Br. Alexis Bugnolo proposes a method for removing Francis the Merciful.

How to remove Bergoglio

Sep17by The Editor

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by

How to remove Bergoglio

Sep17by The Editor

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.orgfor more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legiWhat follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.orgfor more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Francis the Merciful knows the Amazon Synod may provoke a schism.” He is ready to say others are making the schism, but (by his actions in continuing to support the Amazon synod) he is provoking it himself. Is this the attitude of a pastor who cares for the faithful? It is his own duty to prevent a schism.”

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

Viganò Speaks: the “Infiltration” Is Real

JULIA MELONI

Jonah began his journey through the city, and when he had gone only a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth.  When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. (Jonah 3:4-6)

A year after his bombshell testimony on the cover-up for Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò remains a prophet in exile, exposing the filth in a Church that needs to be burned clean. As Inside the Vatican’s Robert Moynihan notes, the Italian prelate is an unlikely hero. He’s a “small man with intelligent eyes, exquisite manners, studious, hardworking.” But this 78-year-old with thin-rimmed glasses bears in his bones the burden of prophetic speech. He bears the weight of being (as Moynihan puts it) a kind of modern-day Jonah, called to preach to Nineveh before the potential destruction comes.

These days, Archbishop Viganò is warning of an invidious campaign to infiltrate the Catholic Church. In a bombshell interview with Moynihan published last week, Archbishop Viganò tells of a “project” that “goes back centuries”—“in particular, to the creation in the middle of the 1700s of Freemasonry.” This “very deceptive” plot against the Church included some of her own senior members.

“This is described in the book Infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall, so you may find some indication of this process there,” says the Archbishop. He is referring to the bestselling book which argues that, “for over a century, the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.” 

Viganò believes that this process of infiltration “became strikingly evident in modern times,” and that we are now witnessing the “triumph of a 60-year-old plan” to revolutionize the Church with “a Jesuit on the See of Peter.” As Viganò recalls, many key Vatican II revolutionaries were Jesuits who maneuvered to replace the council’s prepared schemas with ones they had drawn up. Most prominent among them was Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., frequently touted as the council’s most important ideologue.

“This was the beginning of an opening… in the process of creating a new Church,” says Archbishop Viganò.

He isn’t the only one speaking of a “new,” Jesuit-fashioned Church. In La Nuova Chiesa di Karl Rahner (“The New Church of Karl Rahner”), Stefano Fontana soberingly traces the genealogy of Pope Francis’s “open Church” back to Rahner, the towering radical suspected of heterodoxy under Pope Pius XII. As Fontana shows, Rahner negotiated a “surrender to the world” which is being registered in this pontificate’s signature agendas—from Communion for adulterers and the ordination of married men to the enthronement of “conscience” and the rapid abandonment of evangelization.

Historian Roberto de Mattei likewise calls Rahner the Pope’s “grandfather,” arguing that the two Jesuits are linked through a third—Carlo Cardinal Martini, leader of the St. Gallen mafia and Pope Francis’s “father.” “The agenda of Cardinal Martini, which is the same as Rahner’s, offers us the key to understanding the papacy of Pope Francis,” says de Mattei, pointing to the Cardinal’s fiery last interview calling for the autonomy of conscience and Communion for adulterers.

Today, St. Gallen don Walter Cardinal Kasper and others are euphemizing Pope Francis’s ruptures with the past as a glittery “paradigm shift.” But Archbishop Viganò says the “exotic,” “sophisticated” slogans are just being used “to mislead, to deceive.”

He explains that, in the past, a “huge machine of media propaganda” applied a hermeneutic of rupture to Vatican II. Today, he says, a slick “media machinery, including photos of Pope Francis with Emeritus Pope Benedict, and so forth, has been used to argue that the ‘new paradigm’ of Pope Francis is in continuity with the teaching of his predecessors.”

“But it is not so,” he warns. “It is a ‘new church’.”

Benedict XVI “said this would be a catastrophe,” says Archbishop Viganò of the project to make a new Church. He’s referring to the Pope Emeritus’s letter this year on the sexual abuse crisis. To borrow Michael Brendan Dougherty’s summary of the “explosive, acid” text:

Benedict charges that a revolutionary spirit from the world entered the Church in the 1960s. Possessed by that spirit, arrogant theologians determined on creating “another Church” destroyed the traditional moral theology of the Faith, leading to a complete breakdown of moral discipline in the clergy and even a generalized spirit of blasphemy, which Benedict intimately and unforgettably connects with the phenomenon of child abuse.

Today, as the Amazon synod looms near, that malefic spirit seems to have brought with it seven others.  Everywhere we hear klaxon calls warning of heresy, apostasy, and schism. Two powerful traditionalist prelates, Raymond Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, have called for 40 days of prayer and fasting to drive those spirits out.

Publicly, Pope Francis is playing it cool, saying he’s just a copycat of Pope John Paul II and a faithful implementer of Vatican II. It’s the prophets who are lighting angry blazes. Ask the Holy Father and he’ll say it’s an “honor” that they’re “attacking” him.  He almost dares them to keep raising their voices and playing with fire. “I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them,” he defiantly declares, warning the “schools of rigidity” that their “pseudo-schismatic” ways will “end badly.”

“Pope Francis is saying that because he knows the Amazon Synod may provoke a schism,” argues Viganò in another interview with Moynihan last week.  “He is ready to say others are making the schism, but (by his actions in continuing to support the Amazon synod) he is provoking it himself.  Is this the attitude of a pastor who cares for the faithful? It is his own duty to prevent a

“But what is your message really: that God is about to chastise the Church, as Nineveh was threatened with destruction, or do you believe there is still a chance to renew the Church, through prayer and a renewal of priestly and lay spirituality?” Moynihan asks Viganò.

Fixing his eyes on the burning, purifying thing that must come, he replies: “The two possibilities you offer are not mutually exclusive. There may be both a chastisement, which will shake and diminish the Church, and also a reform and renewal of the Church, making her more resplendent in holiness. Both are possible.”

Today, here in Nineveh, the prophets are speaking—and time is running out for all of us, great and small, to heed them.

Tagged as Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganoClergy Sexual AbuseKarl RahnerSophia Institute PressTaylor Marshall47

Julia Meloni

By Julia Meloni

Julia Meloni writes from the Pacific Northwest. She holds a bachelor’s degree in English from Yale and a master’s degree in English from Harvard.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE CHURCH WAS PLANNED 100 YEARS AGO BY SOVIET RUSSIA

THE CHURCH HAS BEEN INFILTRATED

And is close to being overthrown.

September 16, 2019  

THE CHURCH MILITANT

As the Church in America continues down the road to ruination, a discussion has arisen in some quarters about the repeated reports that what got the ball rolling on all this was a Communist plot back in the 1920s to put young communist agents into Catholic seminaries.

Reports all point to a woman, former Communist Party member Bella Dodd, who told numerous individuals and large groups that specific story: that shortly after coming to power in the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin communicated to communist parties in various countries to infiltrate the Catholic Church.

According to Dodd, he specifically instructed that the young men should be at the very least immoral, and preferrably active homosexual.

This was precisely what the esteemed Alice von Hildebrand told Church Militant three years ago in an exclusive, on-camera interview.

Dodd had converted to the Faith owing to Bp. Sheen and had become friends and a confidante of the von Hildebrands. One afternoon, in their New York home, when Deitrich von Hildebrand was lamenting the state of affairs in the Church, she explained to him how it had begun.

Alice von Hildebrand:

Stalin, soon after he came to power, ordered his cronies to invade Catholic seminaries … with young men that had neither faith nor morals. Now … the ideal cases: homosexual. Obviously, you don’t suppose that someone … well, it’s much more complicated, you know, to have an affair with a woman. But if you’re a homosexual, and then it was a tragic mission … .  [Dodd] declared publicly — I repeat, publicly — that in the course of the 20 years of activities for the Communists, she recruited some 1,100 young men.

So there is a bit of debate whether Dodd’s story is true or not — and frankly, there is no way to substantiate it. What is known is she did tell large numbers of people; one couple from Texas has even signed an affidavit which Church Militant has been given, testifying that Dodd told them.

Additionally, as you just heard, she told the von Hildebrands as well. Others have also been public about hearing Dodd relay the same information. So there is no dispute that she claimed this all to be true. What is being debated is whether her claim itself is true.

As we said, there’s no way to know this one way or the other, not this many years removed from the reported activity. However, what we can do is look at the current state of affairs in the Church and ask, does the story have at least some plausibility? The answer to that is a resounding yes.

And it is yes because it is a simple, undeniable fact that marxist, communist ideas have come to be commonplace in the Church, especially among the clergy and the hierarchy — especially in this pontificate.

Did communists infiltrate the Church? Absolutely, beyond a doubt. Did it begin with Bella Dodd and her role? The answer to that question at this point no longer really matters, beyond historical curiosity.

Church Militant learned exclusively and reported earlier this year that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Soviets established a network of indoctrination centers — more than 30 in all, all over Europe.

Church Militant communicated with the former communist agent from Poland who was one of those instrumental in establishing the centers. One of those centers was in St. Gallen, Switzerland, the same location that the now-dead and corrupt Cdl. Danneels specifically said the plot to elect Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy was hatched many years ago.

Saint Gallen is also the place Theodore McCarrick first visited in his youth and not only remained for an entire year, but also returned to year after year for decades.

It was McCarrick, the potential communist plant, resurrected by this socialism-friendly pope, who struck the deal between Communist China and the Vatican that has brought such misery to Chinese Catholics.

Liberation Theology — the evil approach to Christology explicitly condemned by St. John Paul, and which is now roaring back under this pontificate — we have come to learn was planted into South America by KGB agents specifically to undermine the Catholic Church.

Almost to a man, the entire Jesuit order has converted to some form or another of marxism, and true to marxist form, is using its vast network of more than 300 colleges and universities to poison young minds and produce young socialists.

The founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, specifically said that for the ideals of Marx to be spread throughout the world, the Catholic Church would have to be destroyed.

Now we hear from the Vatican almost non-stop attacks against politically conservative, theologically orthodox Americans, accusing us of being greedy capitalists, racists, xenophobes, climate changers, immigrant-haters — Pope Francis even going so far as to have said recently that he welcomes attacks from Americans.

Unfortunately, tthe current Vatican Vogue is echoed nearly daily by weak-minded cowardly bishops in the U.S., who continue to push the talking points of the Democratic Party, which is now itself going through the pangs of converting into a socialist party — a conversion not yet complete, but nearly.

It’s why the Democratic debates so far have been so raucous, as the younger socialist set are seizing more and more control, and the old guard, like Joe Biden, are wrestling ferociously with each other.

Too many U.S. bishops are in lock step with the Democratic socialists, and both those bishops and those Democrats are too heavily influenced by a smorgasbord of marxist, socialist, communist ideas — which brings us back full circle to the question of Bella Dodd and her self-admitted activity of placing American Communist Party agents — 1,100 in all — into Catholic seminaries beginning in the mid- to late 1920s and continuing for approximately 10 years or so.

Close to a hundred years after the reported activity was launched, what do we have? A highly corrupt and immoral hierarchy, with deep involvement in the homosexual world, actively and passively destroying Church dogmas, eroding faith in nearly everything Catholic by sowing doubt and confusion, warmly embracing socialist politics on a large number of issues, striking deals with communist governments which result in horrors for Catholics in those countries, sitting atop a virtual empire of lies and deceit and cover-up in literally thousands of places around the universal Church.

This communist evil which has infiltrated the Church is present in nearly every location you can imagine, right down to an enormous percentage of local parishes.

Catholic universities are no longer Catholic; Catholic hospitals are no longer Catholic; Catholic bishops reject Catholic tradition; the Communist scourge has been set loose within the walls.The Communist scourge has been set loose within the walls.Tweet

Good priests who remain authentically Catholic are persecuted or have to go into hiding so as to escape the reach of their superiors who wish to silence them because they will not bend to marxist/communist precepts so dominant in the Church and the culture.

A warning to faithful Catholics: When Communism, Marxism, Socialism gain significant enough control, the Church ends up attacked and persecuted, for the goal of Communism is world domination, which is the same goal the Church has. The only difference is the weapons employed. Communists use lies and violence. The Church uses truth and peace.

We are in momentous, never-before-seen times, and faithful Catholics need to realize exactly what’s playing out here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PRAY AND FAST UNTIL THE AMAZON SYNOD IS OVER AND FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL ISSUES THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING THE SYNOD RESULTS, WHICH THREATEN THE UNITY OF THE Roman Catholic Church

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

Lisa Bourne

NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHThu Sep 12, 2019 – 2:04 pm EST

Cdl. Burke, Bishop Schneider announce prayer and fasting crusade for Amazon Synod

  Amazon SynodAthanasius SchneiderCatholicInstrumentum LaborisMarried PriestsPope FrancisPriestly CelibacyRaymond Burke

September 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are calling on Catholics to pray and fast to combat the “serious theological errors and heresies” they identify in the controversial working documentfor the impending Amazon Synod.

Burke and Schneider released an eight-page statement warning of six such heresies contained in the document, or Instrumentum Laboris, which is the source for discussion by the Synod of Bishops taking place in Rome October 6-27.

They encourage a 40-day crusade of prayer and fasting beginning on September 17 and ending on October 26, the day before the synod concludes.

“The theological errors and heresies, implicit and explicit in the Instrumentum Laboris of the imminent Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon, are an alarming manifestation of the confusion, error and division which beset the Church in our day,” the two prelates say in the statement.

“It is our duty to make the faithful aware of some of the main errors that are being spread through the Instrumentum Laboris,” they stated, adding that the working document is “long and is marked by a language which is not clear in its meaning, especially in what regards the deposit of faith (depositum fidei).” 

The prelates’ statement calling for the crusade of prayer and fasting is dated September 12, and covered in a report from Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register.

Burke, patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, are both well-regarded among Catholics for their steady defense of the faith despite all but continual attacks directed at them for upholding it.

They encourage Catholic clergy and laity to “pray daily at least one decade of the Holy Rosary and to fast once a week” during the crusade.

Pray to combat theological errors and heresies

They ask that the prayer and fasting be directed toward the intention “that the theological errors and heresies inserted in the Instrumentum Laboris may not be approved during the synodal assembly.”

Additionally, they ask “particularly” for prayer that Pope Francis, “in the exercise of the Petrine ministry, may confirm his brethren in the faith by an unambiguous rejection of the errors of the Instrumentum Laboris.”

The synod’s Instrumentum laboris was released in June and draws heavily from Francis’ encyclicals Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato si.’  

Learn more about Cardinal Burke’s views and past actions by visiting FaithfulShepherds.com. Click here.

Will the synod undermine Church teaching?

The Synod and its working document have been criticized over a number of issues, which Burke and Schneider lay out in their declaration, supporting their arguments with Church documents, the Catechism, and Scripture.

Titled Amazonia, New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology, the document and synod, it is feared, will be used to undermine Church teaching in a number of areas and to advance radical ideas incompatible with Catholic doctrine. 

There are also general concerns over some of the document’s authors and others overseeing or otherwise influencing the synod with regard to fidelity to Church teaching.

“Various prelates and lay commentators, as well as lay institutions, have warned that the authors of the Instrumentum Laboris…have inserted serious theological errors and heresies into the document,” state Burke and Schneider.

‘Heretical’ and an ‘apostasy’

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, issued a stiff critique of the Instrumentum Laboris in June, terming it “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation. Brandmüller called on Church leadership to “reject” it with “all decisiveness.”

‘False teaching’

In a statement this past July Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), denounced the Instrumentum Laboris as well for its “radical u-turn in the hermeneutics of Catholic theology” and for its “false teaching.”

Müller said that same month that the Amazon Synod is “a pretext for changing the Church.”  

An ‘apostasy’

In an interview last month Burke had said the Instrumentum Laboris is an “apostasy.”

Asked if the document may become “something definitive or authoritative for the Church,” Burke responded, “It cannot be. The document is an apostasy. This cannot become the teaching of the Church, and God willing, the whole business will be stopped.”  

Burke and Schneider also ask Catholic to pray for the intention that Pope Francis “may not consent to the abolition of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church by introducing the praxis of the ordination of married men, the so-called ‘viri probati’, to the Holy Priesthood.”

‘The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women’

The threat to priestly celibacy by way of the synod is of great concern to Catholics, along with an attempt to establish a female “diaconate,” regarded widely as a strategy to push for women “priests” – an impossibility given the Church has no authority to ordain women as Christ chose only men as his apostles. 

In his 1994 encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the late Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed Church teaching on the matter, stating, “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

The working document suggests discussion of a married priesthood with the priest shortage in the Amazon as rationale.

The list of errors

Among the errors listed by Burke and Schneider is “implicit pantheism” which identifies God as one with the universe, or regards all gods on the same level.

“The Magisterium of the Church rejects such an implicit pantheism as incompatible with the Catholic Faith,” they state.

The second error identified is that “the pagan superstitions of the Amazon tribes are an expression of Divine Revelation deserving an attitude of dialogue and acceptance on the part of the Church.”

The third concerns the document’s advance of “Intercultural dialogue instead of evangelization.”

“The Instrumentum Laboris contains the erroneous theory that aboriginal people have already received divine revelation, and that the Catholic Church in the Amazon should undergo a ‘missionary and pastoral conversion,’” Burke and Schneider write, “instead of introducing doctrine and practice of universal truth and goodness.” 

They further add, “the Instrumentum Laboris says also that the Church must enrich herself with the symbols and rites of the aboriginal people.”

“The Magisterium of the Church rejects the idea that missionary activity is merely intercultural enrichment,” they say.

And fourth, Burke and Schneider list, “An erroneous conception of sacramental ordination, postulating worship ministers of either sex to perform even shamanic rituals.”

Fifth, the prelates say that in keeping with “its implicit pantheistic views, the Instrumentum Laboris relativizes Christian anthropology, which recognizes the human person as made in the image of God and therefore the pinnacle of material creation (Gen 1:26-31), and instead considers the human a mere link in nature’s ecological chain, viewing socioeconomic development as an aggression to ‘Mother Earth.’”

And lastly they say the working document puts forth “a tribal collectivism that undermines personal uniqueness and freedom,” that is, along with the other errors, rejected by the Magisterium.

All Catholics must be informed and pray

Burke and Schneider write that no one is excused from “being informed about the gravity of the situation and from taking appropriate action for love of Christ and of His life with us in the Church,” and that “all the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, before such a threat to her integrity, must pray and fast for the eternal good of her members who risk being scandalized, that is led into confusion, error and division by this text for the Synod of Bishops.”

The prelates invoke the Blessed Mother’s intersession along with that of other Catholic missionary saints to protect Pope Francis and the bishops taking part in the Amazon Synod from “the danger of approving doctrinal errors and ambiguities, and of undermining the Apostolic rule of priestly celibacy.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Will Missouri Attorney General Schmitt commence a probe of sexual abuse in the Missouri public schools? If the real issue is sexual abuse, he will. If it’s a matter of “getting the Catholic Church,” he will not. If he is like his colleagues in other states, we already the know the answer.

Missouri AG Report On Church Issued
September 16, 2019

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a report by the Attorney General of Missouri:
 
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has issued a 185-page report on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church committed by priests, deacons, seminarians, and nuns. The Attorney General’s office reviewed more than 2,000 files on priests who worked in Missouri since 1945. It also read the files of more than 300 deacons, seminarians, and nuns. News reports and communication gleaned from victims were also accessed.
 
The alleged offenses (many were never substantiated) range from “boundary issues,” such as inappropriate communication, to sexual acts. The report found 163 priests and deacons involved in some form of sexual misconduct. In other words, approximately 8 percent had an accusation made against them, extending back to World War II. Of the 163 accused clergymen, more than half (83) are dead, and most of the offenses are time barred by the statute of limitations. The Attorney General’s office is pursing 12 cases of alleged abuse.
 
One of the more curious aspects of the report is the failure to identify the sex of the victims, though it is obvious that most were male. I draw this conclusion because in some cases the report speaks about “her” or “she,” yet it rarely uses male pronouns. This is pure politics: the homosexual cover-up continues.
 
Some news reports, and comments made by professional victims’ groups, are making it sound as if the abuse is ongoing. In fact, there is little in the way of misconduct. “Only a small percentage of the abusive priests described in this report are reported to have committed misconduct after 2002 [the year that the bishops announced the Dallas reforms].” Unfortunately, this important fact is not mentioned until p. 133 of the report.
 
I decided to do some of my own digging, and what I found is not the kind of data that critics of the Church want the public to know about.
 
I broke down the 163 cases according to the decade in which the abuse occurred (if there were multiple offenses that extended into another decade, I counted only the decade of the initial misconduct).
No date could be determined by the report in eight of the cases; there was one case which did not involve abuse (it was listed because of a failure to report an incident). Some priests were laicized and others simply ran off, abandoning their ministry. Unrealistically, the report says the dioceses should track them down and bring them to justice.
 
Here are the 154 cases listed by the decade in which the offense occurred.1940s: 31950s: 141960s: 331970s: 511980s: 331990s: 82000s: 72010s: 3This is consistent with everything we have learned about clergy sexual abuse. The timeline is clearly associated with the sexual revolution, a phenomenon that infected the Church as well as the rest of society. Most of the abuse took place in the 60s and 70s, and if we include the 80s (when the sexual revolution was trailing off), fully three-quarters (76%) of the misconduct took place during that time. Only 8 percent of the cases were alleged to have occurred in this century.
 
Since 2002, the report says of the Catholic Church, “it has taken steps towards significant reform,” crediting it with strengthening “independent oversight and an integrated approach to supervising all clergy working in Missouri.”
 
While this acknowledgement is appreciated, the report still has a hard time noting just how much change has taken place. It cites the latest report by the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, commissioned by the bishops. That report noted that  “seventeen years after the approval of the 2002 Charter…existing auditing procedures were not sufficiently thorough or independent.”
 
Yes, improvements can always be made: One incident of sexual misconduct is unacceptable. But the Attorney General’s report could have discussed the data from the latest National Review Board report. It should have.
 
The 2018 National Review Board report covered the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. During this period, there were 26 new allegations involving current minors. But only three could be substantiated (all three clergymen were removed from ministry). Seven were unsubstantiated; three were unable to be proven; two were referred to a religious order; two were reported as unknown; and three were “boundary violations,” not instances of sexual abuse.
 
If we consider the three cases that were substantiated, this means that only .006 percent of the 50,648 members of the clergy had a substantiated accusation made against him in that one-year period.
 
Is there any demographic group, or an institution, religious or secular, where adults intermingle with minors on a regular basis, which has a better record than this?
 
Will Missouri Attorney General Schmitt now commence a similar probe of sexual abuse in the Missouri public schools? If the real issue is sexual abuse, he will. If it’s a matter of “getting the Catholic Church,” he will not. If he is like his colleagues in other states, we already the know the answer.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)


“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)

Sunday, September 15, 2019

5 Dubia Questions for Taylor Marshall

https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/5-dubia-questions-for-taylor-marshall.html?m=1

– Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book “Magister Authority” shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are “proximate to heresy”:“[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I… by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions…”
“… Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused.”
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
– Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in “Si Papa”:

“‘Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'”

“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)”
(The Remnant, “Answering a Sedevacantist Critic,” March 18, 2015)

Dr. Taylor Marshall, the co-host on the YouTube “TnT,” show said:

“[Cardinal Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women… It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra ‘Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate…'”

“You have only two options at that point. One, it’s true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can’t see how it works. Or second, the pope ain’t the pope. sedevacantist.”
 (YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, “What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?,”  Time 18:15 to 19:02)

In Twitter, Nick Donnelly wrote:




“Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting.”[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

In responding to Donnelly’s statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting “sedevacantis[m]”:

“I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is.”
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:

“Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: ‘Let another take his bishopric.'”
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is promoting “sedevacantis[m]” by “natural conclusion” when he wrote:
“[T]he  Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?

Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can’t depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn’t have to “condemn Francis as [a] ‘heretical pope'” before it “either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?

According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said “the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy.”

Marshall agreed with this statement.

Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for “a formal, universal declaration of heresy” such as this:

Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a “official act as the pope” placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

“There is no other interpretations.”

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews “sexuality active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
(LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said “It means that it is an official act of the pope.” 
Moreover, the article said:

“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 intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.”(OnePeterFive, “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status,” December 2, 2017)The “official act of” Francis is a “unorthodox interpretation.”
It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.The “official act of the pope” is a “unorthodox interpretation” which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by “official act the pope” is teaching heresy.Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:
“(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible… these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself.”(Edwardfeser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)

How’s that for an understatement?

Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism,” December 23, 2016)

Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope “open[ed] Communion to adulterers” he is “a heretic and promotes schism” that according to Marshall by inference he is a “sede” by “natural conclusion”?

Since Marshall wants to claim everyone who demonstrates that the Francis teaching that Communion for adulterers is heresy or anyone who calls for an investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave is a schismatic or a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist, here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Marshall to answer to prove he is not a heretic who believes it is impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope or is not proximate to heresyin treating “ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… [which] is proximate to heresy.”

To make it really easy for him it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church

.Fred Martinez at 5:09 PMShare

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

MY INTUITION TELLS ME THAT WITH THE AMAZON SYNOD ONLY A FEW WEEKS AWAY THERE WILL BE ACTION TO CONDEMN THE HERESY OF THE AMAZON SYNOD TAKEN BY PRELATES WHO ARE NOT RETIRED AND THAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT THIS TIME THERE WILL BE CANONICAL CONDEMNATION OF THE SYNOD WHEN THE AMAZON SYNOD CLOSES AND FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL ISSUES HIS SYNOD DECREE

Sunday, September 15, 2019

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/forget-amazon-synod-bp-gracida-bp.html?m=1

Forget the Amazon Synod, Bp. Gracida & Bp. Fellay Must Issue “a Canonical Warning to” Francis for the Amoris Laetitia Heresy

Forget about the future Amazon Synod, we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical” according to Bishop Rene Henry Gracida and Bishops Bernard Fellay asCatholic theologian Dr. John R. T. Lamont, Pd. D. shows:

“The AAS statement thus settles an important and much-debated question. It establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense… In the AAS statement, he [Francis] has required Catholics to give religious assent of mind and will to the assertion that Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical… It would be sufficient to take the lesser step of simply addressing the faithful to condemn Amoris laetitia as heretical.Aside from Bishops Bernard Fellay and Henry Gracida, no Catholic bishops have done this.”
 [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/02/important-guest-essay-meaning-of-amoris.html?m=1]

Indeed, as Bishop Gracida said even Cardinal Raymond Burke is not condemning Francis’s heretical teaching that allows and promotes the sacrilege of Communion for adulterers, but is only “saying… the truth”:

“Cardinal Burke is saying… the truth. What is more important… is for people in the pew to say:

No, that is not true!”

“It’s more important for people in the pew to raise up and say in print, in letters, in phone calls, in email, in person, in interviews… for the laity to say no that is not true… than for a Burke to say this is the truth….”

“We don’t need people to say this is the truth. What we need in the present moment is for the laity to say that is not true…”

“Just like in the fourth century when those people shouted down Arius. No, you’re wrong. He is Divine… That is what we have to do today… We have to have people stand up to the homilist, priests and bishops… No, you’re wrong.”

“You cannot give Holy Communion to the abortionists, to the abortion promoters and providers, to the divorce and remarried. You cannot do it. St. Paul said you do not feed the Eucharist to dogs…”

“Right now they [the laity] are suffering in silence. They need to object. The laity, the sensus fidelium, is that common sense among the laity who have accepted the magisterial teaching of the Church which is the foundation of their faith.”

“Having accepted that when they hear something that is contradictory to the magisterial teaching of the Church, the sensus fidelium is a impulse that causes them to speak out and say no:

That is not true. Don’t say that. Stop! That is the sensus fidelium in action!”

“Not to sit and suffer in silence. That’s crazy. That’s weird. That’s wrong. Speak up! Resist! Object!”
(Church Militant video, “Laity, Rise Up!,” April 4, 2017)

Moreover, Bishop Gracida led by example when on December 2, 2017 on his official website he declared Francis is teaching heresy:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

All the faithful Catholic bishops and cardinals, it appears, are too cowardly to join the sensus fidilium lay resistance against the heresy of sacrilege Communion to adulterous couples promoted by Amoris Laetitia except without a doubt Bishop Rene Henry Gracida and possibly Bishops Bernard Fellay.

Catholic theologian Dr. Lamont, Pd. D. show us what to do to resist the Amoris Laetitia heresy. Lamont gives an overview of the crisis, shows what needs to be done and points to Gracida as a leader in the resistance:

“The AAS statement thus settles an important and much-debated question. It establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense; that is, propositions that contradict truths that are divinely revealed and that must be believed with the assent of faith.”

“It has not only established this; it has made it a religious duty for Catholics to believe that this is the case. Pope Francis is the Pope, and as such he has the power to exercise the papal teaching authority within the limits set to that authority by divine law. In the AAS statement, he has required Catholics to give religious assent of mind and will to the assertion that Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical…”

“…It would be wrong however to think that Pope Francis is the worst scourge afflicting the Church. The election of a bad man as Pope can never be entirely ruled out. In a healthy Church the problem of a heretical Pope can and will be dealt with by the Catholic bishops, just as the immune system of a healthy body will react to disease and eradicate it. The immune system of the Church at the present is not operating. The bishops of the Catholic Church have remained silent about the heresy in Amoris laetitia, and have thereby abandoned the faithful.”

“The heretical statements of Amoris laetitia have not been presented to the faithful as something that they can take or leave. Pope Francis has stated in official magisterial documents that they are papal teachings that they must accept. He has been supported in this by a large number of bishops. Pope Francis has thereby put pressure on all the Catholic faithful to reject divinely revealed truth.”

“The faithful are not protected against this pressure by the bishops of Kazakhstan, or elsewhere, issuing a statement upholding the truths that Francis is denying. When encountering a difference of opinion between a papal document and a letter from a handful of Kazakh bishops, the faithful will naturally take the papal statement to be of higher authority.”

“In order to protect the faithful from the attack on their belief and salvation that is being made through Amoris laetitia, it is necessary to address the falsehoods in that document itself, and to condemn them by appealing to an authority that justifies the rejection of a non-infallible papal letter; the authority of divine revelation expressed in the Scriptures and repeated by the magisterium of the Church.”

“This appeal does not have to be a canonical warning to Pope Francis that could serve as the first step in his deposition. Such a canonical warning would have to be addressed to the Pope himself, and warn him of the nature of his crime and the consequences of persisting in it. It would be sufficient to take the lesser step of simply addressing the faithful to condemn Amoris laetitia as heretical.Aside from Bishops Bernard Fellay and Henry Gracida, no Catholic bishops have done this.” [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/02/important-guest-essay-meaning-of-amoris.html?m=1]

But, this is not “sufficient” anymore as the Church under Francis is under its greatest crisis in history with the up coming heretical Amazon Synod nearing. 

I respectfully ask Bishop Fellay and Bishop Gracida, since is appears that no other bishops in the world are even willing to call Amoris laetitia heretical that God in His providence has left it in the hands of these two Successors of the Apostles, to issue “a canonical warning to” Francis for heresy “as the first step in his deposition.” 

I respectfully ask that the two Successor of the Apostles following in the footsteps of St. Paul when he corrected St. Peter to correct Francis by issuing a “canonical warning.”

Pray an Our Father now that God gives Bishop Fellay and Bishop Gracida the grace to issue “a canonical warning to” Francis for the Amoris laetitia heresy. Also, include this intention in your Masses, prayers especially the Rosary, acts of reparation, fasting and sufferings.

Fred Martinez at 5:51 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

FOR PETE’S SAKE PRAY FOR THIS GUY AND PRAY FOR OUR NATION AT THE SAME TIME THAT HE IS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

the VortexPlay Video

You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign in or Sign up today!

FOR PETE’S SAKE

It’s all good.

September 10, 2019  

Normally, we don’t pay a lot of attention to the giant field of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. president.

But there is one fellow in particular who is a shining example of everything wrong with the Catholic Church in the United States, a man who is a blindingly clear example and incredible embarrassment to the U.S. hierarchy.

The man is Pete Buttigieg, the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Buttigieg was baptized Catholic and went to South Bend’s St. Joseph High School, even graduating valedictorian at the celebrated Catholic school.

And he is a shining example of the near complete collapse of the Faith in the United States.

He left St. Joe’s and went to Harvard, and it was there he lost his Catholic faith, but the ground for him to lose his faith had been prepared for — essentially guaranteed — by his home, parish and school, the three places so many young Catholics lose any semblance of faith.

Buttigieg’s father had studied to be a Jesuit priest before emigrating from Malta to South Bend where he eventually ended up on the faculty at Notre Dame.

His father apparently got the double whammy of having been Jesuit-trained after the order had gone completely insane and then landing at Notre Dame after it had gone completely insane. That was the influence for young Pete at home.  

In the parish, he was raised in the Church of Nice — no real defense of or teaching of the authentic faith.

And at school, same ol’ story: no real catechesis of anything authentic.

The entire Catholic establishment — home, school and parish — failed this guy as the Establishment has failed tens of millions of young Catholics just like him for the past 50 years.

So he went to Harvard, discovered he was sexually attracted to other males, had zero in way of spiritual or theological preparation to deal with his issue — as well as the hurricane of secularism he encountered there — and eventually converted to Episcopalianism, where the warped theology he received in his youth as well as his sexual desire for other men would be warmly welcomed.

And for all those hundreds of bishops who refuse to publicly condemn James Martin, thinking keeping silent about his personal perversion as well as his perversion of the Church’s teaching is perfectly fine, Buttigieg publicly states one of his major influences is that sick priest.

How do these men think their silence will not be held against them at their judgments? Buttigieg’s story is only known because he has some political fame. But it is hardly a singular story.

So what has the Church of Nice produced? A civilly married homosexual who thinks his immoral life of sodomy is perfectly fine with God, but not being eco-friendly is a sin and that human life onlybegins when a person can breathe.

He made both comments recently, the first at the Dems’ seven-hour marathon on so-called man-made climate change aired on CNN; the second on the New York radio program The Breakfast Club.

It matters little that Buttigieg has a very low chance of securing the Democratic nomination. That’s not the point.

First, as the older Dems die off, he is positioning himself to play a prominent role in the future, perhaps securing the nomination in a couple of cycles from now. So this is a warm-up run.

Secondly, he is the walking, talking poster boy for everything that has gone wrong — a living, breathing example of the ineptitude and duplicity of the U.S. hierarchy who, even to this very day, continue to betray the Faith, incubating millions of more Catholic youth in rebellion against the truth.

His appeal to Scripture for support of abortion couldn’t be more rich, demonstrating a liberal-minded arrogance beyond appalling.

The same Scripture he cites in support of his policy of killing children — which it does not — also condemns his sodomy — repeatedly — and that he ignores; or, better said, appeals to the distortions of James Martin to rationalize his way through.

What has the U.S. hierarchy produced?

An active homosexual who cites Scripture to call good evil and evil good, who moralizes about the sinfulness of a completely made-up issue, which has been made-up for the advancement of an anti-God agenda, yet draped in all kinds of scriptural platitudes, proving once again, Pete, that even the devil cites Scripture for his own purposes.

Is there no end to the shame and corresponding depths that the U.S. hierarchy can fall?

One closing point, when Pete was not learning the Faith in the Catholic high school, he was winning the JFK Profiles in Courage essay contest awarded by the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston.  

Pro-abort and fake Catholic Caroline Kennedy and other members of pro-abort and fake Catholic Kennedy clan presented the teenage Pete with the award.

The Kennedys likewise were corrupted by the Jesuits and an errant hierarchy more concerned about climate change and immigration than salvation.

As the saying goes: Birds of a feather flock together.

But hey, good thing we have a reasonable hope all men are saved, Bp. Barron, right?

Because, in the end, why does it matter if you are in favor of killing children and having sex with the same sex — or if you actually do these activities?

We have that reasonable hope, so no one should get upset about any of this betrayal of the Faith, sodomy or child murder? It’s all good, for Pete’s sake.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/56900/

CULTUREPHILOSOPHYPOLITICSRELIGION

False Dichotomies, the Common Good, and the Future of Conservatism

David French, Sohrab Ahmari, and others who are debating the future of conservatism are right to think that the challenges facing our nation are grave. Still, we need not feel forced into cheering for one side or the other, into viewing this as a matter of “teams.” We conservatives need to keep the main focus on ideas, not personalities, and engage each other both robustly and charitably. We need to think prudently about practical steps we should take—here and now, given all the givens—that will promote the common good. 

In a series of high-profile exchanges, conservatives are returning to first principles, reconsidering how best to protect and promote human dignity and the common good. This is to be applauded. Still, the way in which this reconsideration is taking place should itself be reconsidered.

The typical framing of the debate runs something like this. Either you support a substantive, morally informed conception of the political common good, or you support the putatively purely formal procedures of political liberalism. Either you support public morality, or you support civil liberties.

These are false dichotomies.

This discussion is best understood not as an “either-or” but as a “both-and.” The essential intellectual work involves thinking through how to understand the “and” at the theoretical level, and then fleshing out how to embody and implement that “and” at a practical level. American conservatives need to figure out how to understand the relationship between the substance of the common good and formal political procedures, between public morality and civil liberties. Assuming that we must make a choice between each of these pairs is fundamentally misguided, because it fails to recognize the many ways in which formal procedures serve the common good, and are, indeed, part—but not the whole—of its substance. It fails to see that both public morality and civil liberties are crucial to the political common good.

Political Authority and Human Nature

In the forthcoming Fall issue of National Affairs, Robert P. George and I sort through some of these theoretical questions. We explain how rejecting Lockean, Rawlsian, and various supposedly “neutralist” forms of liberalism as philosophically misguided, which we do, need not—indeed, should not—lead us to reject certain political institutions that carry the label “liberal.” We argue that, for example, the political institutions and practices surrounding property rights, the free exercise of religion, and the freedom of speech are justified because of—and hence limited by—the demands of justice and the common good. These so-called “liberal” practices have a more secure foundation in a political theory flowing from the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition of thought.

This tradition understands justified political authority as flowing from human nature. Man is by nature a political animal, and justified political authority is concerned with promoting the common good. This requires us, however, to consider “human nature” in two distinct ways.

First, we must consider human nature in terms of human flourishing, and its constitutive aspects, and ask in which ways political authority can effectively protect and promote human well-being. Second, we must consider human nature in terms of human fallibility and fallenness, and ask in which ways political authority can be misused to undermine human flourishing. Because objective good and bad, right and wrong, will not always track with public opinion, popular vote, and government administration, political theory is more than just applied moral theory, for it necessarily concerns how political power is to be structured. Political theory requires not only knowledge of the ends of governance—the common good—but knowledge of how best to deploy and structure means to arrive at those ends.

The task for any sound constitutionalism is to structure government power so as to make it as likely as humanly possible that it promotes the common good, and to limit government so as to make it as unlikely as humanly possible that it will undermine that good. Recognizing limits on the reach of government—even a government that sincerely wishes to promote a sound conception of the common good—is as important as recognizing the legitimate goals of government to promote that good. Hence, it isn’t “moral relativism” to limit—precisely for moral reasons—the government’s authority (jurisdiction) to make certain moral judgments.

In other words: the various structures and procedures of government, if they are justified, should exist precisely to help effectively promote the common good.

Rights, Liberties, and Procedural Protections Aren’t Optional

While it’s (obviously) true that procedures aren’t enough, it’s also (obviously) true that they aren’t morally optional either. Certain rights and liberties are constitutive aspects of the political common good—the rights to life and religious liberty, for example—while other rights and liberties are important procedural protections that overall and in the long run tend to best promote the common good in practice—freedom of the press and private property rights, for example. Certain rights and liberties should be understood as important substantive aspects of the common good, and others as important procedural constraints that prevent the abuse of governmental authority.

As we explain in National Affairs, this entails that certain political rights aren’t absolutes but can take a variety of forms. There is no uniquely correct institutional arrangement or structure, and philosophy or theology alone can’t provide the answers to political questions. Historical experience, prudent prediction, and technical expertise are all required to take sound philosophical and theological principles and embody them in law and policy to best promote the common good here and now.

Again, it is critically important that we avoid offering ourselves false alternatives, when in reality the important work is in thinking about which procedures best serve the common good and how civil liberties and public morality can coexist and even reinforce each other.

Politics is Practical

We must also avoid supposing that theoretical claims about the purpose of government could, on their own, provide answers to the questions facing us today. Showing that John Locke was wrong—as he was in crucial respects—about the nature and content of the political common good can’t tell us what’s the right thing to do here and now.

Politics is practical. It’s concerned with how we should order our lives together in the concrete, given all the givens. It’s directed at action, not abstraction. Thus, it must be concerned with practicalities.

How, here and now, given the composition of this nation, its history, its beliefs, its pluralism, diversity, and disagreement, should we structure government power (constitutionalism) and exercise it (governance)? What procedures, overall and in the long run, are most likely to produce substantively just outcomes, to effectively promote the common good—a good that does not consist only in preserving the liberty of everyone to pursue his or her purely private, subjective conceptions of the good? Having rejected the liberty-only conception, how do we define the common good of this particular people at this particular time? Answering these questions requires not just theoretical knowledge, but practical wisdom.

This is crucial, given the challenges facing conservatives today. Given all the givens—the deep political divisions among the American people, the widespread disagreements about morality, and the deeply divergent public opinion on some of the most central questions of human identity and sexuality, in particular—how do we best exercise government authority to protect and promote the common good?

Too much of the current debate has centered on Trump—relitigating the 2016 election and jockeying for the 2020 election. But what can and should be done now so that when an administration more hostile to conservatives’ moral convictions takes power, it does as little damage to the common good as possible?

Too much of the current debate has centered on Trump—relitigating the 2016 election and jockeying for the 2020 election.

What can and should be done now to prevent the next administration from issuing another Dear Colleague Letter imposing a transgender bathroom policy on every school in the nation? (Answer: The Civil Rights Uniformity Act, clarifying that the word “sex” in our nation’s civil rights laws does not mean “gender identity.”) What can and should be done now to prevent the next administration from shutting down Catholic adoption agencies or revoking the nonprofit tax status of evangelical colleges that don’t endorse same-sex marriage? (Answer: A more robust version of the First Amendment Defense Act.)

Seeking Virtue

Perhaps the best way to show how proper procedures can serve the common good is to take an example outside politics. Consider the academy and the intellectual virtues and procedures for arriving at the common good of knowledge of the truth. To become a scholar, one submits to an apprenticeship in learning. One follows certain procedures in terms of curriculum, language requirements, examinations, and original research—all of which are meant to help develop a certain disposition and temperament to love truth more than opinion or personality, and to actually acquire certain knowledge of truth and the skills to continue acquiring such knowledge for a lifetime. These virtues and procedures apply not just to students but to professors, too. If you want an academy to be more than an indoctrination camp, you need scholars who have the requisite knowledge and a breadth and depth of wisdom that goes beyond narrow specialization. You want those scholars to have good judgment and an appropriate temperament for discussing ideas. You want the scholars to be free to follow their research—the evidence and the arguments—wherever it leads them. Thus, you want a variety of academic freedom protections, and you want to reward meaningful scholarship and teaching, not academic clickbait meant only to add a line on a CV.

Alas, the debate about the future of conservatism has not sufficiently embodied these intellectual virtues or procedures (nor, alas, does the contemporary academy—but that’s a subject for a different essay). As a result, a discussion of ideas has come across to the public as something of a food fight among conservative writers, despite the fact that the leading participants in the debate are morally and intellectually serious people who have made important contributions to the discussion of urgent issues in contemporary law and politics.

We can do better. We must do better.

A discussion of ideas has come across to the public as something of a food fight among conservative writers, despite the fact that the leading participants in the debate are morally and intellectually serious people who have made important contributions to the discussion of urgent issues in contemporary law and politics.

David French, Sohrab Ahmari, and others who are debating the future of conservatism at this pivotal moment are right to think that the challenges facing our nation are grave. They are also right to suppose that contemporary progressivism, which is becoming increasingly dogmatic and authoritarian, represents a serious threat to both substantive and procedural justice. While neither French nor Ahmari is entirely correct, we need not feel forced into cheering for one side or the other, into viewing this as a matter of “teams.” We conservatives need to keep the main focus on ideas, not personalities. We need to think prudently about practical steps we should take—here and now, given all the givens—that will promote the common good. We need to exercise the intellectual virtues that allow us to arrive at knowledge of the truth through the give and take of argument in community. And thus we need to engage each other both robustly and charitably.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF AUSTRALIA IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND TO ANYONE BROUGHT UP IN AMERICA; GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! GOD FREE Cardinal Pell!!!

  1. AUSTRALIAN JUSTICE IN THE DOCK
  2. by George Weigel
  3. 9 . 11 . 19
  4. FIRST THINGS

Consider this sequence of events, familiar to some but evidently not to others:

March 2013: Prior to any credible reports of misbehavior being made against Cardinal George Pell, police in Australia’s state of Victoria launch “Operation Tethering,” a sting aimed at the former archbishop of Melbourne (who by this time is prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the economy). “Tethering” includes newspaper ads seeking information on previously unreported, untoward goings-on at the Melbourne cathedral in the past. 

Early 2017: The office of Public Prosecutions in Melbourne twice returns a brief to those who mounted “Operation Tethering,” criticizing the Victoria Police brief as inadequate for a prosecution. 

June 2017: Charges of “historic sexual abuse” from 20 years prior are announced by the director of public prosecutions and Pell is ordered home. The cardinal vehemently denies any misconduct and, despite his Vatican diplomatic immunity, immediately returns to Australia to defend his honor and that of the Church.

May 2018:  At the “committal hearing,” a magistrate dismisses several charges against Pell but sends others to trial, saying that, whatever their arguable plausibility, they should be aired publicly in a criminal court. Meanwhile, a vicious, lynch-mob atmosphere continues to surround Cardinal Pell, in public and in much of the Australian media.

September 2018: At the trial, the prosecution presents no corroborating evidence that the alleged crimes ever took place; the prosecution’s case is the tale told by the complainant, who only appears on videotape. Numerous witnesses for the defense testify that the alleged acts of abuse could not have happened in a secured area of a busy cathedral immediately after Sunday Mass, with then-Archbishop Pell fully vested and surrounded by liturgical ministers, in the time frame alleged. After several days of deliberation, the trial judge tells the jury that he will accept an 11-1 verdict, if one juror is blocking unanimity. The jury then returns a hung verdict—10-2 for acquittal—the jury foreman weeping when announcing the jury’s inability to reach a legal conclusion; other jurors are also reported in tears.  

December 2018: At Cardinal Pell’s retrial, his defense team further demolishes the prosecution case, for which, again, no corroborating evidence is presented. The jury then returns a 12-0 verdict of guilty, shocking virtually everyone in attendance at the trial (and, according to some present, the trial judge). 

March 2019: While sentencing the cardinal to six years in prison, the trial judge never indicates that he agrees with the second jury’s verdict, stating only that he is doing what the law requires under the circumstances.  

June 2019: At an appeal hearing before a three-member panel of the Victoria Supreme Court, the judges sharply criticize the flimsiness of the prosecution’s case. 

August 21, 2019: The appellate panel rejects Cardinal Pell’s appeal by a 2-1 vote. The dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, is Australia’s most prominent criminal-law jurist; the two judges rejecting the appeal have little or no criminal-law experience. Judge Weinberg’s 202-page dissent eviscerates his colleagues’ position, which raises the gravest questions as to whether “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” remains the standard necessary for conviction in Victoria—not least on a completely uncorroborated charge.

In the wake of last month’s incomprehensible and (as measured by Judge Weinberg’s dissent) dangerous rejection of Cardinal Pell’s appeal, Catholic voices were heard expressing (or demanding) respect for the justice system in Australia. Perhaps the Vatican press spokesman must say such things for diplomatic purposes, although the reason why diplomatic concerns trump truth and justice in the Holy See Press Office is unclear. But as this chronology indicates, there is no reason to respect a process that reeks of system failure at every point, from the dubious and perhaps corrupt police investigation through the committal hearing, the two trials, and the appeal. There are guilty parties here. But Cardinal George Pell is not one of them.

As this scandalous process approaches the High Court of Australia, friends of Australia, both Down Under and throughout the world, must send a simple message, repeatedly: George Pell is an innocent man who was falsely accused and has been unjustly convicted of crimes he did not commit. It is not George Pell who is in the dock, now, but the administration of justice in Australia. And the only way to restore justice is for Cardinal Pell to be vindicated by the highest court in the land.

Those who cannot bring themselves to say that, in Australia or elsewhere, necessarily share in the ignominy that Australian criminal justice has, thus far, brought upon itself. 

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment