Pope Francis: Vicar of Allah?

From the Fatima Center…

December 5, 2017

Pope Francis made headlines recently for his championing of the Rohingya. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it is one that Muslim refugees from Myanmar use to designate themselves. The term is rejected by the Buddhists of Myanmar, as it suggests that the Muslims are native to their country, a claim they deny, insisting that they are intruders from neighboring Bangladesh.

While in Myanmar, the Pope avoided use of the term, but readily adopted it once he had crossed into Bangladesh to meet the Rohingya of the refugee camps. For this supposed act of courage, the Pope was lauded for his shunning of diplomacy in favor of plain-speaking and justice. Apparently, it did not occur to the adulatory media that courage in this matter was only possible while the Pope was in Myanmar, where he carefully avoided its use. He was in no danger among the Rohingya.

Wearing a Yankees’ cap at Fenway Park requires courage. Wearing one at Yankee stadium makes you one of the gang.

While aboard his jet during his return trip to Rome, the Pope, as is his habit, addressed the international press corps that travels with him, chronicling his acts of courage. He explained he did not use the word Rohingya in public addresses in Myanmar because, “They already knew what I thought.” The “they” he is referring to are presumably the political and religious leaders of Myanmar, whom the Pope supposes are so familiar with his views that he need not spell them out. But, as St. Thomas More reminded the court that tried him, the maxim of the law is “Tacet consentire” — silence implies consent.

In any event, once among the Rohingya and safely out of Myanmar, the Pope was bold enough to break his silence and pronounce the term. The Pope told the press corps, “I wept. I tried to do it in a way that couldn’t be seen.” Not to presume too much, but we might suggest to the Holy Father that to keep his weeping secret, it would be best not to announce it to the media. Reporters are terribly indiscreet and very likely to, well, report.

The Pope said he wept over the suffering of the Rohingya, whom he credits as being the blameless victims of persecution, based on their self-declaration and anecdotal accounts.  In an astounding act of presumption, the Pope then appropriated the right to speak in the name of their alleged persecutors:

“In the name of all those who have persecuted you, who have harmed you, in the face of the world’s indifference, I ask for your forgiveness.”

Did the Buddhists of Myanmar commission the Pope to speak for them? Did they admit wrongdoing and confess their guilt and express a desire to seek forgiveness through the agency of the Pope? If not, why should Francis speak in their name? Indeed, why should he presume to speak in anyone else’s name unless he has permission to do so?

But the Pope not only takes upon himself the unwarranted ambassadorial role of speaking for the alleged miscreants of Myanmar, he goes on to apologize in the name of the whole world. Whatever may be happening along the borders of Bangladesh and Myanmar apparently imposes a moral obligation on the rest of mankind, an obligation we have failed to meet by our “indifference.” The Pope, then, believes it incumbent upon him to acknowledge our failure to the Rohingya and ask that they forgive us.

We might express some skepticism about the probable success of the Pope’s plea, as Muslims have not been notable for their readiness to forgive those who slight them or their religion. Mohammed was not known for his willingness to turn the other cheek, and “Live and let live” is not an attitude that informs the spirit of the Koran.

As for our supposedly sinful “indifference,” just what are we — the world — morally compelled to do, in the Pope’s estimation? We are not eyewitnesses to what is taking place. We cannot tell which stories are true, which are fabricated, whose claims are legally or historically justified and who initiated violence in particular instances. In short, the “world” — you and I — are in the dark about what is going on in this part of the world. And we are under no obligation to become informed.

Are we obliged to patrol the streets of our own cities, righting wrongs, like a superhero? The idea is absurd. How much more absurd is the notion that we must be engaged in conflicts in distant lands, deciding whose claim to justice is the more credible? And even should we become so engaged, what precisely does the Pope propose that we do? Mount crusades for Rohingya Rights?

A moment’s reflection on this Theater of the Absurd that the Pope scripted in his most recent and entirely unnecessary papal trip should make plain to anyone with common sense that nothing the Pope said or did has any connection to the governance of the Catholic Church and the safeguarding of its doctrine, which is the Pope’s designated job.
Why Myanmar and Bangladesh? The Catholic populations in these countries is marginal (about 1 percent in Myanmar; about 0.2 percent in Bangladesh). This dispute is between Muslims and Buddhists, neither of which acknowledge the authority of the Roman Pontiff in any area of life. Why should the Pope travel to the far reaches of the non-Christian world to insert himself in a regional dispute where he exercises neither jurisdiction nor acknowledged moral authority?

Both Buddhists and Muslims reject Christ and the claims of the Catholic Church. Indeed, for Muslims, the Pope is an infidel, leader of the Dar-Al-Harb – the world of war that must be conquered for allah. But the Pope has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity and is ever intent on showing compassion for Muslims. If only Francis were as eager to show compassion for members of his own persecuted Church in Muslim nations, or even Europeans maimed and killed in Paris and London to the cry of “allahu akbar!”

But the plight of the Rohingya draws the Pope halfway around the world, where he weeps and apologizes for all of us for the sufferings of a group of Muslim refugees to whom we have supposedly shown a sinful “indifference.” When will the Pope weep for us? When will he weep for Catholics who have been victims of doctrinal confusion and contradiction? When will he cry over the destruction of our liturgy? When will he tear his robes and lament the hideous perversion of his own clergy and the criminal cover-ups of his own bishops? When will he turn a tearful eye to Europe, bereft of Faith, its culture in tatters, Muslim rape gangs roaming the streets of its cities, mosques replacing churches, the bells of the Angelus being drowned out by the cry of “allahu akbar,” calling ever-multiplying numbers of Muslims to prayer – in Rome, in Paris, in Berlin, in Madrid, in Brussels, in London?

We need no apologies from the Pope in the name of supposed oppressors of the Rohingya. We are not edified by his hidden tears, later broadcast to the media, that he shed in Bangladesh. We need no empty words of condemnation or “sorrow” about the atrocities that have become a regular feature of modern life.

How wonderful it would be if useless words were no longer spoken by the Pope. How wonderful it would be if the Pope were to say: “I know little about climate change or environmental science or international economics. I cannot intervene and decide who is right and wrong in the many armed conflicts that perpetually erupt around the world, nor is it my duty to do so. I have no advice to give Buddhists or Muslims except this: turn to Christ and His Church. In our doctrine is truth. In our Lord is peace. In our worship is love. Come inside. Be with us and be saved.”

If the Pope were to do this, how many souls might be drawn to the Church? If the Pope were to use his power for the purpose intended by Our Lord, to strengthen his brothers and sisters in the Faith, the crisis in the Church would end. The Holy Father is the most powerful person on God’s Earth, but only as the Vicar of Christ, not as the vicar of the environment, or the vicar of economic equality, or the vicar of immigration, or, Heaven help us, the vicar of allah!

If the Pope really wants peace, for the Rohingya as well as for the rest of us, he has it in his power to bring it about: He can consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, along with his bishops. Were he to do this, there would be an end to much weeping, both public and private.   Source – Fatima Center

 

Comments invited…  

Concern Over Pope Francis Grows: Schism Looms – Cardinals MUST Act!

From One Peter Five…

Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes on the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.

Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open “the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.

Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis  (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.

You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)

Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure. We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:

And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March, The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.

Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book, The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it was only the following month that it became an official act of the Apostolic See.

As reported in The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.   Source – One Peter Five…

* Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Comment: 

Discussing this development after Mass today, one of our bloggers twisted my arm to post this thread because, he argued, next to the new Mass, this is the single biggest catastrophe to afflict the post-Vatican II Church.  Explain why you do, or do not agree…

Vatican Bans Sale of Cigarettes As All Hope For Return To Sanity Sanctity fades

The Director of the Holy See Press Office announced on November 9, 2017, that the Vatican City State is ending the sale of cigarettes.: “No profit can be legitimate if it is costing people their lives.”

“Pope Francis,” explained Greg Burke, “has decided that the Vatican will cease to sell cigarettes to employees as of 2018”. 
The director of the Press Office explained the reasons for this decision: “The Holy See cannot be cooperating with a practice that is clearly harming the health of people. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), smoking causes more than seven million deaths worldwide every year.”

In 2002, the smallest State in the world promulgated a law banning smoking in public places and workplaces; however, cigarettes continued to be sold at almost half the price for which they were sold elsewhere in the Italian republic. Only the 4,000 Vatican City employees were allowed to buy cigarettes at the State store, the Annona.

No matter the loss of profit that will result from the Holy Father’s decision: “Although the sale of cigarettes has been a source of revenue for the Holy See, no profit can be legitimate if it is costing people their lives,” concluded Greg Burke.

With this decision, the Vatican is adopting the hygienism being promoted by world government organizations. Should we also expect them to forbid alcohol because it harms the digestive and cardio-vascular systems, butter and fatty foods because they are a source of cholesterol, and red meat because it can cause colorectal cancer? It might also be wise to forbid selling cars and motorcycles, because, according to the WHO, road accidents cause 1.25 million deaths every year.  Source   


 Comment:

One of these days, we’ll find the Vatican issuing a statement about the next world.  I’m convinced of it.  It’s got to come, surely?  So far, we’re hearing about the need to make this world a better place (environment), crime (capital punishment), the weather (climate change), our physical health (no smoking), and so I think I’m not scare-mongering when I say that, by the law of averages, at some point, some time soon, someone in the Vatican will, surely, mention God and/or the soul…   Who knows, maybe that “someone” will be Papa Francis!  Or, am I being an incorrigible optimist again?  

Is Medjugorje – The Devil’s Answer To Fatima – About To Be Approved?

Medjugorje: the devil’s answer to Fatima…

“I think it’s possible to recognize the authenticity of the first [seven] apparitions as proposed by the Ruini commission,” [Archbishop Henryk] Hoser said. “Besides, it is difficult to get another verdict, because it’s difficult to believe that six seers will lie for 36 years. What they say has been consistent. They are not mentally incompetent. A strong argument for the authenticity of the apparitions is their faithfulness to the doctrine of the Church.” Click here to read the entire report. 

Fidelity to the doctrine of the Church?  You kidding?  The “Lady of Medjugorje”, the “Gospa” incites to disobedience – that’s a first. Read more here and reflect: on every occasion when Our Lady has appeared in private apparitions, when the priest or bishop has been sceptical and initially refused to entertain the apparitions as true, as in Lourdes, for example, Our Lady has exhorted the seer to obedience – never disobedience. 

The alleged seers are also known to have a loose relationship with the truth:  Dr. Gagliardi: “We could not ascertain the sincerity of the seers, but on the synchronicity of the ecstasies they were lying”

Finally, click here to read the Facts and Documents about Medjugorje and then tell us your thoughts.  Remember, in normal times the Bishop’s decision on private revelations is all that is required by the Church in judging their authenticity. The Vatican Commission was established because the “seers” refuse to accept the Bishop’s authoritative decision that nothing supernatural is taking place in Medjugorje.

So, given the widespread diabolical disorientation in the Church today, which means that the Vatican as it should be operating is AWOL, and that Pope Francis is the worst ever pontiff in the history of the Church, IS the final slap in the face to Our Lady of Fatima, in this centenary year, to be the approval of this self-evident hoaxers’ paradise – Medjugorje?

Comments invited…  

Francis: The “Gay”- Friendly Pope…

Does [Pope Francis] Lead us to Gay Church?
BY Jean-Pierre Dickès, 8/14/17
[http://medias-catholique.info/bergoglio-nous-mene-t-il-a-leglise-gay/9160]
[Excellent Google Translation]

The case began with the famous “Who am I to judge? ” about homosexuality. The curious reflection of a pope whose role is precisely to transmit the spiritual and moral heritage of the Church. Teaching itself dating back to the sixth commandment given by God to Moses. The justification of this practical relativism was the famous word “mercy” aimed at validating “concrete situations” in order to “accompany and integrate”. Things could have stopped there. Now we find ourselves faced with a new form of ethics which was to materialize by an avalanche of precise facts which ultimately lead to a new Church which can be called homosexual; It is a veritable apocalyptic avalanche aimed at transforming the Church and subjecting it to gender, the necessary passage of transhumanism, this ideology wanting to create a new man. It is a frontal and programmed attack against the natural order willed by God in his creation.

* We have already forgotten the famous text known as Relatio of mid-term at the synod on the family in 2014. It had been massively rejected in a resounding way. “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we able to welcome these people, by guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities? … Can our communities be able to provide this, accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic doctrine on family and marriage? “It is therefore a question of “valuing sexual orientation” in this case sodomy. It was indeed [Pope Francis] who wanted to insert this abominable text in the final document of the synod.

* At the beginning of his pontificate, [Pope Francis] named a notorious homosexual, Mgr. Battista Ricca, as prelate of his own papal house and at the head of the Vatican bank.

* The famous “Who am I to judge” referred to an active homosexual for whom it is undoubtedly demonstrated that he was involved in many sodomite relationships, including a young man with whom he was caught in a blocked elevator.

* In an interview with America magazine in September 2013, Pope [Francis] laughed at the very idea of ​​disapproving homosexual conduct: “One person once asked me provocatively if I had approved of homosexuality. I answered with another question, “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he support the existence of that person with love or refuse and condemn this person? ”

* [Pope Francis] has since made a great show by meeting personally and physically embracing an assortment of homosexuals and transgenders, even accepting the “marriage” of a woman claiming to be a man who “married” another woman.

* The Pope ostensibly embraced the hand and concelebrated the Mass with a Don Michele de Paolis, a notorious pro-homosexual militant priest and animator of a gay site. This is a public sacrilege. Then [Pope Francis] invited him to dinner. At the moment of the priest’s departure he had an ambiguous sentence: “Everything is possible!”  A warning quickly forgotten by all. And yet …

* [Pope Francis] refused to rule against the legalization of “homosexual unions,” “gay marriages,” or even “gay adoption” in Italy, Ireland, the United States and Malta. His excuse was that “the Pope does not place himself in the concrete policy of a country.”  But he is the first to defend immigration and to invest in the issue of “climate change.”  Eminently political issues.

* One of the rare and frank episcopal opponents of the emerging “Gay Church” is Charles Chaput, appointed Archbishop by Pope Benedict XVI. During the synod of which he was a member, he had presented guidelines prohibiting the giving of Holy Communion to same-sex couples or remarried divorcees. In the hierarchical order, being archbishop of Philadelphia, he should have been named cardinal. From consistory to consistory, [Pope Francis] challenged him. Bishop Chaput was strongly criticized by Father Thomas Rosica, attaché of the Vatican Press Office during the Synod. This priest is nicknamed the “attack dog” of the LGBT.

* The Jesuit James Martin, is a fervent defender of the gay priesthood and a fortiori unions of this nature. Normally he should have been “crossed” by the Pope. On the contrary, [Pope Francis] appointed him consultant of the Secretariat of Social Communications of the Vatican. He is the author of a book entitled “Building a Bridge”. This bridge must connect the Church to the LGBT. The teaching of the catechism is rejected; Sodomy can not be a sin. It is God who created homosexuals, so their morals can not be condemned.

* Cardinal Walter Kasper, is an arch-progressive German prelate. He headed the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He is the favorite theologian of [Pope Francis]. He defended the legalization of homo marriage in Ireland. For him, if the majority of the people agree with laws of this nature, it is legitimate to “recognize their rights”. In other words, it is the people who define what is true and good. The Church must align with the politically correct. Curious approach. Jesus told us that “you are in the world, but you are not of the world” (John 17: 14-18).

* Another case is that of the well-named Cardinal Reinhard Marx. Concerning “gay marriage” he said: “The Christian position is one thing. It is another thing to ask if I can respect all the laws on Christian moral concepts. Anyone who does not understand that one does not automatically lead to the other, has not understood the very essence of modern society “. A convoluted way to say that the Church does not have to defend its morality in the face of the present world.

* Cardinal Christoph Schönborn was the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said, “We can and must respect the decision to form a same-sex union, [and] look for ways in civil law to protect their lives with the laws to ensure such protection.” However, he is considered a conservative. He was the one who carried the project of Amoris Laetitia on the question of remarried divorcees. The Pope considers him a “great theologian.” Who presented in his own cathedral of Vienna a gay couple who had adopted a child of black race. This couple has ordered a three-year-old girl in South Africa.

* With Bishop Vincenzo Paglia we reach the height. According to the newspaper La Croix on 17 June, he was charged with criminal conspiracy, obstructing the investigation, fraud against the town of Narni (Umbria, central Italy), misuse of credit and misappropriation Of funds. The accusation is carried by the prosecutor of Terni, Elisabetta Massini. Notwithstanding this situation, [Pope Francis] placed him at the head of the Academy for Life and the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. He has exploded these two institutions by introducing supporters of euthanasia and abortion. He wears sunglasses whose frame is rainbow LGBT. But above all he made a gigantic fresco of “homoerotic” inspiration in the choir of his cathedral in Terni. Pushing vice up to represent itself with the episcopal cap. This fresco was made by a notorious homosexual artist.

* The American Cardinal Blase Cupich, is an LGBT actively supported by [Pope Francis]; He announced that he was for the reception of Holy Communion by “homosexual couples;” this during his installation as archbishop of Chicago. It is based on the pretext of the “inviolable conscience.” We are in full Protestantism. For him, heterosexual adulteresses can also communicate.

* Another case is that of Cardinal Dolan. His archdiocese is full of homosexual priests. A professional player named Michael Sam publicly revealed his homosexuality in 2014. The Archbishop said on national television: “Good for him. I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless him … The same Bible that tells us that we teach the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Well done!” For Saint Patrick, the Irish are traditionally a parade, a kind of folk parade. Dolan was named “Grand Marshall” of this parade despite the presence of a group of “gay pride” with its banners.

* Cardinal Joseph Tobin, named Cardinal by [Pope Francis] and head of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (New York suburb), gave his blessing in July to a gay pilgrimage that ended with a Sacrilegious Mass at the Cathedral. One of the militant homosexuals who participated in the demonstration called the cardinal’s blessing a “miracle.” The New York Times greeted the event with the title: “As the Church changes, a cardinal welcomes gays; They embrace a “miracle.” Tobin is a very active supporter of Father Martin named above. The same is true of Bishop Robert McElroy, Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego. This bishop is one of the recruits of the expanding corps of gay shock troops that [Pope Francis] settles in the key dioceses; He praised Martin’s book and proclaimed beyond the teaching of the catechism that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” He believes that homosexuals can communicate.

* We will not return to the case of Bishop Cocopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In what is surely only the tip of a very large iceberg, his private secretary Luigi Capozzi, was arrested amidst a homosexual orgy whose participants were drugged. Capozzi completely “shot” was hospitalized by the gendarmerie. When one looks at Saint Peter of Rome, one sees a building on the left, seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was here that these great deeds unfolded. Capozzi at the request of his boss was proposed to the episcopate.

The characteristic of all these prelates is that they were promoted by [Pope Francis] with the exception of course of Bishop Chaput. There are, of course, others like Bishop Robert Barron, an American theologian who denounces the Church for condemning homosexuality.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that [Pope Francis] is preparing the advent of the Gay Church at full speed. Notably by eliminating the most conservative elements opposing him in one way or another.   Jean-Pierre Dickès

Comment

As readers will note, I’ve had to change “Bergoglio” to [Pope Francis] umpteen times in the above article.  It strikes me that those who insist on using the Pope’s family surname, not only show lack of respect for the papal office but they minimise the gravity of what this Pope is saying and doing.  If only it were “Bergoglio” saying and doing all these awful things, that would be bad enough – bad enough that any Catholic would promote homosexuality – but not as grave as these words and actions falling from the lips of a reigning pope.  Why can’t Catholics, who are rightly outraged at Pope Francis, see that they are letting him off the hook by minimising the damage he is doing to the Church as pontiff… Who cares about “Bergoglio”? 

Anyway, comments invited.  Do you agree with the author that Pope Francis is “preparing the advent of the ‘Gay  Church’ at full speed” or is there another explanation for the facts detailed in the above article?  But please – it was irritating enough having to keep deleting “Bergoglio” and typing [Pope Francis] in the article, do not make extra work for me by using the Pope’s family surname in your comments.  Please and thank you!  

Earth to Archbishop of Glasgow…Hello!

Our blogger, Gabriel Syme writes:

Look at this jaw dropping story from the Church in Scotland.

Scottish Catholics are “too wishy-washy” about standing up for their beliefs, the Archbishop of Glasgow has warned.
Click here to read entire Herald Scotland article 

While advocating robust, confident Catholicism is admirable, this is hilarious coming from the Scottish Bishops. Their only priority for decades has been to play down Catholicism in order to pander to ecumenism and the secular world.    

The statement also ignores the fact that modern Catholics (including in Scotland) are the most ignorant and poorly instructed in all history. This because they have not been taught the faith properly and deliberately so – because properly instructed Catholics reject ecumenism and the like.

In 13 years at Catholic schools and many years in novus ordo parishes I learned literally nothing about the Catholic faith, beyond the Our Father, Hail Mary and the rudiments of the nativity story. I always knew I had not been properly taught, but even so was shocked at the extent of my ignorance, when (in my 30s) I first held a Baltimore Catechsim No 1 (which is aimed at small children).

I struggled to answer even the obvious and basic questions listed therein. Of course, I knew what a Bar Mitzvah was, and knew some Hebrew Phrases (but not a word of Latin). And I could describe the good work a Protestant minister had done with gangs in New York City. But I could not have given a coherent answer as to why God made me.
(Fortunately, thanks to Catholic Truth and the SSPX I have been able to back-fill much of this missing knowledge).

And so Archbishop Tartaglia can hardly call Catholics wishy-washy, because modern Catholics do not know the Catholic faith, nor are they equipped to defend it.

Another reason Catholics struggle to speak out to defend the faith (even if able) is because should you do so, in a modern parish or Catholic organisation, you can bet on being immediately savaged by other “Catholics” whose lives conflict with Church teaching and do not like being reminded of it. This is one reason I withdrew from participation in modern parishes / organisations – its all a facade, there’s no substance to it.

For example, we discussed St Brides LGBT welcome recently. Who in that parish now would be confident to speak out on (e.g.) sexual morality when it is clear that the Parish Priest does not support that morality and when the local homosexual MP and his ‘husband’ are in the next pew?

I can only conclude that Archbishop Tartaglia is completely out of touch with the results of the non-teaching in the Scottish Church.

Comment:

Gabriel Syme’s insightful assessment of the state of the Scottish Church was underlined by the announcement, on – of all days – the Feast of the Assumption, yesterday, that yet another priest of the archdiocese was leaving active ministry. Only in this case, the priest in question – Father Gerald Walsh – has only been ordained for 6 years. Reflect: a young man like Fr Walsh can go through the entire Catholic education system following the syllabus issued by the Scottish Catholic Education Service, thus approved by the Scottish Bishops, and learn sweet nothing about the Catholic religion. Then, feeling called to the priesthood (although goodness knows how this comes about given the widespread ignorance of true Catholicism is anybody’s guess), a candidate goes on to seminary to be further mal-formed in the Faith.  Little wonder so many abandon the ministry, sometimes after only a handful of years, as in the case of Fr Gerald Walsh, ordained in 2011, his resignation announced on the Feast of Our Lady’s Assumption, 2017.  More sad than words can express. 

The Mass-goer who contacted us to report Fr Walsh’s resignation after the morning Mass in St James’s Crookston, where the Archbishop himself made the announcement, opined that the Archbishop seemed more concerned with the fact that this latest “ex-priest” now created a situation that meant more work for him and for the priest in a neighbouring parish who would now administer both parishes. 

“Wishy-washy”?  I think the Archbishop needs to look at his own Catholicity, or lack thereof, before labelling the rest of us  “wishy-washy”; from what I hear, he is not exactly setting the heather on fire with his zealous leadership of either clergy or laity.  

The key question for this thread is this:  how on earth is the Church in Scotland EVER going to attract genuine and lasting vocations, if the Hierarchy don’t restore what has been lost of the glorious Catholic religion?  

But, where to begin?  Reform the schools?  Begin teaching the Faith?  Nobody can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as the saying goes, so young men who haven’t been taught a thing about true Catholicism, are hardly going to make terrific priests.  What on EARTH is going to keep them living a single, celibate life in today’s permissive society if they’ve essentially been taught a false religion?

And is it any surprise that the new Mass isn’t keeping young priests? Countless saints not only stayed faithful throughout their lives, but actually GAVE their lives in order to preserve the Mass.  Who’s ever going to sacrifice their lives for this complete break with Catholic Tradition known as the Novus Ordo Missae, which no saint or martyr returning to earth today would recognise as the Mass?  That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question”…  

Imagine you’re on the telephone line from Earth to Archbishop Tartaglia.  He is keen to have your advice (well, it’s only a pretend game)… What will you say to him – where would you advise him to start, in order to begin to restore the Faith in Scotland? 

Venezuela: Pope Francis’s Downfall?

The Wall Street Journal points out that while Pope Francis is not slow to denounce President Donald Trump, he is not so quick to take Nicolás Maduro to task – click here

The Bishops of Venezuela Appeal to Our Lady for Deliverance from Maduro. 
From Francis, Only Silence. 
by Christopher A. Ferrara
August 11, 2017

Francis and Maduro: Happy together?“Will Venezuela be Francis’s downfall?” That provocative question is posed by Monica Showalter in an important article at the American Thinker blog. There is no arguing with her opening line: “The world’s first Latin American pope isn’t exactly covering himself with glory as the hellfire of Venezuela immolates that God-forsaken nation.” There has been nothing but silence from Francis as the socialist tyrant Nicolás Maduro oppresses the Venezuelan people and destroys the nation’s once vibrant economy, reducing many to rummaging through garbage cans for food.

For their part, the bishops of Venezuela know a tyrant when they see one: during the run-up to Maduro’s sham election of a new “constituent assembly” to rewrite the Venezuelan constitution in his favor, the Venezuelan Bishops’ Conference posted this prayer to their Twitter account: “Most Holy Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our homeland from the claws of communism and socialism.” It seems certain that no such words will ever escape the lips of Francis.

The bishops’ prayer is most telling from this Fatima perspective. Our Lady of Coromoto is a title of the Mother of God the Church has assigned to Her apparitions to the chief of the Coromoto tribe in 1591 following the arrival of the Spanish in Venezuela. Instructed by the Virgin to undergo baptism in order to be saved, the chief at first complied but then changed his mind before receiving the sacrament. During a second most impressive apparition of Our Lady, the chief became enraged and tried to grab the Blessed Virgin, but She disappeared, leaving in the chief’s hand a kind of holy card relic, quite small in size, which is preserved to this day in a protective monstrance. It depicts the Virgin, with Child, seated on a throne, both bearing crowns on their heads.

No mere legend, the apparition of Our Lady of Coromoto received approbation from the highest authority in the Church, with Pope Pius XII declaring Our Lady of Coromoto “Patroness of the Republic of the Venezuela” at the request of the country’s bishops, whose successors appeal to Her today.

No such appeal to the Virgin on behalf of the poor nation of Venezuela can be expected from Francis. As one columnist notes in the Wall Street Journal (quoted here):
“Venezuela’s crisis doesn’t fit into Pope Francis’s standard way of explaining contemporary political and economic problems. It’s very hard for the pope to blame Venezuela’s problems on the tyranny of Mammon, financial speculation, free trade agreements, arms-dealers, nefarious ‘neoliberals,’ or any of his usual list of suspects.”

This is not to suggest (as do American neo-conservatives) that the Bergoglian list of usual suspects does not come in for legitimate, indeed harsh, criticism according to Catholic social teaching. Rather, the problem here is blindness to that same social teaching with respect to its equally harsh condemnation of socialism, summed up in Pius XI’s dictum in his landmark social encyclical Quadragesimo anno: “Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

It is an axiom of our religion that no person on earth can judge the Pope in the sense of a penal sentence with juridical effect. But the bar of history offers its own inescapable judgment of Popes. In that sense, I must agree with Showalter’s conclusion: “What it all points to is that the pope needs to either blast the nightmare in Venezuela or watch his own credibility go down the drain as civil war engulfs that country… Either he slays the Venezuelan dragon or the Venezuelan dragon will slay him.”   Source

Comments invited…