Ben Shapiro: a Jew who saw right off that Francis not fit to be Pope… 



How come Ben Shapiro, a young Jew, could see right away that Francis was not fit to hold the papal office, when most modern Catholics are still of the opinion that he’s the best thing in the Church since [the original] St Francis [of Assisi]?  Sarcasm aside, can anyone answer that? Please and thank you…  

Hate Speech: Former Irish President Calls Catholic Teaching “Evil”…

Former Irish President Mary McAleese has described the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality as “evil”.

But McAleese also said that she was hopeful that the Pope Francis will eventually change the Church’s homophobic attitudes.

She said that Pope Francis “exploded that myth” that the Church can’t be changed and she believed he could now rid the Church of its “homophobic messages”.

The former Irish President also accused the Pope of having “bad manners” and being “disrespectful” for failing to reply to a letter she recently wrote to him. She had penned him a letter after an attempt was made to exclude her from an international women’s conference in Rome.

“I had faith in this pope and it would be wrong to say anything other than I am disappointed,” she said.

McAleese made her comments when receiving the inaugural Vanguard award for her support for the LGBT community.

Speaking at the award ceremony, Sarah Williams, chairperson of the Board of the GAZE LGBT Film Festival said: “Dr McAleese’s unwavering support for the advancement of the LGBT+ community has been widely acknowledged and praised, and we felt very strongly that we wanted to present her with this award this evening to mark her achievements.”
And Filmmaker John Butler said: “It’s an honour to present this award to a life-long hero of mine, what an inspiration and what a contribution to Irish life!”  Source


Just imagine for a second if Mary McAleese had described the teaching of Islam on homosexuality as “evil”  or the teaching of Judaism on homosexuality as “evil” – can you just imagine the ruckus?  But the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality (or anything else) well, that’s fair game.  No hate speech here, move along. 

You must not say a word out of place about Islam or Judaism, on pain of being labelled Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic, and finding yourself the subject of a police complaint.  But anti-Catholic? Bring it on…

Is there any point in lodging an official complaint about Mary McAleese’s bigotry, her attack on the Church which, if applied to any other religion would fall foul of ‘hate crime’ laws – or will Catholics simply do what we’ve always done, turn the other cheek, make every attempt to “love our enemy” – and, believe me, McAleese is an enemy of the Catholic Faith.  Mind you, so is Pope Francis, whom she applauds for his attempts to change Catholic teaching.  Now that he’s undermined traditional teaching on capital punishment, is the ultra-feminist/pro-“gay”  former Irish President likely to see a similar change to the Catechism paragraphs on homosexuality?  Don’t get me wrong; no pope has the authority to change the moral law, and when good order is restored to the Church, the damage done by this disgraceful pontiff will be put right. No question about it. Still, given that he has form on “revising” the Catechism, might he re-write the prohibition of homosexual activity, just for the hell of it (so to speak…) 

Share your thoughts – which is worse: the bigoted, hate-filled Mary McAleese, or her sometime idol, Papa Francis? Or, is it a case of “you pays your money and you takes your pick…”?  

Trump & Jerusalem: A Moral Move, A Politically Smart & Valuable Move…


Well, do you agree that in publicly recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and moving the U.S.A. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,  President Donald Trump has made a “moral move, a politically smart move and a politically valuable move” – or is he making things worse in the region?   After listening to the potted history on the video, doesn’t it seem odd that the media seem to be united in criticising Trump for this “moral, smart and valuable move”? Or, is it actually the case that no matter what he does, Trump will be criticised… A case of his not being able to do right for doing wrong?

Ben Shapiro Puts Catholics To Shame

Ben Shapiro is a young American Jewish man who fearlessly speaks out against much of the immorality in western society: unfortunately, he supports birth control, but – as you will see in the video clip below – he destroys the transgender and procured abortion lobby with his incisive and humorous comment…


We desperately need a Catholic “Ben Shapiro” to speak out in the UK media, as Ben does so brilliantly in the USA.  Can you think of someone we could “school” for the job – perhaps a young person in your circle? Or is this best left to the “naturals” who volunteer for the job? 

Why Did Jesus Choose The Last Supper To Wash the Feet Of His Apostles?

For those of you thinking that this is a tad too politically correct to be in line with Our Lord’s purpose of washing the feet of His apostles, and with the mind of the Church when including this ritual in the Liturgy on Maundy Thursday, the following article entitled The Washing of Feet on Maundy Thursday, by Ernest Graf, O.S.B.  –    extract below  – will be of much interest:

The ceremony is an integral part of the ritual of Maundy Thursday, and should not be omitted wherever the day is observed with full liturgical splendor. The ritual is simple, but varies somewhat according to different countries.

The bishop, or celebrant, is vested in a purple cope, assisted by a deacon and subdeacon in white dalmatics. The deacon begins by singing the Gospel of the Mass (John, xiii. 1—15), which contains an account of Our Lord’s washing of the Apostles’ feet. The celebrant then puts off the cope and a white towel is tied round his waist. Kneeling in turn before each of the “apostles,” he washes the feet (or the right foot) with water poured out by the deacon, wipes the foot with a towel and kisses it. When he has washed the feet of all, he washes his hands, resumes the cope, and chants the beautiful prayer in which he prays that the Lord God Himself would help him worthily to imitate His own example according as He commanded, to the end that, even as by this ceremony external and purely material stains are washed away, so the sins that are within may be blotted out from the souls of all. These words sufficiently explain the twofold purpose of the rite: on the one hand, we obey Our Lord’s injunction to do to one another what He first did to His Apostles, and secondly, the rite is no mere imitative gesture devoid of spiritual virtue, for no rite of the Church is ever barren; on the contrary, it is a sacramental, endowed with spiritual energy for the cleansing of the soul from such lighter sins as are symbolized by the dust that clings to the feet of a wayfarer.” (Emphasis added).
Click here to read entire article on the history and significance of the Washing of the Feet on Maundy Thursday.


So, is it correct to argue that Jesus would be fine with the Pope or any bishop or priest using the Maundy Thursday washing the feet  as an act of symbolic charity or mercy, or as a way of portraying “a more inclusive Church” – or would He have a very different perspective on the matter?  

Vatican bans mission to Jews

Christina, one of our regular bloggers from south of the border, submitted the following short article for comment:

Although I firmly believe that Summorum Pontificum was a great blessing for the Church and it has clearly produced much good fruit, yet the inclusion of those words of Pope Benedict – that he envisaged that …the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite (should) be mutually enriching were truly ominous. To one familiar with the ancient rite who has also attended the new, it seems insane, if not blasphemous, to suggest that the latter contains anything whatsoever with which it can ‘enrich’ the former.   

To one familiar with the ancient rite who has also attended the new, it seems insane, if not blasphemous, to suggest that the latter contains anything whatsoever with which it can ‘enrich’ the former.

To one familiar with the ancient rite who has also attended the new, it seems insane, if not blasphemous, to suggest that the latter contains anything whatsoever with which it can ‘enrich’ the former.

Predictably, those whose teeth were gnashing at the issuance of Summorum Pontificum were quick to use this clause to their advantage. In May 2012, Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said:- 

The pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms. In effect, the Pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the Cardinal said. Those who resist it, including “rigid” progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the Church’s liturgical tradition.

 So it was hardly surprising that the modernists would begin, sooner or later, to chip away in earnest, and so we have the current call, by the heretical/would-be schismatic German hierarchy, ably assisted by the English bishops (read Cardinal Vincent Nicholls) re the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. But I must admit that I was surprised and very disappointed to read a piece on the subject in the current LMS magazine Mass of Ages by Fr. Bede Rowe. The International Federation Una Voce does not support Fr. Rowe’s opinion, and as a member of that Federation, one wonders why the LMS has chosen to publish it, especially since the current issue also contains a splendid interview with Cardinal Burke.

 Fr. Rowe begins:-

 In the past few months there has been much said about the call of the English and German Bishops for a change in the Old Rite Good Friday prayers asking that the veil be lifted from the eyes of the Jews and they recognise Christ as their Sviour.

In doing so, it questions the fundamental Christian calling of announcing the Good News to all the world, as was Our Lord’s clear command. If this announcement is what we should do, and I think that this is clear, are there any exceptions? Are we to preach to the whole world or are we not? Is Christ the only way to salvation, or is there another way?

After this apparently promising start there follow several paragraphs of Vatican II-inspired waffle and then this conclusion:-

Let me make this clear. It is eminently possible, and I would say desirable, that there is no proselytism (deliberate preaching with the aim of conversion) of the Jews. This is not a principle, so I am not saying that they occupy a new theological place in the scheme of salvation, as many Church theologians seem to want to do. Rather I would say that it should not happen because we cannot effectively preach the message of Christ because of recent, and not so recent history and our share in it. Today, preaching the conversion of the Jews is so clouded by the evil of the last century, that the message of Christ becomes too severely distorted to be honest, effective or even kind..

I think that the new statements can be read in this way – in theory ‘yes’, in practice ‘no’. The Church cannot preach conversion in this present age, but we, you and I, can pray for it and yearn for it.

This sounds rather like the recent Synod’s ‘we’re not changing doctrine, but only practice’, and I would like someone to enlighten me as to what was my and our share in ‘recent and not so recent history’ that makes it impossible for us to openly pray for the conversion of the Jews in the Mass. For that matter, what part did the Church play in ‘the evil of the last century’. What is this collective guilt all about? Surely if the Jews of Jerusalem crying ‘Crucifige, crucifige eum’ bore no guilt, then why am I to bear guilt for the Holocaust and because of it refuse to pray for the conversion of all men?      

On December 10, 2015, the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews released a new document calling for Catholics not to actively seek the conversion of Jews.

On December 10, 2015, the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews released a new document calling for Catholics not to actively seek the conversion of Jews.

Rome Rabbi Admonishes Pope Francis

A French reader emailed the article below, which is more outspoken and detailed than any I’ve read in the press in the UK – both secular and “Catholic”.  Comments invited…

The afternoon of January 17, 2016 Pope Francis, after his prayer time with migrants at the time of the Angelus and the passage of the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica with its 5000 non-EU guests, so sesame New World, will travel as scheduled to the synagogue.

Awaited with joy, this visit is a decline of more than the spiritual primacy of the Catholic Church to the world and men. Prepared by the Jewish community of Rome and the Papal services, it will mark a turning point in relations between Jews and Catholics, turning to the advantage of the Hebrew religion. The recent remarks made ​​by the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, a preview of this meeting, are there to testify.

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Rabbi sent a clear and precise message to Pope Francis: Christians should not try to convert Jews. It is the Pope, he said, to send this message to the faithful Catholics around the world. Would be put into practice the new doctrine contained in the conciliar document Nostra Aetate doctrine that has been reinforced by the recent theological documents out of the Vatican cellars for 50 years of the decree of Vatican II and which states that the Catholic Church should no longer have missionary activity among Jews.

 Pope Francis listens as Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, outlines his demands during the pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

Pope Francis & Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome,  during the Pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

“If the Church says that the Jewish people must be appreciated and respected but written only in a theological paper, few people understand the message. “Said the rabbi. “But if the pope visits a fundamental historical place like the Great Synagogue of Rome, then the message of friendship and respect is clearly understood and expressed. “

“The Vatican supports, says rightly Di Segni Rabbi, the Jews are still the chosen people, even if we do not believe in Jesus and that we continue to have a role in what they call salvation, even as non -croyant in Jesus. From a practical point of view this means that not need to be converted Jews. Judaism is considered a religion that is part of their religious system and deserves to be respected. “

From a practical standpoint, the chief rabbi would ask simply to Pope Catholic, so this new theological vision of the Jews, who is not Catholic, is understood around the world that the Good Friday prayer for the conversion Jews still in force in the form of the “extraordinary rite”, although already reworked to be more acceptable to the Jews by Benedict himself, is now removed. Not less ! Delicate but crucial issue for the Jewish people who believe that anti-Semitism still persist hints within the Catholic Church despite his fraternal statements, more than fraternal, submission, “elder brothers in faith”. The repentance and abdication of the conciliar popes will never be enough: it always takes more, until no remnant of Catholic doctrine survivor of the extermination camp what the conciliar Church. Give them a hand, it’s not the arm, but they will take whole body!

Di Segni is firmly Riccardo decided to talk with the Pope during the visit of the afternoon. He already has some ideas and advice for the Vicar of Christ, he gives the scoop Haaretz: “What is happening thus demonstrates that the documents, the latest published last year, have not yet been received uniformly. Perhaps it would be better disclose, to make them happen also in the peripheries. “In a word, it is the traditionalists attached to the Tridentine Mass, poor commuters on the sidelines of conciliar Catholicism, which are to be rehabilitated!” All we hope that these prayers are only a folkloric survival.   “(Sic)

To help get the message, or rather the admonition, the visit of Francis will be with members of the Jewish community and a dozen survivors of the concentration camps, children from schools, shopkeepers, that is to say Jewish merchants. Few policies and church members.

Some other so-called contentious issues, while already one can doubt that in time it is the Church that will reverse, are in the background and will not be discussed even if they weigh the “good” relations between Jews and Catholics: the question of the beatification of Pius XII, accused by the Jewish community of not having quite strongly condemned Nazism and the recent issue of the diplomatic agreement between the Holy See and Palestinian state. A letter written by 71 rabbis around the world has also been sent to Pope Francis that he reviews this diplomatic position.

If for the rabbi De Segni this pope “is very interesting”, well that “we can talk with him”, efforts are however requested it in all areas to demonstrate its good faith towards them: we must, for example explains the rabbi, the use of offensive terms such reconsideration Pharisees because they maintain prejudice towards the chosen people.

As we can see is the disappearance of whole sectors of the Catholic doctrine, prayers, writings, lyrics, it is a rewriting theological, linguistic, liturgical and history of the Catholic religion, the Jews imposed in this dialogue one way for 50 years. It is the creation of a new religion that will name a Catholic they are striving with the complicity of ecclesiastical rights forgetful of Christ, new religion that would be perhaps this Noahide religion theorized by Talmudic rabbis of the nineteenth century. In a nutshell, that is the disappearance of traditional Catholicism firmly they work conscientiously and since Vatican II, obviously.

At the disappearance of this Catholicism which saw the conversion of Jews celebrated with a nice example was the chief rabbi Eugenio Zolli who chooses the name of Eugenio, at his baptism, in honor of Pope Pius XII and its protective action in favor of the Roman and Italian Jewish community during the Second World War and the occupation of Rome by German troops. But there also is another story that our conciliar popes want to put in the closet.

In any case, with such beginnings, the visit this afternoon the 17 January 2016 certainly will sign another abandonment, another repentance, another abdication for the humiliation again and again of the Catholic Church and through it Christian civilization, already fairly attacked by migratory invasion which is now also the feast day the Vatican!   Source  


State Plans to Vet Priests “Sinister” ?

The British government is planning to force all priests, rabbis, imams and other religious figures to enrol on a “national register of faith leaders” in a scheme branded “truly sinister” by Christian campaigners.


The Sunday Telegraph claims the scheme appears in a leaked draft of the government’s new counter-terror proposal. It says that state bureaucrats will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and that the government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” registered faith leaders must have.

The plans mark a new level of state intervention in religion and are likely to fuel fears that Christians with traditional beliefs are being slowly criminalised.

All faith leaders who wish to work with the public sector, including schools, universities and hospitals, will have to sign up to the register and undergo government vetting. Given that many priests, imams, rabbis and other figures often have some dealings with the public sector, the register will likely cover the great majority.

The plan has been condemned by the Christian Institute, who said it was “sinister” and “more in keeping with China or North Korea” than a democratic Western society.

A spokesman told Breitbart London: “If the reports are accurate, what the Government is proposing turns the clock back on religious freedom more than 300 years. Not since the days of the notorious Test and Corporation Acts have we seen such a concerted attempt by a British Government to restrict religious practice. We don’t want to go back to those darker days of religious intolerance.”

He added that the proposals would mean a Christian minister would not be allowed to visit a member of his congregation in hospital, nor address a university Christian Union, without having been on a government-approved training scheme.

“It marks a deeply concerning attempt by the State to interfere with religious practice.

“The Government are proposing an Orwellian watch list of Reverends and Rabbis, who are to be told which state values they must espouse before being allowed to speak about their religion.”

There are already fears that the government’s plans to tackle Islamist fundamentalism could lead to traditional Christians being branded “extremists”.

The Durham Free School, a Christian faith school in north east England, was forced to close this year after inspectors branded children “bigots” for not knowing what a Muslim was. The inspection report concluded: “Leaders are failing to prepare students for life in modern Britain. Some students hold discriminatory views of other people who have different faiths, values or beliefs from themselves.”

Breitbart London reported last month that Welsh Minister for Education Huw Lewis wanted to remove Christianity from the country’s state schools. He told the Welsh Assembly: “My contention would be that we rename the [religious education] curriculum and transform it into the religion, philosophy and ethics element of the curriculum – where there is an explicit commitment to allowing children to ponder ideas around ethics and citizenship and what it means to be a citizen of a free country.”

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education told Breitbart London last month that such a move would be a big mistake: “The British government has a new agenda called ‘British values.’ Nicky Morgan [MP and Secretary of State for Education] has changed the rules on this, and one of the values schools are now obliged to promote is the doctrine of tolerance for all ideas, and accepting the point of view of anyone you might disagree with.

“This sounds very persuasive, but it is a form of value relativism. Teacher are discussing extremist values on a level plain field with what you might call more reasonable points of view.

“I’ve seen it myself in schools. It is dangerous; it offers children no real moral guidance and can actually serve promote the extremism and lack of community cohesion which the government wants to tackle in the first place.” Source


Blogger Prognosticum suggested that this topic deserves a thread of its own.  On the face of it, it does, indeed, seem like a sinister move – potentially a serious threat to religious freedom. Or is this scare-mongering? Is it only to be expected, given the rise of the radicalisation of young Muslims, that the Government would decide that the time has come to monitor all religious leaders? It’s only  “national security” at work, we’ve nothing to fear, surely? Why all the cynical faces?