From The Paradigm Shift Department: Allowing Perverts To Be Godparents And Tinkering With The Papal Conclave

Canon Law, specifically articles 872-874 of Chapter 4, are quite specific regarding the requirements for godparents.  First, there can be no more than one godparent of a given gender.  The godparent(s) must living a life in conformity to Catholic faith and morals.  Clearly no one can be a godparent who not only engages in mortal sin but who champions it.  That would include those engaging in sexual relations with another of the same gender are who considers themselves "transgender".  This past Wednesday, Francis and Bishop Touchy-Kissy signed a document that gives permissions for perverts to flout Canon law.  They are giving cover for the sin of sacrilege and for cooperating in the mortal sins of the perverts to be involved.

Meanwhile, there seems to be an effort underway to "reform the papal conclave" - in other words, to stack the papal electors so that another of Francis' mindset will succeed him when Francis is called to his eternal reward (such as that may be - pray for him).  Francis is currently "reviewing" it.  The upshot is that the cardinals over 80 years of age would be excluded from the preparatory phase and - here's the crucial part - have 25% of the electors comprised of laity and women religious.  All these would be appointed by Francis.  In short, Sister Mary Pantsuit would cast a vote for the next "pontiff".

Ladies and gentlemen, when Francis yammered on about "paradigm shifts", he wasn't kidding.  He intends to distort and turn the Church into some kind of horrible caricature of its former self.  He's not even trying to hide it anymore.  Are we awake yet?

Cardinal Burke - Latest Target Of Papal "Accompaniment"

Frankly, this latest comes as no surprise.  It was just a matter of time.  From LifeSiteNews today, we read that the New Daily Compass reported on Francis' alleged intentions to evict Cardinal Burke from his apartment in Rome and to terminate his salary.   During a meeting with the heads of the Roman curia on November 20th, he is reported as saying, "Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I am taking away his flat and salary."  My!  Isn't all this "papal accompaniment" so, so ... special?

Of course this is right on the heels of Francis kicking Bishop Strickland out on his ear.  As in the case of Strickland, Cardinal Burke himself has received no official notice of these proceedings.  This almost has the feel of some mafia don giving orders for hits, all the while making plain that the chopping block orders came from him.Francis' marginalization of Cardinal Burke began early in his seizure of Peter's Chair.   Pope Benedict had appointed Burke as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura; Francis dismissed him as punishment for criticizing his "papacy".  Burke was also part of the Congregation of Bishops.  Again, Francis axed him, replacing him with the liberal Cardinal Wuerl.

Now two questions come to mind:

1. What else will Francis do to Burke?  Bear in mind that Francis is reportedly having health issues.  Burke, presently a Cardinal, is eligible to vote in the next papal conclave.
2. Who is next?

Did The US Deep State Force The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI?

As we all know, Pope Francis is critically ill.  There is well-founded concern that he may be in his final days.  Calls for prayers on his behalf have been all over the internet.  We certainly must pray for his repentance and conversion to the One True Faith.  Let's face it.  He has done much to deconstruct the Church: the full-on attacks of the Traditional Latin Mass, cancelation of faithful bishops and priests, foisting the abortion-tainted Covid vaccine at every opportunity, hob-nobbing with Jeffrey Sachs and promoting earth-worship under the guise of "protecting the climate" etc.  That list could go and on.

Should he recuperate without repentance, that list would no doubt lengthen.  Therefore, with no sign of repentance, I will withhold prayer for physical healing.  Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot loose sight of the forest (millions of Catholics) for the sake of one tree (Francis).  Thanks to his wreck-o-vation of the Church, millions have had their faith compromised and weakened, perhaps at the cost of their eternal salvation.  Do we accuse Francis in this matter?  No, but by the same token, neither do we excuse him.  We look at his actions and see what has happened.

It's only natural to think about possible successors to Francis, especially in light of how he stacked the College of Cardinals over the years.  We also need to reevaluate whether or not Benedict's resignation was valid or invalid, and the integrity of the conclave that "elected" Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy.  Why now, you may ask?  Because any underhanded machinery that most likely engineered that transition will be brought back into action when Francis passes to his reward.

We've known for some time that there was undue influence regarding the election of Bergoglio.  McCarrick made no bones about that.  Other pertinent articles are here. 

On Feb 20, LifeSiteNews published some very relevant pieces.  I urge you to read them and to watch the videos embedded therein, as well as reading the linked articles.  See here and here. 

Linked here is a petition to ask President Trump to investigate alleged pressure placed by the US government on Pope Benedict to resign the papacy.  Understand that if the investigation determines that such coercion happened, then by canon law, Benedict's resignation would invalid and thus the papacy of Bergoglio would likewise be null and void.

Again, please pray for his conversion and repentance.  Pray also that no more US deep state interference occurs, so that there is some slim chance of a truly holy, capable Catholic being elevated to Peter's Chair.

Do These Pre-Conclave Meetings Invalidate Cdl Bergoglio's Election To The Papacy?

Yesterday an interview that the pope had was published by Telam and reported by thedialog.org.  The pope seems to have let the cat out of the bag, as it were.  He states that the havoc he wreaked his accomplishments to date are goals agreed upon with other cardinals at a pre-conclave meeting.  Let that sink in.  Goals for his papacy were set before the conclave happened that elected him pope.

So many questions arise regarding this pre-conclave meeting of cardinals.  Obviously it happened before Bergoglio was elected pope.

• Did it happen before or after Benedict XVI resigned?
• If before, did the attendees at that meeting deliberate how to secure Benedict's resignation?
• Did these cardinals agree that Bergoglio should be elected?
• If the answer to the preceding question was yes,
• Did they promise to vote for Bergoglio?
• Did they initiate plans to lobby other cardinals to vote for him?
• Were the cardinals at that meeting part of the St. Gallen mafia?

The answers to these questions might well have bearing on the validity of both Pope Benedict's resignation and Pope Francis' election.  Enough irregularities have been detected to call both into question.

Did Cardinal McCarrick Lobby For Pope Francis' Election?

All the signs seem to indicate that he did: including an admission from the Cardinal himself.  My friend at Les Femmes commented on a biography of the pope and highlighted some of the goings-on before and during the conclave.  I post below a video of an address that McCarrick gave at Villanova University in October 2013.  I urge you to listen for about 5 minutes, starting at the 17:00 mark.  I believe that McCarrick did in fact "talk up" Bergoglio.  Recall the address that he gave prior to the conclave, in which he voiced the opinion that the next pontiff should be Latin American - or at least familiar with the church in that area.

Did Cardinal McCarrick violate canon law?  I'm not sure.  The electors themselves were forbidden to do such lobbying, but McCarrick was not an elector owing to his age.  However, Cardinal Wuerl was an elector and was in the conclave; they both are peas from the same progressive pod.  Might this little tid-bit explain why Wuerl wielded such influence at the sin-nod and why he was allowed to supplant Cardinal Burke in the Congregation of Bishops?

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.

Pell And Neumayr - Their Suspicious Deaths

Cardinal George Pell passed away ten days ago, on January 10, 2023.  He had only been released a short while ago while unjustly imprisoned on rather trumped-up charges.  Just before his death, the Spectator published what is now His Eminence's final article dealing with the working document for the upcoming "Synod on Synodality".  He had some choice, accurate words to say about the 45-page bloviation.  To wit:

"What is one to make of this potpourri, this outpouring of New Age good will? It is not a summary of Catholic faith or New Testament teaching. It is incomplete, hostile in significant ways to the apostolic tradition and nowhere acknowledges the New Testament as the Word of God, normative for all teaching on faith and morals. The Old Testament is ignored, patriarchy rejected and the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, is not acknowledged

"The Catholic Synod of Bishops is now busy constructing what they think of as ‘God’s dream’ of synodality. Unfortunately this divine dream has developed into a toxic nightmare despite the bishops’ professed good intentions."

As far back as 2014, over eight years ago, Cardinal Pell displayed his wariness regarding this plethora of "synods".  He called out some skullduggery by pounding his fist on a table and demanding that leaders "stop manipulating this synod".  Lo and behold, they backed down once they were shown to be charlatans. 

Last March the blogger Sandro Magister published a "Memorandum on the Next Conclave".  It had been circulating among the cardinals and was written under the pseudonym "Demos".  Magister stated on January 11th that Cardinal Pell was Demos.  The memo began with the declaration that "commentators of every school.. agree that this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe."  He then goes on to outline what he believes should be the mindsets of the cardinals during their selection of the next pope.

The officially-stated cause of the cardinal's death was "complications from hip surgery".  He allegedly had a heart attack.  I cannot find any definite statement of him taking the covid-cootie-jab, but I strongly suspect he didn't.  Being aware of the masonic forces that lurk within the Vatican, I cannot dismiss the possibility of murder, given the Cardinal's outspoken opposition to Francis' strange schemes.  There is talk that Pell stood to be influential in the next conclave; perhaps that is what some feared.

On January 20th, just a few days after the death of Cardinal Pell, we received news of another George who spoke truth regarding this pontificate.  George Neumayr passed away in the Ivory Coast, allegedly from malaria.  While he looked terrible in what turned out to be his last podcast, he mentioned nothing of being ill, nor did his prolific tweets hint at any serious sickness.  The corrupt bishops had reason to fear him, from their warped perspectives.  He wasn't afraid to approach them and ask them pointed questions.

Many Catholics and pro-life people are mourning the deaths of these two men and rightly asking prayers for the repose of their souls.  However, they are ignoring the elephant in the living room - the suspicious natures and timings of their deaths.  Not everyone is, though.  I'll say this plainly.  We must consider the very real possibility that these two men were murdered because they both were exposing corruption from within the Vatican.  Let's face it; we know that freemasonry runs rampant through the Vatican.  We have testimony from the late Bella Dodd about the subversives that she and others insinuated into the seminaries during the early 20th century.  Is is not very likely that some of them wormed their way into the Vatican?  Consider the origins of the Sankt Gallen mafia.

Will there be more?  We can't know the answer to that.  Will we be intimidated by all this?  We better know the answer to that.

For both men: requiescat in pace.

The Conclave Is In Session

Saint John Eudes once stated that evil clergy are a manifestation of God's punishments upon His people.  I don't have time to enumerate the ways in which we, as a Church, more than merited such chastisement, save only to say that multiple infidelities occurred way before Vatican II occurred.

Francis' less-than-illustrious papacy has drawn to a close, but this is no time to breathe a sigh of relief.  Recall that he stacked the College of Cardinals with like-minded individuals.  It will take a miracle for a faithful and capable Catholic pontiff to be elected.  God can, if He is willing, work such a miracle.  

Are you praying for such a miracle?  The salvation of millions, perhaps some in your own families, depend on it.  At the very least, be offering your daily Rosaries for this intention.

His Eminence Cardinal Burke composed the following prayer.  True, the novena period is past, but this still is an excellent prayer that one can use.

Mum's The Word! So Do NOT Give To The Annual Appeal!

While he slithered about the Archdiocese of Washington, ex-cardinal McCarrick maintained a personal charitable fund called the Archbishop's Fund.  There seems to be reason to believe that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that flowed in and out of that "charitable fund" were actually bribes.  Of course we don't know for sure because the Archdiocese refuses to answer questions about the funds: questions such as who were recipients, how much did each receive, why, etc.  Right off the bat I can think of two uses that McCarrick may have had for these funds:

1. Facilitation and/or damage control related to his sexual predations
2. Buying of votes during the papal conclave that elected Pope Francis
3. If there are other suggestions, please communicate via the comments section.

If the uses of this fund were honorable, why not disclose them?  Of course when we say the "archdiocese refuses to answer", we must necessarily say that Archbishop Gregory refuses to answer those questions.  And he does.  Oh, by the way.  This past Sunday the Archbishop received the Pallium. 

In other related archdiocesan news, we recall that journalist George Neumayr was ejected from the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception.  Allegedly he was being kicked out because of some legal order barring him from being on Shrine grounds.  Well, guess what?  No such order actually existed, according to a Shrine staffer.  Surprise!  See here and here.  So Msgr Rossi flat out lied.  There was no such order with DC Police.  But speaking of Rossi and the police, it seems that Rossi himself has racked up his own rap sheet - after ordination.  No, we're not talking about minor traffic tickets.  We're talking about drunken driving, hit-and-run accidents.  In October 2017 (less than two years ago) he was apprehended in Virginia for reckless driving and had to pay a fine (I wonder if that wound up on an expense report?).

Meanwhile our arms are being twisted to give to the "Annual Appeal".  They won't even call it "Archbishop's Appeal", as if that will fool anyone.  I suggest not giving one penny to that thing.  Why should we pay for their bribes and drunken driving fines?

What They REALLY Mean By Clericalism!

A few days ago, Pope Francis released an open letter regarding the sex abuse scandal perpetrated most infamously by Bishop McCarrick and all too many others.  LifeSiteNews carries the full English text of that letter as well as an excellent analysis.

The pope states, without hesitation, that the culprit behind this squalid mess is...CLERICALISM!  That's right!  Nowhere in his tome is there one mention of the mortal sins of sodomy and other homosexual perversions.  To be clear, girls were victimized too, but the great bulk of the attacks - at least 75% - were carried out against post-pubescent males.  By definition, the attacks were homosexual in nature.  Also notice that while we see the words "clerics" and "priests" mentioned, there is not one instance of the word "bishop" being uttered.

I call notice to this "gem" uttered by the pope: I invite the entire holy faithful People of God to a penitential exercise of prayer and fasting, following the Lord’s command. This can awaken our conscience and arouse our solidarity and commitment to a culture of care that says “never again” to every form of abuse.

If he were directing this statement solely to the bishops and others who engaged in these crimes and/or covered them up, I'd applaud it.  But he isn't and that is one thing that demonstrates why this open letter is just another part of the "damage control".  Quite a goodly portion of the laity are aware at this time and more are opening their eyes with each passing day.  I daresay the chanceries are feeling the effects of our awareness as they see their collection revenues shrinking.  Is this an attempt to shame us into resumption of our donations - so that more lavish lifestyles and/or payouts can be financed?  The ones who need the "awakening of consciences" are those who pretend that "clericalism" is the root cause and not gay perversion.

As an aside, over twenty years ago I left a charismatic cult.  After I left, I did copious amounts of reading on cults and thought reform so that I could understand the dynamics of what happened to me as a young adult.  I learned that there are many varieties of thought-reform, and not all of them occur in the settings of a cult.  One tactic of thought-reform is known as "blaming the victim".  Basically it is used when the "leaders" of the cult abuse the rank-and-file members, and then direct them to blame the resultant pain on their own weakness, sinfulness, etc.  This screed issued by the pope reeks of that tactic.

If the pope tried delicately to shut us up, not all bishops shared his desire for tact.  Cardinal Sergio Obeso Rivera, a retired Mexican Archbishop, said some victims "who accuse men of the Church should be careful because they have long tails that are easily stepped on".  One can only hope that this is merely an attempt to embarrass the victims.  The only other possibility is that he issued a thinly-veiled threat of blackmail to the victims.  As you read that article, please note that he was created a cardinal just recently.  That means this current pope is responsible for his red hat.  One consolation is that he is over the age of 80 so he cannot participate in the next papal conclave.

Over at the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter, we see Michael Sean Winters waxing apoplectic at the "anti-gay agenda".  Of course he's always shilled for sodomy and now he's pitching a hissy-fit at the "diabolical craziness of Church Militant and others" because what we've warned about is now coming to light.  And yes, we do want gay priests out of the priesthood.   The Church, in her wisdom, has always excluded homosexuals from the priesthood, knowing that those so afflicted would be unsuited for the role of "alter Christus".  Over 75% of these assault cases are homosexual in nature, despite the denials that Winters, the pope, etc try to use.

In their rantings against "clericalism". I think the pope et al are drafting a new definition of the word (getting back to thought-reform, that is a tactic known as "loading the language").  Might that definition be "ascribing responsibility of clerical and ecclesial sins to the faithful lay Catholics in the pews"?

IMPORTANT UPDATE - The state of Illinois is following Pennsylvania's lead and launching its own investigation into the Archdiocese of Chicago.  I believe it was Chicago's Cardinal Cupich that concocted the "clericalism" schtick.  The state of Missouri will also be investigating dioceses in that state.  We might well have a RICO investigation upon us.  The bishops might be kissing those federal funds (that is, our tax dollars) goodbye - or, as Cardinal Joseph Tobin might say, "nighty-night, baby bucks!"

Habemus Papam

Today white smoke billowed from the chimney of the conclave, signaling the election of a new pope.  Shortly thereafter, Cardinal Robert Prevost was presented as Pope Leo XIV.  He is the first Augustinian and US native to be elected to the pontificate.

Prior to this, he was prefect for the Dicastery for Bishops.  That is to say he wielded great influence regarding the appointment of bishops.  Regrettably, he also played a key role in the removal of Bishop Joseph Strickland from the diocese of Tyler, TX.   He has made known his affinity to progressive causes such as the climate-change hoax, sympathy for George Floyd and unbridled border-crashing.

While this is troubling, it is not surprising.  Francis stacked the College of Cardinals.  Leo is said to have been highly favored by both Cardinal Cupich and Father James Martin.  On the positive side, when Leo stepped onto the balcony, he was dressed as a pope, unlike his immediate predecessor twelve years ago.  I for one am wary.

Cardinal Muller, a fairly solid prelate, warned that the election of a pope who didn't hold to tradition might well cause a schism.  If that comes to pass, it will be the infidelity to tradition that will be the cause of schism, for faithful Catholics must adhere to the Church's timeless teachings and Traditions, even if a reigning pontiff isn't.

Our Rosaries and prayers for Holy Mother Church must continue and increase.

January's Poop Video - Celebrating Some Rites But Not Others

Below is January's poop video and below it I will unpack this hypocritical slop.

By "diversity of rites", does he mean allowing Anglicans to conduct their parodies of Vespers and Mass in Catholic basilicas in Rome?  That is sacrilege - to allow Catholic churches to be used in a trivialization of Holy Mass.  But that's not the first time such a sacrilege happened.  Remember four years ago, when some conclave ended?  Francis himself said Mass when he placed a pachamama plant on the altar - an act of idolatry?

So protestants have admittance to Catholic churches for their mutated rites, pachamama idols are placed on our consecrated altars during Mass, but the Mass of the Ages is being shut down all over the world?  Folks, are we awake yet?