" for those committing the mortal sin of sodomy.  He's quite unabashed about it and I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if he incurs any disciplinary action for this.  And yes, he's attending the sin-nod.

Speaking of questionable bishops, Rorate Caeli has released a list of some who have been appointed to participate in next month's sin-nod.  They include Cardinals Dolan, Kasper, Wuerl and Bishop Cupich - in other words, the usual gang of suspects.  Here is a more complete list from Voice of the Family.

LifeSiteNews reported yesterday that at least 60 moral theologians and philosophers have signed a petition for the removal of a controversial paragraph from the instrumentum laboris for the sin-nod.  They believe the language theren calls into question the Church's teaching regarding the inherent sinfulness of contraception.  Among the signers is Dr. Germain Grisez of Mount St Mary's University in Emmitsburg, MD.  I would trust his judgment.  How is it that any instrumentum laboris would be allowed to emerge from the Vatican with sloppy theology enbedded within it?  Could that language have been deliberately inserted into the working document?  By whom?

On this feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, let's ask her intercession for her Son's church.

Tenth Video Released That Incriminates Planned Parenthood In Sale Of Murdered Babies' Bodies

These Planned Parenthood officials who try to convince us that they are pure as the driven snow only deceive themselves - and I'm not sure how successful that is.

Don't Let Papal Visit Distract You From Next Month's Synod

The preparations for the pope's imminent visit are developing into quite a "dog-and-pony" show, with all the tee shirts, caps, cardboard cut-outs, etc.  Lots of excitement is afoot - so much so that many are becoming oblivious to the storm that is about to erupt at the Ordinary Synod of the Family this coming October.

Some of us are raising the alarm.  Ladies and gentlemen, there is real possibility - if not probability - for schism to result from this synod.  This tocsin is also being sounded by Cardinals.  Cardinal Reinhard Marx is on record of favoring the distribution of Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained proper annulments.  Bear in mind that this heretical position is being espoused by the president of the German Catholic Conference and member of Pope Francis' "gang of nine".

Thankfully Marx is being opposed directly by two faithful Cardinals.  Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, called Marx's words "heresy and dangerous schizophrenia".  He made his remarks as he released his book "God Or Nothing - A Conversation About Faith".  His book was presented by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, who explicitly warned of a schism owing to the antics of German bishops.

There's also heresy from Belgium.  Bishop Johan Bonny (where have we heard that name before?), recently voiced opposition not only to Humanae Vitae, but to natural law itself.  Consider that this heretic will be a sin-nod "father", as well as Bishop Cupich.

As I said, too many well-meaning folks are waxing giddy over the pope's visit.  We need to remain sober and at prayer for the future of the Church and salvation of millions.  I now post a video that suggests this pitting of clerics against each other might well be a fulfillment of the prophesy of Our Lady of Akita.  It also voices many other warnings and alarms regarding the upcoming sin-nod.

Will The Upcoming Sin-Nod Lead To Schism?

That is a very real concern being voiced by some faithful bishops and laypersons.  Before we watch a video dealing with these questions (ht: LifeSite News), let's digest a piece of news from Rome.  Within the city limits, a square will be dedicated to Martin Luther - with no opposition from the Vatican.  This is not "ecumenism" in any healthy sense of the word.  Martin Luther was a heretic who did much to undermine Christianity, leading to death and destruction - and not just in this life.  Now consider that lately the German Catholic Conference has been standing in open defiance of the Magisterium.  Who is the president of the German Catholic Conference?  Cardinal Reinhard Marx - the same who organized the "shadow council" (now occurring) and who is among the pope's closest advisers.  So now we have the Vatican sitting silently by, while a German heretic is being honored in Rome.  Might this be a nod to the current German heretics?  As you watch the video, notice the references to both Martin Luther and German bishops who are spreading heresy.

By the way - check out Cardinal Marx's crosier at 28:19.  What is that thing supposed to be??

The Catholic Standard Disgusts Me

In my mailbox today was the September 10th issue of the Catholic Standard, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Washington.  This issue was a bit thicker than usual, as it was devoted to Pope Francis' imminent visit.  It was filled with all sorts of stories, tributes from schools, etc.  I certainly understand that.  After all, the pope is coming to town and we'd naturally expect to see that visit lauded in the official diocesan publication.  What troubles me is what wasn't mentioned at all in the Standard.

Now let's be clear.  The issue wasn't devoted exclusively to the pope.  There were the ads (of course) and a tribute to a recently deceased Gonzaga teacher; this tribute occupied over an entire page.  Well, that's nice, but one key piece of news was glaringly absent.

I'm referring to the situation regarding Kim Davis.

Let's be clear about this.  Kim Davis was the first person in US history to be imprisoned precisely because she held to Christian ideals and morals.  Might that not have been deemed worthy of a paragraph or two inside an allegedly Catholic publication?  Perhaps some space could have been purloined from one of those "pope-francis-tee-shirt" ads to put Ms. Davis' name before the Catholic readership.  Perhaps Kim Davis could have been lauded as an example of one who "walks with Francis".

All in all, the Catholic hierarchy's treatment of Ms Davis throughout her whole ordeal has been nothing short of an abysmal disgrace.  One might think that they would have treated St Thomas More in the same way during his imprisonment in the Tower of London.  Come to think of it, the bishops of his day (with the obvious exception of St. John Fisher) did precisely that.  This does not bode well for next October's sin-nod nor for the Church's fortitude in standing against future onslaughts.

Joke With The Pope - Dumbing Down The Papacy

Vox Cantoris pointed this out.  Vatican Radio has launched a hare-brained stunt called "joke with the pope", ostensibly to raise money for charity.  I thought we had gotten past the selfies and clown-noses.  But no, there are some who think the trivialization of the papal office is still worth a few yoks.  They don't care that in making light of papal dignity, they thumb their noses at hundreds of saints and even martyrs who occupied St Peter's chair; or perhaps they do and that's the whole idea.  All in the name of charity of course.

This idea seems to have spewed forth from the Pontifical Mission Societies.  If they think this gimmick will further the Church's mission of saving souls, it's no wonder that Church membership is plummeting world-wide.  This pope-joke thing has "the pope's comedy cabinet".  From the webpage we can see that Conan O'Brien is one of them.  A look at the wikipedia article reveals that O'Brien was "ordained" a minister by the "Universal Life Church Monastary".  In that "office" he performed a same-sex mowwidge.  Is this the sort of progressive loon that this Vatican Radio touted nonsense allows to select "papal jokes"?  I can only imagine that others in this "papal comedy cabinet" are similarly inclined.  This whole thing is itself a macabre joke.

Hey!  Here's a radical idea!  Instead of "joke with the pope", how about "pray for the pope"?  One could keep the charitable aspects while honoring (instead of denigrating) the papal office.

From The Maturation Department: New Annulment Procedures - Weakening Of Marriage

Yesterday we received the texts of the pope's revision of the annulment procedures.  I am not a canon lawyer so my reflections will draw heavily on those who are canon lawyers.  Now consider that many progressives and others not friendly to the Church's perennial teachings on family life are waxing bubbly and giddy over this news, ever gushing about the "mercy" that is now newly-infused into this situation.  Mercy??  New???  Since when has mercy - real mercy, that is, been "new to the Church?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they are effusing over the perceived laxity that has been introduced into the annulment process.  I have to agree with them that laxity has been introduced.  Unlike them I do not find much cause for celebration, for what they call "mercy" is nothing more than sloppy sentimentality and disregard for wisdom acquired over the centuries.

Last October, Cardinals Burke, Muller and others published a book, "Remaining in the Truth of Christ", intending that it be "food for thought" during last October's sin-nod.  Recall that this is the book that Cardinal Baldiserri had stolen from the mailboxes of the attending synod fathers.  Cardinal Burke's essay outlined the development of the Church's annulment process over the centuries and cautioned against a radical overhaul.  I point out that Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer.  He spoke on September 8th at the Franciscan University at Steubenville and voiced concerns over the provisions that are found in Pope Francis' Moto Proprio.  Follow this link to Fr Z's post with video embedded; Father gives pointers regarding the location of Cardinal Burke's talk on the video.

Consider two of the provision in conjunction with one another.  One provision allows the local bishop to pass judgment regarding certain annulment cases.  It's worth noting that most bishops are not canon lawyers, and marriage has juridical considerations that need to be carefully and knowledgeably weighed.  Now consider that in many cases, these decisions do not have to be evaluated by a second tribunal court.  A crucial provision for "checks and balances" has been eliminated in the name of "expediency and mercy" - a provision that in actuality is necessitated all the more since the first decisions will fall into the purview of those not trained to evaluate nullity petitions.  They might wind up declaring null a marriage that is, in actually, canonically and sacramentally binding.  Even more disconcerting is the expedition of those cases where both parties are in agreement as to the alleged invalidity of marriage.  Do we see the danger of collusion here in the denial of a valid marriage?  Dr. Peter's two posts are here and here.  As I said earlier, I'm not a canon lawyer, but some dangers are apparent just by dint of common sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am also troubled by the timing of these Moto Proprios.  This happened just a few weeks prior to the onslaught beginning of the Ordinary Synod on the Family.  I believe this is done to condition us for some real disasters that are on progressives' agendas.

Kim Davis Freed From Her Unjust Imprisonment

Yesterday Kim Davis was freed from her incarceration - a draconian persecution that had absolutely no justification.  Her cause drew national attention and outrage from many quarters of the nation.  Many good people sounded the alarm and made their disgust at Judge David Bunning known.  I suspect he meant to intimidate her by his roughshod treatment, but because of the national outcry - aided by social media - he realized quickly his trick could backfire in his face.  Perhaps this release was a "cut-and-run" action on his part.  At least he mitigated the damage he had done - somewhat.

Obviously to God belongs thanks and honor for vindicating His servant and witness.  Kudos to Franklin Graham, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and others for calling out the fiends in government.  Of course we recognize the hundreds who rallied this weekend outside the jail house.

As a Catholic, though, I must say that I'm embarrassed by the deafening silence of the Catholic hierarchy.  I checked the website of the Diocese of Lexington a few minutes ago; still you will not find so much as a mention of Ms. Davis' name.  The same goes for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  I find that most mystifying as they seem to be preparing for this World Meeting of Families that the Pope will be attending in Philadelphia next month.  We all know that had the news from Kentucky been of some serial killer being sentenced to death row, that the USCCB would have started their protests and prayer vigils in a heartbeat - but when it comes to a Christian standing for marriage, they just couldn't be bothered.  How will they respond in future situations?  And yes, Ms. Davis' situation is just the first among many.

Below the jump break I'll post some videos.  The first is Ms Davis' address just after her release.  The next two offer American citizens some much needed civics lessons.  Some Catholics who opine that Ms Davis thumbed her nose at the US Constitution should really pay close attention.  Now,

Regarding Kim Davis - A Picture Speaks A Thousand Words

Lots of times, a picture speaks a thousand words.  Here are some Facebook memes that do the job nicely.

More On The Persecution Of Kim Davis - And Rebuking The Catholic Hierarchy Regarding Their Indifference To Her Plight

Many folks, even some Christians, opine that David Bunning was "just doing his job" when he treated Kim Davis as a criminal for - obeying the law.  More on that in a moment but first let's take a look at David Bunning himself, for his judicial impartiality may not be so impartial.

Bunning has a judicial record that leans most decidedly to the left, as revealed by the Blaze.  In 2007, he was one of three judges to overturn Michigan's partial birth abortion ban.  A few years prior to that, the public schools in Boyds County KY held "sensitivity training", i.e., gay-pandering brainwashing sessions, requiring that students attend them.  When students objected to being coerced into this spiritual insult, Bunning ordered that they endure the spit-in-face anyway (his order was subsequently overruled).  By the way - Bunning claims to be Catholic; at least his mother says he is.

As far as obeying the law goes, I refer you to this excellent analysis by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.  Recall some basic constitutional principles.  We are a nation of laws, not rulings.  Laws are enacted by legislatures, not judges.  Kentucky has defined marriage to be between a man and a woman.  Yes, courts have ruled against true marriage in other states, but a ruling for one state's law doesn't legally preclude another state's law.  Some state governing bodies may carry on like it does, but only because they don't appreciate their own sovereignty. I link now to Allen West who points out the hypocrisy of those criticizing Davis while wallowing in their own lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution.

Getting back to "the law", Mike Huckabee asks under what law was Ms Davis being required by the courts to issue marriage licenses to gays?  The answer is NONE.  Franklin Graham has also publicly supported Ms. Davis.  Here is a petition for the release of Ms. Davis.  It is a gross miscarriage of justice that she is being imprisoned for following properly enacted law while progressives in the White House and other branches of the government who've violated their oaths of office - resulting in loss of life - prowl about scott-free.

By the way, I still haven't heard one peep from the Catholic Church regarding this travesty.  With all the kvetching and ballyhooing they've been doing about "religious liberty", one might think they'd be all over this.  You can bet they would have sprung into immediate action had some serial killer had received the death penalty, so why has no concern been evinced for a totally innocent woman?  I know they've all been aflutter about "walking with Francis" and "going green" but cannot the hierarchy be bothered to utter just the most perfunctory statement of concern for her?

This drama happened in Rowan County, Kentucky.  The local church is the Diocese of Lexington.  As you can see on that site, there is not one mention of Ms. Davis' name.  The bishop is Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv.  It appears that he's only been there six months.  Here is a page where you can email the diocese; alternatively the phone # and address are on the main page, top right corner.  This diocese should be loudly denouncing Bunning's treatment of Ms. Davis and demanding support for her.  The silence of the Catholic Church in the US, particularly this diocese, is nothing short of an abysmal scandal.

From The Niggers Of The New Age Department - Christian Government Official Jailed For Upholding True Law

I'm writing of Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who has just been jailed by a rogue judge until she agrees to issue marriage licenses to those engaged in homosexual perversion.  See here.  There's complaints from the judicial activists about her taking an oath - an oath which I suspect was administered with her hand on a Bible.  That gesture is NOT a meaningless tradition.  Anyway, before liberals tut-tut against Ms. Davis for "defying rule of law", they might wish to refresh their memories a tad.

Mike Huckabee had this to say: "Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny. Five unelected Supreme Court lawyers did not and cannot make law. They can only make rulings. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme branch and it's certainly not the Supreme Being. I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Ted Cruz also issued a statement to which I'll link.  Towards the end we read "We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so."  That's just historical fact.

Huckabee asked "who's next?"  Actually folks from all those fields have been attacked and persecuted for not bowing before the gay-nazi baals and molechs of the day - and we are being attacked by highly placed and highly paid henchmen.  This is why several years ago I coined the phrase "niggers of the new age" to describe the increasing hostility we're facing precisely because we are Christians who obey God.

In a discussion about Ms. Davis' situation, I said of her, "her witness stings their guilty consciences so they are driven to punish her for her beliefs. Such was the case with John the Baptist, St Stephen, just about every martyr and anyone who upholds Christian morality. They want blood."  The progressives resent our stance for it makes plain the sinfulness of their conduct.  When I said "they want blood", I was not speaking metaphorically.

Let us stand with brave Christians like Ms Davis and speak out against her mistreatment - while we still some freedoms left.

By the way - I just popped over to the USCCB site to see if they issued any sort of statement, as did Huckabee and Cruz.  Not a peep, and I'm not surprised.  If anyone sees any such statement, please drop a line in the combox.

CMP Expose Of Sale Of Aborted Babies - Ninth Video Out

Here is the ninth video.  If you watch this on the youtube channel, the full unedited video will immediately follow.

Thanks To Pope Francis For Allowing SSPX Priests Faculties For Hearing Confessions

In a statement released today, Pope Francis made two important pronouncements in relation to the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy that begins on December 8th of this year.  First, he has granted to all priests the faculties to absolve the sin of abortion, provided that their is the requisite contrition on the part of the penitent.  Abortion has always been a sin that carried the penalty of automatic excommunication and accordingly could only be absolved by a bishop. It so happens that most bishops in the United States have extended that faculty to their priests but now that ability will be conferred on all priests regardless of locale.

Secondly, he has granted to priests of the Society of St Pius X faculties to hear Confessions and grant absolution.  As of December 8, confessions to these priests will be valid and licit, something that previously was not the case.  We hope and pray that this situation will continue and that this society will one day find itself in full communion with Rome.

There has been much controversy regarding the SSPX over the past few months among faithful Catholics.  On the one hand there are those who hold the SSPX to be in schism from the Church.  Today's letter from the Pope makes clear the inaccuracy of that supposition for if the SSPX were truly in schism, the pope would be unable to grant any faculties whatsoever to them.  On the other hand, there are those who hold that SSPX confessions were always valid and licit.  SSPX themselves held and still hold that position.  They are relying on something they call "the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae Generales of the Code of Canon Law".  I cannot help but notice that they don't supply the Code number.

For this move the Pope deserves thanks.  We all pray that women who've aborted will return to God and receive sacramental forgiveness AND that the divisions between the Vatican and SSPX will be rectified.