“FrancisChurch” – Latest Shocker…

Here is what the certified kooks at the Pontifical Council for Culture are defending as an image validly representative of the Vatican’s approach to “women’s issues”:  a vulgarized, semi-pornographic depiction of Venus in bondage by “Man Ray,” an American fashion photographer and “modern artist” from the Sixties.

Cardinal Ravasi, the vaunted “intellectual” appointed as head of the Council by Pope Francis, refuses to remove the sexually aberrant image from the Vatican website, despite admittedly receiving complaints from the faithful.

According to him, the image is a valid depiction of what he considers a fact: that “many women, alas, are still struggling for freedom (bound with rope), their voices and intellect often unheard (headless), their actions unappreciated (limbless).”
So, FrancisChurch  has now embraced the feminist movement, at the same time it prepares the second session of the Phony Synod, where the Pope’s handpicked radical progressives will try one more time to undermine in practice the Church’s infallible teaching on marriage and procreation.   Source

 

Comment… 

Immaculate heart of MaryPlease click  here to email or phone the Pontifical Council for Culture to express your disgust at this obscenity.  Perhaps remind Cardinal Ravasi of Our Lady’s warning at Fatima that “more souls go to Hell through sins of impurity than through any other sin” and point out that this image cannot help cultivate purity in any soul. No woman will go to Hell because she hasn’t climbed the career ladder through “discrimination” of whatever kind, but souls may well end up in Hell through sins sparked by looking at that horrible image on a Vatican website.  If you’d like to copy your message for us on the blog, that would be good. It is always edifying to read the efforts of others in the battle for the restoration of our holy Faith, but if you’d rather not, then feel free to comment as you choose.    Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us. Mother Most Pure, pray for us… 

144 responses

  1. I just sent this email:

    Dear Cardinal Ravasi,

    The Christian martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than burn a grain of incense before the false gods of the pagans, and yet here are you, a Prince of the Church, displaying an ancient semi-naked pagan idol on the Vatican’s website to promote modern pagan Feminist doctrine.

    How right Pope Paul VI was when he spoke of the smoke of Satan having entered the Temple of God. It is a very serious matter indeed when a Cardinal of the Catholic Church favours an image of the naked Venus over Christ Crucified.

    With respect, Your Eminence’ preferred deity is an affront to the true God and a great scandal to the Catholic faithful. I urge you to seriously reflect on this.

    Sincerely

    In Jesus & Mary

  2. Editor,

    I’ve posted a link which is interesting especially in the light of the “Latest Shocker”, apparently, the dissatisfaction with the FrancisChurch is spreading! If they’d bothered to read CT, or been directed to it by concerned priests and bishops they’d have begun mobilizing years ago! Still better late than never 😀 CT, is an outstanding resource for those looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

    http://vericatholici.org/category/english/ (from Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s blog)

    Veri Catholici », which in Latin means, “True Catholics”, is the proper name of the International Association of Catholics who have decided to take up the call of the Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider to preserve the eternal Faith taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ as it has been handed down in the Catholic Church throughout all the ages.

    • Jobstears,

      Thank you for that link which was emailed to me by a reader about a week or so ago.

      While it is always good to see signs of awakening among the diocesan Catholics, I can’t help thinking that this is but one more “new movement” that will not make much, if any difference. Why re-invent the wheel when these Catholics could say “the SSPX were right all along, I’m going to support them.”. Let me assure you that that would scare the living daylights out of the Vatican authorities in a way that “True Catholics” won’t do.

      And if Bishop Schneider is fine with the novus ordo and ecumenism,( the latter I believe he has spoken out to promote), then,good as he is on the subject of Communion in the hand and perhaps others matters, he cannot be placed in the category of those who seek to “preserve the eternal Faith taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ as it has been handed down in the Catholic Church throughout all the ages.”

      Throughout all the ages, for example, the Catholic Church has condemned the kind of ecumenism now being promoted, so while it’s good, as I say, to see some awakening, I doubt very much if “Veri Catholici” will set the heather on fire. Oops, maybe they don’t have heather over there in Italy…

      • Editor,

        Why re-invent the wheel when these Catholics could say “the SSPX were right all along, I’m going to support them.”.

        Absolutely true! It is a relief to know some Catholics realize something is seriously wrong. But ignorance of the Faith is a stumbling block for the laity who rely on priests and bishops who advocate half-measures as a solution to the crisis. When I look at the various movements springing up to resist this or that abuse, I wonder why they don’t turn to the ONE bishop who took a stand for precisely this reason, to preserve the Church from all such abuses? The SSPX is the answer, how long before diocesan Catholics arrive at that conclusion?

  3. The image is not porn, and the rights of every person have always been an issue for The Church as they are for Jesus Christ.

    Within every art gallery/collection, even in The Vatican there are nudes, and for some a crucifix is just as offensive.

    It is said a key theme of The Gospel of Luke is the rights, and role, of women, and modern slavery – human trafficking/prostitution – primarily affects women, and, in most societies, women are underpaid, and often undervalued.

    • I’m sorry CS, but I believe your sabbatical has failed to provide you with some real common sense. It is a distasteful and unnecessary artifact.

      The litmus taste is this: Would it be appropriate to have it in the presence of Our Lady?

      That test is our guide for life: in dress, in manners, in conduct.

      And yes, the statue, fails the test.

      • I am not sure that your litmus test is correct. As I have already said every Art Gallery/Collection would have equally explicit exhibits. Nothing about the Human Body is sinful. The litmus test is why is it so depicted and for what purpose. Art is art, Porn is porn.

        • Anyone with an ounce of Catholic sense (never mind common sense) would know that this type of thing is vulgar. I think what we can deduce is that Common Sense has no real problem with immodesty and impurity. This may be an indication that he has a problem in this area in his private life. I’ve often found this to be the case in those who defend this kind of material. We should remember him in our prayers.

          Common Sense,

          I’m still waiting on something from the New Testament that will back up your crazy claim that St Luke’s Gospel contains passages relating to the liberation of women….

          • If Jesus came to save everyone then that would include women!

            The whole of Luke’s Gospel gives pre-eminence to women – more so than the others – at a time when they would be discounted.

            • Chapters and verses please that show St Luke’s Gospel gave “pre – eminence’ to women….. What exactly does “pre – eminence to women” entail?

              Sent from my Samsung device

              • Read any modern/decent Scripture Commentary, and the scriptural exegesis of Saints like John Paul and you will get it. I am not going to do the work for you. It will do you good.

                Editor: rest of this comment removed – off topic.

                • Common Sense,

                  Of course, you would encourage us to read a “modern” commentary, wouldn’t you? Nothing else will do.  You adhere to Modernism, not the Magisterium.  I wonder if you have ever read anything other than what was written after Vatican II. 

                  Sent from my Samsung device

                  Editor: part of this comment has been deleted as it was an off topic response to CS.

                  • Petrus,

                    ” I wonder if you have ever read anything other than what was written after Vatican II.”

                    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there.

                    • Margaret Mary Common sense really is a tragic figure.  Up to his eyes in Modernist and, so it seems, impurity.  Prayer and fasting I think.

                      Sent from my Samsung device

                    • Petrus/Margaret Mary

                      Jesus said: “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. ”

                      I believe The Council of Trent taught that an individual cannot judge the state of their own soul, and how they stand before God. I would, therefore, be surprised if you two can assert of another they are: ” really is a tragic figure. Up to his eyes in Modernist and, so it seems, impurity. ”

                      Or as Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge”!

                      I dread to think how some acted before they started doing Lenten Prayers and Fasting if they act like they do now.

                      Just saying

                • You question our academic qualifications, but you have never offered anything substantial.  Your posts have always lacked substance and very rarely do you ever quote anything to back up your Modernist claims.   If you really believe we are wrong then surely, out of charity, you should do everything you can to convince and correct us?  I can only conclude you are here for a bit of sport.  

                  Sent from my Samsung device

                    • Margaret Mary

                      A major correction to an earlier post:

                      “As you are concerned with Rules/Rubrics you will know that Pope Benedict ruled that anyone who, in any way, suggested the Ordinary Form of The Mass is not the norm, and faithful to Tradition, should be denied The Extraordinary Form. As I write, attendance at such E.F. Masses should be declining if the participants are honest before God, and admit they do not accept that teaching.

                    • CS,

                      I do not accept “that teaching” which amounts to nothing more than Pope Benedict’s personal opinion. I will continue to attend the TLM and to regard it as the ordinary form of worship in the Catholic Church, and thank God for Cardinal Ranjith’s assurance that the novus ordo will be gone in a generation.

                    • Editor

                      I believe The Government, and the Generals, said The Great War would be over by Christmas. Cardinal Ranjith is one man, and is not all seeing, and all knowing.

                      It is just is fifty years since Pope Paul celebrated the first Mass in Italian, and the vernacular is here to stay.

            • CS,

              My understanding is that Jesus was teaching that women get the same grace as men, they have equal chance to be saved. It’s nothing to do with what the women’s movement is on about today, equal opportunities in careers etc.

              • I think Catholic Social Teaching might bring into question your “insights”, but then lets not bother listening to the actual Church.

                • Why don’t you show us how Catholic Social Action relates to the Gospel of Luke.  If you are genuine, educate and correct us…

                  Sent from my Samsung device

              • Absolutely.  Once again, Common Sense makes a blunder.  Men and women are equal before the throne of Our Lord and have equal access to His grace. 

                Sent from my Samsung device

          • As it is approved by a Vatican Official, and others therein, I think we can discount your excessive claim that anyone with an ounce of Catholic sense would say it is vulgar. I too am a Catholic.

            Your attitude says more about you, and it isn’t a catholic worldview you share.

            • CS,

              I can’t believe any Catholic approves that vulgar image. It shows how de-sensitised they’ve become. No offence intended, but when you think about the litany of Our Lady, with “Mother Most Pure” and other titles showing her purity, you just couldn’t approve that statue on the Vatican website. I’m horrified at it.

              • Margaret Mary I think many modern Catholics have become quite fond of impurity that’s why they don’t have a problem with this sort of thing.  It’s truly awful and they need our prayers.

                Sent from my Samsung device

              • I am sure The Cardinal concerned will chuckle at the judgement you erroneously pass on his Catholic sensitivities. God might not chuckle as much. I thing we are told not to judge!

            • CS,

              The greatest and most venerated person in the Church after Our Lord is His Holy Mother, a woman! It therefore beggars belief that you have interpreted the Gospel of St. Luke as an Evangelical crusade to liberate oppressed Christian women.

              The Catholic Church, and I cannot state this vehemently enough, has honoured women from the very beginning. Indeed, some of the greatest mystics of the Church are women – St. Theresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Sienna being just two of the more prominent. And I have to say that the latter of these two was no push over when it came to dealing with a male clergy!

              No, what lies beneath this myth of oppressed women is a demonic plot to raise women to sacerdotal roles in the Church against the very ordinance of God Himself. Women priests (priestesses), this is what the fuss and the gender confusing roles is all about. But you should note in this regard that only pagan religions had/have priestesses, never the true religion of the true God.

              So does this mean that God is male chauvinist? Not at all. What it means is that God created two different yet complimentary sexes, male and female, each endowed with very different yet complimentary gifts.

              Hence in the Church, as in the married state, the man is the head and the woman is the heart of the home. There can be no living body without a head and there can be no living body without a heart. We confuse these roles at our peril!

              The feminists would do well to reflect on the Blessed Mother’s life and humility. She who is the great Mother of God, full of grace, did not force her way into a public role with Her Divine Son, yet she is venerated by the Church as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate. It is just a pity that so many women today are lost to her example of how they should live and practice the Faith.

              • Every word a gem. What a beautiful post, Athanasius.   Our heavenly Mother (as well as your earthly mother) will undoubtedly be very proud of you for that post. 

                Sent from my Samsung device

                • Petrus,

                  Thank you for your kind words. I hope CS thinks likewise and suddenly realises the scandal that Cardinal Ravasi’s pagan icon truly represents, not least as an insult to the Blessed Virgin.

              • Athanasius,

                Excellent post!

                I liked this especially: She who is the great Mother of God, full of grace, did not force her way into a public role with Her Divine Son, yet she is venerated by the Church as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate

        • Well if it is art, what would stop them from using a nude Mary or Theresa and strapping cordage around it? If it is ART then you wouldn’t have an issue with it?

    • CS,

      The New Testament has been re-interpreted by feminists to make it into a political manifesto when it is no such thing. There is NOTHING anywhere in the NT, that is not about the spiritual life and holiness. NOTHING. The feminist moment is an evil movement and it speaks volumes about Cardinal Ravasi that he has fallen for its propaganda.

      As for the image – please let’s pray to Our Lady for the great grace, not just of purity of body and soul, but for the grace to recognise IMpurity, including when it is put before us in the name of “art”.

      Summa’s litmus test is spot on. It’s the test I was taught as a schoolgirl, in the days immediately before Vatican II. If you wouldn’t wear, say or look at such a thing in the presence of Our Lady, then you know it’s immodest and not pleasing to God.

      • Editor

        Feminism, of itself, is not a problem. It becomes an issue when is it linked to false notion of “human rights” etc, For example, in relation to abortion, and a woman’s “right” to choose. But for a person of any ethnic group, or gender, to assert their rights to be treated fairly, and justly, is straight out of the pages of The Gospels.

        Saint Pope John Paul provided us with a brilliant exegesis of the relevant passages of Holy Scripture.

        By the way, I have not located the Invitation” (?) you mentioned.

        • If feminism is “not a problem” could you let us know what the aim of feminism is and what are it’s positive attributes ?

          Sent from my Samsung device

          • As with most things, there is no one strand of feminism.

            The following extract was written by a male Saint, who perhaps understood the diverse nature, and philosophy, of feminism better than you: ” I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting.

            And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this second millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves how much of his message has been heard and acted upon.”

            Saint Pope John Paul ll, letter to women, dated June 29 and released July 10, 1995 at the Vatican.

            • I think you are trying to be a little bit clever but it’s not working.  I think we would all agree with Pope John Paul II that women shouldn’t be exploited or held captive.  This isn’t all that Feminism is.  Where men and women are truly “equal” is before Our Lord.  That doesn’t mean that men and women should have complete equality in worldly matters.Sent from my Samsung device

              • I am only being as clever as successive occupants of The See of Rome, in particular Pope Saint John Paul.

                Feminism is a broad term, and not a creed.

                It is because of the evident misogyny exhibited by some here the need for feminists to assert themselves is sometimes necessary. The Saint I have already quoted apologises for Catholics who use a misguided notion of humanity to enslave women.

    • CS

      I challenge you to provide an example, anywhere in the New Testament, that is “a key theme of The Gospel of Luke is the rights, and role, of women, and modern slavery – human trafficking/prostitution – primarily affects women, and, in most societies, women are underpaid, and often undervalued.”

      Chapter and verse, please. Oh wait! Let me save you the time. There’s nothing.

      • The Gospel of Luke, practically in every verse and Chapter, speaks of the rights and dignity of women, and give them a prominence not always evident in Scripture.

        The whole of Scripture, and Jesus in particular, asserts the rights, and dignity, of every human person, and that, and Catholic Social Teaching, would roundly condemn slavery and human exploitation at every level.

        • CS,

          Take it from someone who has taught A Level New (and Old) Testament Theology that “The Gospel of [St] Luke does NOT “practically in every verse and chapter speak of the rights and dignity of women…etc.”

          Nonsense. With bells on.

    • CS,

      It has been evident throughout the many thread subjects you have involved yourself in on this blog that you are an apologist for sin and error.

      There is a clear and undeniable crisis in the Church in our time, a crisis that has its origin in a conciliar hierarchy which has departed in many ways from the teaching and practice of the Magisterium of 2000 years. I cite ecumenism, inter-religious initiatives and religious liberty as just three examples of this Modernist deviance.

      Now, you have been challenged several times to demonstrate on this blog via that centuries-old Magisterial teaching, doctrine which is consistent all the way up to Vatican II, how these three new doctrines are compatible with the Catholic Faith. You have refused on all occasions to take the challenge and instead maintained the ludicrous position of subservience to the present Pope and bishops in all that they say and do.

      But we here on this blog don’t do subservience! We are free children of the Church, obedient to the Pope and bishops only when they are obedient to the consistent Magisterium of the ages. This is the Catholic spirit.

      Your spirit is Modernist and mainstream, relative to changing times and conditions. In other words, you have a fluctuating faith that has no foundation in truth.

      Perhaps you should reflect on these wise words of G K Chesterton: “Only dead fish flow with the stream”!

      • Athanasius,

        You are so correct. I agree with every word.

        “Only dead fish flow with the stream” – LOL !

      • It is evident, “Athanasius” you seek to judge others in a way no human being has a right to do.

        I believe The Church speaks of informing the human conscience, and any loyal Catholic would free themselves by listening to the authentic voice of The Magisterium. There can be no freedom without that voice.

        • CS,

          Every time someone puts you on the spot you resort to accusations of false judgement. That one won’t work with me!

          I put a challenge to you that all on this blog can read. Meet that challenge or cease your endless disruption of this blog!

          By the way, the “authentic voice of the Magisterium” is that of 2000 years of consistent teaching, not the cherry picking post-conciliar nonsense you’re coming away with. What you’re doing is misinforming your conscience in accordance with your own inclinations.

          Now, if you intend to persist in your opposition to everything that everyone says here on this blog then you had better start bringing forward some fundamental evidence in support of your position. We are not interested in personal opinions here, just verifiable facts.

          So, ecumenism, religious liberty and inter-faith initiatives. Provide evidence from pre-Vatican II teaching that shows these great humanist errors to be upheld rather than condemned by that “authentic magisterium” you speak of.

          • I am still waiting for you to prove that St Justin, Martyr, who spoke of The Eucharist was a Protestant, and that The Bible was written in Latin.

            Many early Church documents were addressing issues that no longer pertain, or were based on a misjudgement bound by cultural norms and a failure to address concrete realities.

            • So early Church documents can be based on misjudgements but modern day documents can’t?    So much for you clinging to that Magisterium! 

              Sent from my Samsung device

            • CS,

              I’ll take your response as an admission that you are unable to rise to the challenge I set. I knew you couldn’t.

            • Many early Church documents ……….were based on a misjudgement bound by cultural norms..

              Rich, coming from a modernist who simply cannot see that this statement is precisely true of the conciliar documents beloved by him and all of his ilk.

              As with errors in any ‘early Church documents’, the authentic magisterium of the Church will correct these latter ones in God’s good time.

    • CS

      You just don’t get it, do you? How do you imagine showing a naked female body supports the rights of women? It is just one more example, in a very, very long list, that those in power in the Vatican have lost the sense of what it means to be Catholic. Believe it or not, most people are capable of understanding the evil of human trafficking/prostitution without having a visual image to aid them. Modesty and decency went out of the window years ago in the wider world; the modern Church of which you are so proud has caught up. Oh goody, you say. I say, heads should hang in shame. Oh yes, shame; that’s another dead idea.

      • Therese,

        I couldn’t agree more. It’s depressing enough when priests talk like feminists but when the Vatican cardinals do so as well, it’s really depressing.

        I think this Cardinal Ravasi must be a believer in women’s ordination and so the ropes will apply to the women who want to be priests as well as women in the workplaces. The Church really is in a mess, because of people like him.

    • CS,

      I’m afraid the image is porn. It isn’t ‘art’- because one of the purposes of art to elevate the mind and offer at least a glimmer of hope. The image, on the contrary is one commonly used by sick and depraved minds for specific purposes.

      To use such a tasteless and offensive image to represent the Vatican’s approach to women’s issues is an insult. It symbolizes absolutely nothing. If they want to show women as being held captive and deprived of rights and being victims of gross injustice, why not just use the image of Christ bound in chains, buffeted and mutilated? In Him there is no male or female, gentile or Jew. He made no distinction, He bore every imaginable insult and injustice any woman or man would ever suffer. The image of the Suffering Christ or His Sorrowful Mother or the particular sufferings of saints are images Catholics usually use. There has never been need to borrow worldly and vulgar images from the world, until now, that is.

      • Art, and beauty, are something in the eye of the beholder. It is an highly subjective thing.

        However, to see the image, tasteless though it might be, as porn is a very narrow point of view. Every Art Gallery/Collection shows more flesh, and even images in some Churches, and Chapels, show not much less than this image.

        It is infantile nonsense to claim it is something no Catholic could use, or condone, as very senior, and learned, Catholics have done so. To say Jesus died to save everyone is one thing, but an image of Jesus can sensibly used to represent women in the way this image is used, and for good reason.

        • Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective, but even so there are standards of decency.

          Has it occurred to you that there is no need to represent the sufferings of women in any special way? Their sufferings are the sufferings of humanity, nothing more, nothing less. What next? Special sites/councils set up to talk about the sufferings of every special interest group? Is it the Church’s business to enter the political and economic spheres to ensure justice is being done?

          It is infantile nonsense to think tasteless images cease to be vulgar and tasteless because ‘very senior and learned Catholics’ choose to use them. Would you justify sin on the same grounds?

  4. My email to Cardinal Ravasi:

    Cardinal Ravasi,

    I write to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the ugly, obscene image “Venus in Bondage” published on the Vatican website with your authority, thus giving credence to the diabolical so-called feminist movement.

    This movement does not represent the majority of women, many of whom, like myself, hold it in utter contempt. It certainly does not represent truly Catholic women who are appalled at the way it distorts the Creator’s plan for men and women who are meant to work together in complementary fashion. Instead, these ridiculous “feminists” have made men the enemies of women. It is a divisive movement and it truly beggars belief that a Cardinal of the Church would allow its evil influence to permeate the Vatican itself.

    Right now, the Church is riddled with scandals, almost always, if not exclusively, caused by priests, bishops, cardinals and even the Pope himself. Many of these scandals are rooted in sexual misbehaviour if not depravity. For a Cardinal to focus on the alleged “bondage” of women in the world today because of their alleged inequality in career terms, instead of focusing on the most serious bondage of all – sin – (a bondage which we share with men) is clear evidence of Our Lady’s prophecy at Fatima of a diabolical disorientation to come in the Church. Your behaviour in promoting this disgusting image, which, in fact, belittles women and womanhood, is yet more evidence of this evil disorientation.

    Our website opinion poll is currently showing an 80% lead in favour of having the “Venus in Bondage” image removed from your website. Please do so as a matter of the utmost urgency.

    Signed…
    Editor
    Catholic Truth

  5. I remain speechless!
    They have got their clients and their clients is all that is decadent.
    For them, people like us just do not exist.
    It is enough to make us cry!

  6. Have you heard even more shocking – the alleged destroying of 200 books on marriage sent to the synod fathers – C Baldiseri intercepted the mail and got rid of them. Fr Fessio said he sent 200 and none were received. On Secular news too.

    Dominie Mary Beatrice Stemp

    Catechist (certified by OLC – 2003) Freelance writer and blogger

    Dominie Mary Stemp’s Blogs

    On Twitter @DominieStemp

    • I was shocked by the interview with Pope Benedict.  If he doesn’t have regrets, maybe it’s because the awful Pope Francis will bring Modernists right out into the open and those on the fence will wake up.  Who knows?!

      Sent from my Samsung device

    • Margaret,
      Maybe I am wrong, but I think that Benedict XVI was pushed out by the sect …
      As soon as Pope Francis had access to the Throne of Saint Peter, the Visa network was restored in the Vatican and we have not heard of paedophilia scandals anymore…
      It is clear, Pope Benedict XVI bothered the internal and external enemies of the Church.
      In any case, the resignation of Benedict XVI has helped trivializing the papal function.
      Moreover, if he would have tried to oppose Pope François’ positions, he would have been expelled from the Vatican on the spot and probably sent back to Germany …
      I doubt that this distinguished personage shared the preferences and some positions of his successor.
      Anyway, a Pope cannot resign as if he would be a mere civil servant… To whom should he resign since he is the Sovereign Pontiff?
      It is really an unsolved riddle!
      Kind regards LD

      • Lionel,

        I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI was pushed out in the way we imagine. He is very friendly with Pope Francis, which would not be the case had he been forced by a sect to renounce the Papacy.

        And let’s not forget that by “resigning” the Papal office, Benedict XVI introduced something entirely new into the Church, the resigning Pope, which ultimately undermines the divine authority of the Papacy. The Modernists tried for years to get a Pope to resign, knowing the impact it would have. John Paul II refused to give them what they wanted, but not Benedict.

          • CS,

            Gregory XII was FORCED to resign to end the Western Schism. A tad different from setting up the entirely new office of “Pope Emeritus”.

            We await your list of “others prior to that.”

            • You can check as easily as I can. One, I believe, just wanted to return to monastic life,

              The only strange thing about the resignation is keeping the name, and wearing similar garb. Apart from that it is the same for every Bishop who resigns.

              • CS,

                The resignation of Popes and prelates is a post-Vatican II novelty. The practice has no precedent in Church history and is indicative of a clergy not willing to serve God in their office until death. It’s as though they want a bit of peace and quiet in their old age, something the Apostles of Our Lord never sought. The Apostles saw their rest as something that would come in eternity once they had exhausted themselves here below doing the work of God. How things have changed!

                • The only retired Bishops and priests who are not still working are, generally,, suffering from ill health, and infirmity.

                  Those that have “retired” have given uo some of the burdens of Office – admin etc – but, are most days, particularly on a Sunday, celebrating public mass, in the absence of the parish clergy/chaplain, or acting as Chaplains to nursing homes/convents.

                  You are contradicting everything The Church says if you believe that the sick, infirm and housebound, and those showing increasing frailty, are not still serving God, and what is true for the laity, is true for priests. Likewise, to give uo some of the burdens of Office is appropriate for anyone ordained, or not.

                  In resigning as Bishop of Rome he ceased to be Pope. It was odd to keep The name Benedict, and to carry on wearing Papal Garb, but his resignation was legal and valid.

                  Furher with regards Pope Benedict in

                  His encyclical “God is Love,”published in 2005: He wrote that God governs the world. “We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength.”

                  2010 book “Light of the World” he wrote: “If a pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right, and under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.”

                  Twice Pope Benedict visited sites associated with Pope Celestine V, who resigned to return to monastic life, and left his own pallium at his tomb.

                  He witnessed the public suffering of Pope St John Paul and presumably leant from it.

                  Thus we had a Pope steeped in tradition, and faithful to Tradition, and who upheld tradition, and taught Tradition. How can anyone argue with his judgement, faith and commitment to The Lord.

                  As The NCR Reports:

                  “Retired Pope Benedict XVI has never doubted or regretted his decision to resign, knowing it was the right thing to do for the good of the church, said Archbishop Georg Ganswein, prefect of the papal household and personal secretary to the retired pope.

                  “The church needs a strong helmsman,” and Pope Benedict was keenly aware of his own waning strength while faced with such a demanding ministry, the archbishop said in an interview published Thursday in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

                  Two years after Pope Benedict’s historic announcement Wednesday to step down as supreme pontiff, Ganswein said the retired pope “is convinced that the decision he made and announced was the right one. He has no doubt.”

                  “He is very serene and certain in this: His decision was necessary and made ‘after having repeatedly examined my conscience before God,'” he said, citing words from the pope’s Feb. 11, 2013, announcement

                    • Exactly, Petrus. Citing the dissident NCR is a clue, and anyone – let alone a pope who resigned to flee the wolves – whose conscience is at ease with the scandals afflicting the Church day and daily as a result of the utterances (and non-utterances) of his successor, definitely has the WOW! factor about them.

                    • Editor

                      I quoted the NCR as I couldn’t find another source for that info. At the time it was widely reported worldwide, and in the UK meia, but I wanted a relevant quote. And it was a quote from a loyal servant of two Popes, and the Church.

                      History will judge Benedict to be one of our greatest leaders.

                    • CS,

                      “I do not believe that Saints are perfect, and more than one, including the 12 Apostles, were guilty of obstinacy. It is whether, overall, they tried to do the will of God even if they did not get everything right.”

                      Compare what you have written above, with the following, quoted, with source, in our newsletter, Issue No. 82, page 24 which you can access on our newsletter page, archive:

                      “What the Church requires of those to whom she reserves the honors (sic) of canonization is not only the possession of a virtue, but of all the virtues without exception. To begin with, the theological virtues, that have God for their immediate object, must shine out. And then all the other intellectual and moral virtues. These virtues have to have been practiced not in an ordinary way but heroically.” (source given on page 24 of Issue 82, CT.)

                      That doesn’t mean, of course, that the saint never sinned or failed. However, nobody would have been a candidate for canonisation in pre-ecumenical times, if he or she had been, for example, flouting the essential dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” by giving the impression that one religion or Christian denomination is as good as any other – nobody. We can, of course, learn from the weaknesses of the saints you name – such as St Peter – but only because they repented of their sin (in his case, his very public denial of Our Lord and his bad temper) and lived the rest of his life in heroic service of Christ and His Church, as evidenced in the NT writings. It’s a hard saying but then, that’s life. Or at least, it’s the spiritual life. No rest – literally – for the wicked…

                    • CS,

                      History has not had TIME to pronounce Pope John Paul II “Great” or – more likely – Anything But…

                      Only those obstinate modernist Catholics who are determined to justify their break with Catholic Tradition call him “Great” in their desperation for the feel good factor.

                      Won’t wash with God and that’s all that matters.

                      Oh and “History” has not had time to assess the pontificate of Pope Benedict either, but if all the reports of his satisfaction with the scandals caused by his successor are true, then History, like God Himself, will judge him harshly. Bet on it.

                    • Editor

                      Thankfully Pope Saint JP didn’t deny any truths of the faith.

                      Of course, in pre_Council days no loyal, Traditional, Catholic would query a canonisation, or accuse a Pope of denying the faith.

                      It is strange what rights such Catholics now claim.

                    • Of course in Pre – Vatican II days no loyal and Traditional Catholic would have to!

                      Sent from my Samsung device

                  • CS,

                    Who was more ill and infirm than Pope John Paul II towards the end of his life? Yet, when asked by the liberals to resign he said: “Christ did not come down from the Cross, neither will I come down from mine.

                    Those words rather blow your argument out of the water, CS.

                    • Yes, and I remember an elderly priest saying to me once that he felt Pope John Paul II’s very public suffering was possibly the most striking and efficacious part of his papacy.

                    • On the contrary, it shows his dedication but his obstinacy, People, advised him to step down.

                      If he had done so much more could oif been done to address the then current issues.

                      On one level his commitment was edifying, but on another level it meant we were denied the leadership wee needed.

                    • Common Sense Very revealing that you put the pope before the Church. You must know that our primary obedience is to the Faith first. 

                      Sent from my Samsung device

                    • Athanasius, Westminsterfly,

                      I have had non Catholics, and even critics of the Pope, mention that they were impressed by John Paul II’s refusal to resign. It was a very striking and efficacious part of his papacy. To me, his example of not being ashamed of his physical weakness, was the most powerful ‘pro-life’ message he could send to the world. No life, at no stage, no matter how worthless it may be in the eyes of the world, is ever useless.

                    • CS,

                      But didn’t St. Peter once say to Our Lord that He must not allow Himself to undergo His Passion and Death? And was not Our Lord “obstinate” in his determination to Redeem us when He responded: “Get ye behind me Satan”?

                      No, John Paul II was not being obstinate, he was being Christ like. Only worldly men would consider this supernatural sacrifice of pain and suffering as obstinacy.

                    • Jobstears,

                      I agree.

                      Pope John Paul II erred greatly in many ways during his Papal tenure, but it stands to his everlasting credit that he bore his last illness with heroic courage and faith.

                    • For some years we didn’t have an active Pope leading The Church, and some found his approach exemplary, but many also thought the Church lacked compassion towards him.

                      I am confident that on other threads you, The Editor, and others, doubt he was a success, and criticise hs failure to address some issues, and think he was, to be it mildly, prematurely canonised.

                      I am being wholly consistent, but to track you and others, on other threads, that consistency will surely be absent.

                    • There is consistency in your posts, but not the kind you think! I’ve suggested that you should read Pascendi by Pope St Pius X.  I think that will explain Modernism perfectly for you and then you will realise why we can praise Modern popes, as well as criticise.

                      Sent from my Samsung device

                    • CS,

                      Yes, we have criticised the Pontificate of John Paul II on this blog. He was indeed a liberal Pope, often scandalous by his ecumania, and was definitely canonised too quickly for comfort. But we are honest enough about the man to admit to his virtues as well.

                      Bearing his last illness as he did, refusing to go easy on himself by resigning the Papacy, stands to his credit.

                      As I say, we’re honest and objective here weighing both the good and the bad examples of our shepherds. What Benedict did by resigning was very definitely BAD!

                    • CS,

                      Now you are being inconsistent. You believe JP II is a saint, yet you say he was ‘obstinate’ in not resigning the papacy If he had done so much more could have been done to address the then current issues. As a result of his ‘obstinacy’ we were denied the leadership we needed.; we didn’t have an active Pope leading The Church

                      Strange way to think of a saint, don’t you think?

                    • Petrus

                      I do not believe that Saints are perfect, and more than one, including the 12 Apostles, were guilty of obstinacy. It is whether, overall, they tried to do the will of God even if they did not get everything right.

                      If you can name one Saint who did not at times make wrong judgements, ever, even if with noble intentions, please do so.

                      The Church gained and lost by the decision Pope Saint JP took. History has already judged him Great, On balance, The Church suffered with him, but gained many graces.

                      So, no, neither I, nor The Church is inconsistent in judging him.

        • Athanasius,

          I’ve wondered if Pope Benedict XVI was not pushed out of the way, myself. Maybe he chose to keep his life rather than defy the sect and abandon his role as Sovereign Pontiff. Just a thought. That would explain his cordial relations with the Modernist Pope Francis.

          • Jobstears,

            It’s all a bit of a mystery. My suspicion, knowing Joseph Ratzinger’s Modernist history, is that he more likely made up his own mind to step down. Perhaps a more Traditional minded Pope would have stood his ground and not run from the wolves!

            I don’t think he regrets his momentous decision. Whether he recognises the great damage he has inflicted on the Church as a result, I cannot say. But no, if Benedict (now just Cardinal Ratzinger) was really troubled by his fateful decision or the tragic consequences that have followed, then I feel sure he would refuse to meet in public every now and then with Francis. That he does so with apparent joy speaks volumes.

            • Athanasius,

              True. If he regretted his decision he would not make it a point to meet with Pope Francis publicly and with such joy!

              I guess it’s hard to believe he would have willfully done so much damage to the Church.

        • Athanasius,
          “The Modernists tried for years to get a Pope to resign, knowing the impact it would have. John Paul II refused to give them what they wanted, but not Benedict”.
          The whole problem is there!

          • Lionel,

            Yes indeed, this is the problem. That resignation opened up a whole new perspective on the Papacy. And then came Pope Francis speaking anew about Collegiality and appointing a “Council of Eight” Cardinals to assist him with the running of the Church. It’s all very troubling!

  7. CS,

    I only had time to skim some posts intermittently today, but noted that you could not find the “invitation” I mentioned. I have now quickly checked your posts and the following contain comments from me:

    24/2 at 8.29am and 5.51pm on the Confirmation thread

    23/2 at 5.15pm on Vatican Priest Sues Blogger thread

    27/2 at 5.04pm on General Discussion thread

    Note: due to my absence from the blog, these comments were not inserted at the time, but just before I released the posts from moderation.

  8. I’m sorry but I really think that CS is the ubiquitous contrarian ad nauseum

    I fail to see any sensible or even plausible arguments that could account for his grating demeanour on this forum. In internet speak I believe he is simply a Troll. In pavement speak, he is a windup merchant.

    • Summa,

      Regrettably, I am seeing that quite clearly now. I’m going to review his status on this blog tomorrow evening. If this baloney continues, I’ll have to remove him, she said ambiguously…

  9. Why does anybody even MENTION CS, let alone answer him? I say ignore him completely. He contributes nothing to the blog and is just an irritation. I say don’t even read his posts. I don’t.

    • Olaf I have a lot of sympathy with what you say.  Common Sense is a troll. He’s here for some sport.  Make no mistake about it. I doubt he’s motivated by charity because he doesn’t try to educate.  If he really thinks he is right and we are wrong then, for charity’s sake, he should be trying to educate us. He doesn’t do this. Whenever he is asked for a source, he simply ignores us.  No, Common Sense is no educator.   However, for whatever reason, he is sticking around.  We may never know the fruits that may come of his time here.  So, I suggest we offer Common Sense up as a Lenten penance. 

      Sent from my Samsung device

        • Off topic.  I refer you to the appropriate thread in which these questions have been answered numerous times…..sometimes by you yourself 😉

          Sent from my Samsung device

            • The thread on which you were a “guest” writer, and “expert”?

              The one in which you then, as now, cannot provide any evidence for your false claims?

              • CS,

                Petrus has made NO false claims. You, on the other hand, make completely unsubstantiated claims and throw in insults into the bargain. I’m reviewing your status on this blog – I’m far too busy to start inserting corrections into your every post again, so be warned. I really and truly have had enough.

    • Olaf

      I share your frustration, but for the benefit of those who visit here seeking the Truth I think it is important that he is challenged regarding his posts. The fact that he never defends his outrageous statements with verifiable facts, and shows a lamentable ignorance of Catholicism, is evidence of his true motives, and will be obvious to those who have a sincere regard for the Truth and for the Faith.

      • I couldn’t agree more.  He has been well and truly put in his place, but the problem is he’s like a broken radio – also on transmit without the ability to receive.  Hence, all we get is an unpleasant sound.

        Sent from my Samsung device

  10. Well, I say ignore Common NO Sense. He’s hijacking the blog and turning people off blogging, I heard.

  11. My effort at writing to Cardinal Ravasi- for what its worth;

    I am writing to ask you to remove the abhorrent image which you have placed outside the Vatican.

    It is not uplifting and is an insult to all Catholics who believe in purity and good thoughts.

    It is a crass symbol and does nothing to enhance the image of women and womanhood.

    We are taught from an early age about being chaste and covering our bodies and it is hard nowadays to ever see any chaste images of women in the media as all too often they are viewed as sexual objects.

    With Our Lady as our role model we need to see statues of her and all those good women saints who lived as good mothers, nuns and holy people throughout the history of the Church.

    Unfortunately with the banal modern catechisms in our churches and schools, since Vat 2, the children do not hear of these saintly women, such as St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Monica, and all the Blessed Martyrs of the English reformation who gave their lives for their faith and brought Holy women into the world.

    Please remove this Venus image from the outside of the Vatican.

  12. What’s next? Madonna prancing and gyrating demonically about Saint Peter’s Square? Will the blaspheming Femen harlot witches be given VIP access at a Wednesday morning papal audience, as were two agitators for Big Perversion recently, or received in private audience at the Domus Sanctae Marthae as were a transsexual and her “girlfriend”?

    There have in fact been some truly scandalous “floor shows” at papal audiences in the past. And of course on one infamous occasion, on May 8 1984, in New Guinea, a topless woman read the Epistle at a papal Mass.

    I’m surprised we haven’t had neo-Catholic apologists jumping in with talk of “Theology of the Body” in recent days. Then again, those misguided souls have quite enough to deal with at present, when they aren’t blackening the good name of faithful Catholics.

    Frankly though, nothing coming out of Rome at present can be filed under shock and surprise. Do the words “concupiscence” and “occasion of sin” have any currency at all inside the walls?

    I suppose the subject of this thread is just one more of the interminable symptoms of the intoxicated Conciliar aggiornamento and modernist mind rot. I expect the porn barons amongst the German episcopate (we’ve covered this before) will be quite happy to go along with Rome on this one.

    As for Feminism, no Pope or prelate should be going within a donkey’s roar of offering anything remotely resembling a hint of support. There is no doubt that the description of this virulent strain of the errors of Russia as Marxist lesbianism is fully justified. The following lengthy article by the very informative Cornelia Ferreira is well worth reading. Here’s a flavour:

    “Now, for feminists, the bottom line is power. Jobs, careers or even ordination are not satisfactory enough. They want to control the world, making it the sinful matriarchal utopia that allegedly once existed. Recall that the Communist Manifesto called for the proletariat to become the ruling class. Ironically, seeking power has made feminists the useful idiots of Communist men! It was from Communist theories that feminist socialism emerged, says Ruether (Rosemary Ruether, a leading American “Catholic” feminist), ‘as part of a comprehensive view of social progress’ that desired to ‘better’ society and religion by supplanting Christian civilization with superior primitive values. Based on these values, she says, feminists ‘sought to render Western biblical and social history non-normative, a passing phase of a larger scheme of social development that looked back to earlier origins.’[40]”

    “Religious feminism didn’t garner much support until after Vatican II, which opened the window to renewal, self-discovery and détente with Communism. In 1979, spiritual feminism became the self-proclaimed enemy of the Catholic Church by declaring that patriarchy ‘must be attacked with all the strategies at our command’. The first line of attack was to declare that women were ‘oppressed’ by the Church and needed ‘liberation’ from its patriarchy. ‘Patriarchy’ is the feminist term for the authority of the Church; another word for it is ‘heirarchalism’. Their spirituality of liberation, feminists say, must replace ‘the spirituality of domination grounded in patriarchy and hierarchy.’ A feminist ‘theology’ was developed as a branch of liberation theology, espousing revolution to achieve social reform in the Church. Equality for Christian feminists means the attainment of powerful positions in the Church, total freedom in faith and morals, and autonomous control over their bodies, i.e., freedom to practise contraception, abortion and perverse sexuality. Class differences and heterosexism are considered expressions of the sin of ‘patriarchal sexism.’[43] ‘Sexism’ is their word for the unequal treatment of women; it is the only sin and the ‘original sin,’ says Ruether.[44]”

    Cardinal Ravasi would do well to read the following as well:

    https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/feminism-is-a-heresy/

    • Leo,

      Terrific post – great extract from Cornelia Ferreira, although it’s always a pity when Catholics use the term “heterosexual/heterosexism” given that it was coined to give the impression of a choice – there are “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” both equal and valid ways of life, goes the theory. That said, however, a very useful extract. Thanks, too, for the link to the Dallas blog. Always a good read.

  13. TradyCatholic,

    Many thanks for re-blogging this thread. I took a quick look at your impressive blog, all the more impressive since you link Catholic Truth at the top of your list of blogs which you follow! You sure know the way to a simple gal’s heart!

    When I get more time, I’ll study your blog properly, but for now, I’ve left a “thank you” comment.

    God bless.

  14. Editor
    Has the Pontifical Council for Culture changed the picture which this thread was about? Or am I going through to a wrong link?

    • WF,

      WOW! They’ve taken down that awful picture! Thanks be to God.

      Thanks for the alert, WF. And thanks to all who emailed or phoned the Vatican.

  15. We at the St. Martina Luther Feminist Institute of Advanced Ecumenical Heresy applaud this image and its supporter, Cardinal Ravioli. Though a man, he and Pope Francesca prove by their actions the truth that we wymmin are oppressed and suppressed by the patriarchal structures of society in which wymmin of either sex or of none are forced into bondage, cursed by the caveman to a life of slavery and dependence on chocolate.

    Our next ecumaniacal gathering will take place at midnight in the churchyard of St. _____’s in Dorset on the night of the Spring Equinox. We have invited Cardinal Ravioli to take part with us in this great event, where Gaia will be acknowledged in all her feminine fruitfulness and at which the spirits will surely appear. We are having trouble translating into Italian the need for our syster Ravioli to bring with him/her his/her “Satan” (pat pending) anti-ectoplasmic wet-suit, so if anyone can help with that please do contact me at the Institute as soon as possible.

    • Enid Ecumaniac,

      So surprised was I to read your comment, that I Googled you and it is patently obvious that you are about as Catholic as your pal, Martin Luther.

      And some feminist, when you applaud an image which denigrates women and womanhood.

      As a woman myself, let me say what I always say to “feminists” – don’t you dare claim to speak for women. We don’t allow personal remarks on this blog but, as a movement, “feminists” are a bunch of nuts, who speak for no-one but themselves.

      You adoration of a pagan goddess says it all. We’re not interested in hearing about your false gods or your ecumania, so thanks for stopping by. If you ever convert, genuinely, to the one true religion, Catholicism, come back and chat again. Until you are able to adore the One, True, Trinitarian God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – goodbye.

      • Editor You have made an important point. I’ve always found it strange that Feminists seek to promote women by idolising and coveting the role of men.  Strange logic.

        Sent from my Samsung device

  16. Editor:

    Enid is one of my creations. She stops by any article on Catholic blogs featuring feminism. Didn’t you spot that she’s a send up?!

      • Very true, Editor, my experience with feminists has been similar to yours, nothing would surprise me!

  17. Well I did, hence the April 1st reference in my previous comment. But to be fair, this blog has been plagued with strange trolls of late – one in particular – so it just might have been someone with that sort of agenda!

%d bloggers like this: