THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Apostolate of Suffering: “For Love of Jesus, I Beg you who are in Anguish of Soul to Offer your Family Troubles, your Sorrows and Mental Anguish as a Missionary Apostolate. Give them all to Him”

October 30, 2021

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” St. Paul (Colossians 1:24)

Catholic author Mary Fabyan Windeatt in her 1949 book “Saint Paul the Apostle” showed how when we sin we injure Jesus, again, in His Church which is his Mystical Body:

[Paul said,] “When one part of the human body is injured, the whole body suffers. It is the same way with the Mystical Body of Christ.” 

[…]

“I mean that when any one of us sins, the whole Church is hurt. Not just ourselves.”

This was something which deeply disturbed those newcomers who had never read Paul’s letter to the Church in Rome. A sin, even a very small sin, could wound the Mystical Body of Christ, even as His human body had been wounded during the Passion? Oh, no!

“Yes,” said Paul emphatically. “it’s true.” Then, noting the shadow which had fallen upon several faces: “but it’s also true that one good deed performed in the state of grace, even a very small deed, has just the opposite effect.” At this there was a murmur of astonishment. “You don’t mean that the whole Church profits from a single good deed, master?”

Paul nodded eagerly. “Yes, That’s just what I mean. Now do you see why we should love our neighbor and do all that we can to help him?” (Pages 194-195)

Not only our good deeds when done in the state of grace profit Jesus in His Mystical Body which is the Church, but most of all the Mass infinitely profits us and the world in atoning for sin and giving grace to be the adopted children of God the Father.

Windeatt wrote:

Paul explained to these Christian brethren how the all-holy Sacrifice of the New Law, the Eucharistic Sacrifice (which would later become known as the Mass), infinitely surpassed the animal sacrifices of the Old Law. (Page 212)

Also, our prayers outside of Mass and sufferings when united to Christ bring grace to all.

There is an old four page pamphlet titled “The Apostolate  of Suffering” which on the cover has a drawing of Jesus on the Cross saying to us:

“Give me your hopelessness, unhappiness, failure, bitterness, misery, regrets, desolation, instability, frustration, sorrow, heartaches, struggle, pain, fears, poverty, worry, loneliness, regrets, frustration, rejection, indecision, helplessness, fatigue, anxiety, [etc…].” 

The pamphlet, moreover, says Don’t Waste Suffering! Pay the Ransom – for Souls:

Why should there be an Apostolate of Suffering?

I have been redeemed by the Cross.  Therefore I must cooperate in the salvation of souls.  I can be and I desire to be an apostle in my sufferings.  Tears shed without love are wasted and embitter the soul.  To weep with love consoles, sanctifies and redeems.  No one is nearer the Crucified King.

 Fr. Mateo, SS.CC. in the pamphlet, writes:

Let those who are ill, those who suffer, those whose hearts are breaking under the Cross, listen to the words of life, of comfort and of hope that I address to them in the name and for the glory of the heart of Jesus. 

The world is going astray along a path of unbridled sensuality.  You who are suffering and ill can stop thousands of souls on this downward path; you can rescue sinners and be apostles in your pain and weariness.  You can purify, make reparation, and save souls by offering your sufferings as an apostolate of love.

Vanity, frivolity, forgetfulness of God, and outrages against His Law daily threaten to fill hell with souls.  For love of Jesus, I beg you who are in anguish of soul to offer your family troubles, your sorrows and mental anguish as a missionary apostolate.  Give them all to Him.

Priests and religious need help in their sublime mission; you, whose hearts are torn with sorrow and trouble of every kind, you who are misunderstood, families in mourning, orphans, do not lose your golden treasure, do not waste your precious tears – perhaps a father, a husband, a brother or a son is in danger of eternal death.  Offer your sufferings, in the Chalice of Mary’s heart to Jesus Who thirsts for souls.

All you who suffer, do not forget that sorrow sanctified by love, becomes the holiest of missions, the most persuasive of sermons, the most fruitful of apostolates. So preach the Social Reign of the Heart of Jesus, even while you are nailed to the cross.

Mary Fabyan Windeatt in her 1949 book shows the above is the secret of true happiness and meaning in this life:

Paul smiled at the boy whom he had known only a few short weeks, but whom he had already loved as a son. “Was Our Lord afraid of danger?” he said mildly. “Did He run away from suffering?” 
“N-no.”“Then why should we – His followers?”“But that was different! Jesus was the Son of God – the Messias! While you and Barnabas…’“We’re only men?”“Yes.”Paul put his hand on Timothy’s shoulder. “But doesn’t the Holy Spirit whom the Father sent from Heaven strengthen and console us in our troubles?”Timothy was silent. And abruptly Paul began to speak about Jesus Christ. What was life for, if not to spend in loving and serving Him. What was there without Him but emptiness? An emptiness that made for misery and boredom, that made even the slightest pain something to be avoided, and death the worst of all loses.“To work for the Lord, and then to die for Him! That is the most glorious thing that can happen to a person!” cried Paul triumphantly. “Don’t you understand?”[…]“For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain!”[…]“For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I count them as dung that I may gain Christ.”[…] 

Paul had found the secret of happiness in this world. He desired nothing but the knowledge of Christ, for himself and others. As a result, death held no terror for him. After all, how could it. In a sense he already died, for his will was completely united to the Will of God.“

[…]

“Rejoice in the Lord always. Again, I say, rejoice.” Finally: “May the peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and minds in Jesus Christ.”

Note: My sister Dorothy Martinez passed away yesterday. Please say a Our Father for her. Thank you. 

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

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

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. SHARESHARECommentssaid…Justina I have said the requested Our Father for the repose of Dorothy’s soul, and will continue to pray for this intention.5:52 AMXavier Ramirez said…God bless my aunt for persevering in this life and may the saints and loved ones welcome her joyfully in her now purified state.I humbly pray. (The Joyful mysteries I prayed in her honor as well.)________________________________ Javi

6:41 AMsaid…Fred Martinez Javi and Justina,Thank you!

7:39 AMsaid…Leo Rugiens Fred,I will offer my Mass at 4:00 PM CST today for the repose of the soul Dorothy, and the consolation of you and your family!+Rene Henry Gracida



10:43 AMPost a Comment

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13678835249919078?pubid=ld-680-12&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=679

You won’t stop laughing at the shirt one marine wore to receive an award for valor

October 29, 2021

U.S. Marines are known for their bravery.

But they also have a sense of humor.

And you won’t stop laughing at the shirt one Marine wore to receive an award for valor.https://lockerdome.com/lad/13678839645549670?pubid=ld-1716-3522&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

Marine Corps veteran James Kilcer found himself in the national spotlight after a video of him disarming a robber at a store in Arizona went viral on social media.

The video showed Kilcer standing at the counter when three robbery suspects entered the Chevron in Yuma.

Kicler pounced forward, disarming and detaining one of the three alleged criminals until law enforcement arrived on the scene.

After the video went viral, Kilcer appeared on Fox News to talk about his brave actions with host Dana Perino, where Kilcer made headlines for saying “remember, Epstein didn’t kill himself” at the very end of the interview.

But that wasn’t the only political statement Kilcer would make.

On Tuesday, Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot, presented Kilcer with a YCSO Citizen’s Valor Award “for extraordinary heroism and exceptional courage while voluntarily coming to the aid of another citizen during an incident involving criminal activity at extreme, life threatening, personal risk in an attempt to save or protect human life.”https://lockerdome.com/lad/14230595806901350?pubid=ld-7945-558&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

Kilcer showed up to accept the award wearing a red MAGA hat with a blue t-shirt with an American flag at the bottom and “LETS GO BRANDON!” emblazoned across the top.

The phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” started in early October after an NBC reporter claimed chants of “F*ck Joe Biden” were “Let’s Go Brandon” during an interview with NASCAR Xfinity Series race winner Brandon Brown.

The phrase is now a euphemism for “f*ck Joe Biden,” with one member of Congress even wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” facemask on the House floor.https://lockerdome.com/lad/14230597383959654?pubid=ld-667-5472&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Frightnewswire.com&rid=&width=640

“Let’s Go Brandon” songs also hold the top two spots on the iTunes Charts.

Given how Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted in the death of 13 U.S. soldiers, Kilcer probably isn’t the only Marine who feels this way about Joe Biden.

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Flashback: “This is One of the Finest and most Balanced Overviews of the Controversy concerning Benedict XVI’s Resignation & whether Francis Can or Cannot be with Certitude Determined to not be Pope ” 

October 31, 2021

– “Again: Italian Version of Ratzinger/Sarah Book Disproves Gänswein” [https://www.gloria.tv/post/Js8gCJTP4g2h1cHxM2YdXMtWJ]

– Mr. Martinez, this is one of the finest and most balanced overviews of the controversy concerning Benedict xvi’s resignation and whether Francis can or cannot be with certitude determined to not be pope that I have read.

Scholars have traced the famous adage ‘where Peter is, there is the Church’ to St. Ambrose in his Commentary on the Psalms. 

The rest of the phrase adds ‘where there is the Church, there is not death but Eternal Life.'[“Ubi ergo Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi nulla mors sed vita aeterna.” In Psalmum XL Enarratio, PL XIV, 1134.]

Given the foibles of so many popes, and given the confusion of absolute administrative power with Peter’s authority to confirm truth, I wonder if Divine Providence is not purging us of simplistically using the first part of this phrase.

Rather, we should say first of all, is what this pope or hierarch espousing truly Eternal Life or is it spiritual death? 

And if it is the latter, does this imply that he has ‘ipso facto’ lost his authority, for there is not the intention of the Church or Christ in him?

Any faithful can judge whether this has possibly occurred or probably is present. Whether or when there is a juridical confirmation with certitude that such is the case is just that, declaratory.

But no Christ faithful can obey or follow any false shepherd’s lead into heresy or immorality, with or without juridical confirmation.

To do such is to be an Unfaithful Catholic. – Catholic Monitor commenter MEwbank 

Did LifeSiteNews admit that Benedict’s Resignation could have been Invalid & Implicitly admit that an Imperfect Council is Needed?

November 24, 2019 

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the “abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.’”

The “theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity,” also, appeared to implicitly say the issue of the validity of the Benedict resignation could be solved by an imperfect council of cardinals or bishops to give a “judgement of the Church” on the matter. The LifeSiteNews theologian said “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church.” 

Here is the essential part of the LifeSiteNews article:

“A theologian who spoke to LifeSite on condition of anonymity argued that supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities. “If you think that ministerium means only acts of teaching and governance, then it would indeed seem to be different from the munus, which normally designates an office, that is, a kind of state,” he said. 

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

“He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is “not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.”

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”

He said that people who insist Benedict’s resignation was invalid “therefore seem to be in a position similar to that of a Catholic spouse who is personally convinced that his or her Church marriage was invalid.”

“However convinced the person is of this, he or she is not free to marry again until an ecclesiastical court has declared that there was never a marriage,” he said. “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church before acting on this belief, e.g. a priest in that position should continue to mention Francis in the canon of the Mass.”

As for the argument that Pope Francis can’t be Pope because he clearly has no graces of state, the theologian said this forgets that “grace is normally offered in such a way that it can be refused.” 

“You might as well say that a man who beats his wife obviously can’t be validly married to her,” he said.

Other theologians see Benedict’s use of the title “Pope emeritus” as a point in favor of the resignation. 

Can. 185 of the Code of Canon Law (on the loss of ecclesiastical office) says: “The title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”

As one theologian explained, every bishop when he retires becomes bishop emeritus. He is the emeritus bishop of the last diocese of which he presided. By creating the “pope emeritus” title (it is argued), Benedict is saying “what every bishop does, I’m doing too.” 

LifeSite also asked noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei for his thoughts on arguments invoking “substantial error.” Seconding the first theologian’s line of thought, Professor de Mattei noted that: “The Church is a visible society, and canon law does not evaluate intentions, but concerns the external behavior of the baptized. Canon 124, §2 of the Code states that: ‘A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.’”

“Did Benedict XVI intend to resign only partially, by renouncing the ministerium, but keeping the munus for himself? It’s possible,” he said, “but no evidence, at least to date, makes it evident.”

“We are in the realm of intentions,” he added. “Canon 1526, § 1 states: “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit” (The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation.) To prove means to demonstrate the certainty of a fact or the truth of the statement. Moreover, the papacy is in itself indivisible.” 
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo apparently disagrees with the LifeSiteNews theologian that Catholics need to “wait for the judgement of the Church.” He says that “the validity of a papal renunciation is determined by the law”:

“It is true regardless of who declares it or does not declare it, because the validity of a papal renunciation is determined by the law itself, not by the acceptance or rejection of anyone. Here many Catholics get confused and are being gaslighted by the lavender mafia. Because it is one thing that a canonical act is or is not, or is or is not valid, its another thing that it is judged to be valid or not, to be or not. In the case of matrimonial vows, the Church puts their validity under its judgement. But in the Case of a papal resignation, the Church does not put this under anyone’s judgement, because a papal act is what it is, there is no one who can judge it to be other than it is. So when the Pope says I renounce the Ministery, those who say that means he renounced the Papacy ARE ARROGATING JUDGEMENT over the Pope, and not only err but sin mortally and merit eternal damnation, because the Pope can only be judged by God. However, though we must recognize that He did renounce the ministry, we do not need authority to know whether that is or is not a papal resignation. We have Canon 332 §2, which says it is not. And to say that is simply to reiterate what the law says. That is why those who say Pope Benedict XV is still the pope not only do not err, but they neither sin or arrogate judgement to themselves, while those who say he is not pope, do both, and thus must attack either the Law or those who uphold the law.’
[https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/24/will-the-mafia-of-st-gallen-triumph/]

Journalist and Vatican expert Antonio Socci in his new book presents the case that Francis may have implicitly confirmed that Benedict’s “resignation is invalid, because doubtful and partial” by saying “Benedict… has opened the door of popes emeriti”:

Socci wrote that Benedict XVI’s personal secretary Georg Ganswein said:

“He [Benedict] has not abandoned the office of Peter.”

And thus according to Benedict’s closest collaborator Ganswein Benedict became a pope emeritus which has never existed except for retired bishops who still held the munus or office of bishop.

An unexpected thing happened when Team Francis went into “damage control” and denied there could be a emeritus “to the office of Peter.”

Unexpectedly, Francis at some point in time contradicted the “ultra-Bergoglians” assertion that that there couldn’t be a emeritus “to the office of Peter.”

Socci’s book says after Ganswein made the above statement in 2016 the “ultra-Bergoglian website Vatican Insider” went into “damage control” by interviewing Team Francis canonist Monsignor Giuseppe Sciacca who said emeritus “regards only the ‘episcopal office'” and “‘cannot be applied to the office of the Pontiff.'”

The book quotes Francis contradicting the Bergoglians or Team Francis by saying:

“Benedict… has opened the door of popes emeriti.”

Socci explains the predicament that Team Francis is in:

“The dilemma which the Bergoglians find themselves in is without solution: if, in fact, they recognize the title of ‘pope emeritus,’ they must recognize that Benedict XVI is still pope; but if they deny this title and contest the declared intention of the ‘resignation’ (which was not a resignation of munus , but only of the active ministry), it means that they would have to hold that the resignation is invalid, because doubtful and partial.”
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 92-94)

In 2016, One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec actually defended Ann Barnhardt’s integrity in it appears saying the “abdication would be invalid… if he… resign[ed] the ministerium [which is]… distinct from the munus” against a statement from pro-life attorney Chris Ferrera in the comment section of that website. 

In response, Ferrara appeared to agreed with the LifeSiteNews theologian who said “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope [or if someone is convinced that Francis is a manifest heretic], he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church.” 

Moreover, the attorney called for a “conclave” or imperfect council to judge if Francis is a manifest heretic who has deposed himself and, also, apparently to judge the validity of the Benedict resignation:

” Chris Ferrara: To declare that Francis is not the Pope… make[s] for good click bait…”

“… Steve Skojec: “Ann writes things that certainly come across as sensationalist… This is who she is. I don’t believe she ever publishes something she doesn’t truly believe in. I don’t think it’s fair to call this clickbait… “

“…. Chris Ferrera: “My only objection is any of us making final forensic determinations based on ‘overwhelming evidence’ and then announcing our verdict of one. It’s a rather silly exercise.”

“Perhaps a better approach is to amass the evidence and send it to every cardinal, demanding they convene [an imperfect council] and issue the kind of judgement Bellermine contemplated in this situation: not that the Pope is deposed, but that he has deposed himself. Such a hypothetical conclave would offer the Pope an opportunity to explain himself.”
(One Peter Fives’ comment section, “If Francis is an Antipope, We Can’t know it Yet,” June 21, 2016)

The only prelate in the world to take attorney Ferrara’s legal advice was Bishop Rene Gracida who “amass[ed] the evidence” and wrote a Open Letter to all the cardinals “demanding they convene [an imperfect council].”

 Comments

Pew Religion Survey Is Skewed November 1, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new Pew Research survey on religion: The validity of a survey often turns on the precise wording of questions. Indeed, it is possible to construct two different sets of questions for the same respondents on the same subject and generate two different outcomes. For instance, if the goal is to show how tolerant liberals are of diversity in education, it makes sense to ask questions about the demographic makeup of the faculty. If the goal is to show how intolerant liberals are of diversity in education, it makes sense to ask questions about the ideological makeup of the faculty. An honest survey would include both sets of questions, then asking, which should matter more in higher education—the demographic or ideological diversity of the faculty? The Pew survey recently released, “In U.S., Far More Support Than Oppose Separation of Church and State,” is skewed to make liberals look more tolerant than conservatives. For example, respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Cities and towns in the U.S. should be allowed to place religious symbols on public property OR Cities and towns in the U.S. should keep religious symbols off public property.” The questions are disingenuous. It is illegal for cities or towns to place religious symbols on some public property venues, but not others, and it matters whether the municipality owns the symbols or whether some religious entity does. It may also matter whether the religious symbols have to be surrounded by secular symbols. For instance, if the site of the religious symbol is near the seat of government, such as inside or outside city hall, they can only be erected if adorned by secular symbols. Why? Because otherwise the average person could conclude that the government is endorsing religion. If, however, the site is a public forum—a place like a city park where freedom of speech is open to everyone—then no secular symbols need to be placed near the religious ones. In other words, by asking whether a government agency can place religious symbols on public property, the question is skewed against doing so (even so, 39% said yes and 35% said no). It would have been more enlightening to ask whether private citizens should be allowed to place religious symbols on public property, especially in venues that are open to everyone. Similarly, respondents were asked if teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers. This is a seriously skewed question. By law, teachers cannot lead students in prayer, but it is legal for students to lead other students in prayer on school grounds. That, of course, was not what was asked. Also, there was no need to inject Christianity into the debate. Respondents could have been asked if they think teachers should allow students to open the day with a prayer (of their choosing). But that would get in the way of the narrative. As always, Democrats, Jews and those with no religious affiliation are the least likely to support the public expression of religion (atheists are the most hostile); Republicans and Christians are the most likely. The survey authors, of course, do not use terms such as “the public expression of religion”; they prefer phrases such as “separation of church and state.” The term “separation of church and state” is itself in need of explaining. Religious bodies are given federal funds to run their charities. Is that a violation of church and state lines, and should that be illegal? Pew says it is grateful to Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, authors of “Taking America Back to God: Christian Nationalism in the United States,” for their input. It certainly shows. I wrote about their book in the October issue of Catalyst, our monthly journal. I have something in common with these men: I, too, am a sociologist. However, we see the world through an entirely different lens. To cite one example, they argue that if someone believes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are divinely inspired documents, that proves they are Christian nationalists. Tagging such people with this pernicious term is simply irresponsible. Indeed, it evinces an animus. Pew has done very fine work, overall. This survey is not among its best.

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Renowned Dr. Vliet: “Prisoners in America’s Jails do Have More Rights right now than COVID Patients in America’s hospitals” & why are Biden-like Politicians such as Pelosi “Exempt” from releasing “their Medical Records and Disclos[ing] any Medical or Mental Conditions”? 

November 01, 2021

“[Joe Biden] has crossed the line as a Catholic… Now he has taken a stand on Kenya’s proposed new constitution, a stand which is probably a violation of US law and a stand that is certainly immoral… Perhaps God, who knows whether or not Biden’s brain was permanently damaged by his brain surgery, will not judge him too harshly, but the Church, which does not have that kind of knowledge should certainly speak out and reprimand him.” – Bishop Rene Gracida [http://badgercatholic.blogspot.com/2010/06/biden-pushes-abortion-bishop-seeks.html?m=1]

Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipient Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.,is the past Director of the Association of American Physicians. 

The member of the International Society for The Study of the Aging Male [such as Joe Biden], Dr. Vliet, told The Epoch Times “Prisoners in America’s jails do have more rights right now than COVID patients in America’s hospitals—it’s unheard of”:

Recordings Reveal Lockstep COVID-19 Protocols, Patient Isolation by Hospitals

Attorneys, medical doctors, and family members of COVID-19 victims have described and offered recordings of what the Truth for Health Foundation calls “horrific hospital violations of human rights,” including denial of intravenous fluids to patients, denial of access to patients by families, attorneys, and others, and the imposition of remdesivir on patients despite risks of kidney and liver damage from that drug and the availability of possibly safer alternatives, such as ivermectin.

“Prisoners in America’s jails do have more rights right now than COVID patients in America’s hospitals—it’s unheard of,” Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, president and chief executive of the foundation, said at an Oct. 27 press conference that she moderated. According to its website, the mission of the physician-founded charity foundation is “to provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting-edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life, and longevity.”[https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/recordings-reveal-lockstep-covid-19-protocols-patient-isolation-by-hospitals_4073286.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-01&mktids=ddc736e6695fdd3d131bd248f9e6ad5d&est=Q8ovCatMMT%2FwErm3otpWKiMFmuLlVnbgvNBPLMalIbsl8jUd7Iq9qPWXdwsY]

Moreover, in 2017, Dr. Vliet for the The Trail Lawyer Magazine website appeared to explain why the establishment Never Trump politicians such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, RINO’s like John McCain and others may be allowing the those interests which control them to bring about the“horrific hospital violations of human rights” mentioned above and many others. 

It may be because they are mentally impaired as Biden appears to be:

These questions became even more relevant with the recent revelation that Grubbs Pharmacy on Capitol Hill delivers prescriptions almost daily to members of Congress and their staff, some of which are medicines for serious illnesses like Alzheimer’s dementia. In fact, the pharmacist who handles these prescriptions for Congress and the elite on Capitol Hill is quoted in the article saying he finds it “troubling” that the public does not know who is suffering from such diseases that affect brain function, memory, judgment, and ability to think and analyze complex information. 

In several recent media interviews, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demonstrated facial tics, long pauses as she searched for words, stumbling over the pronunciation of simple words, and difficulty remembering basic information, dates, names, and even who is President.

Democrat presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton displayed facial tics, speech pauses, difficulty standing, and difficulty recalling words during the 2016 campaign. Yet the public was only told she had “pneumonia.” These observations are not typical of pneumonia and suggest a more serious neurological problem.

Senator John McCain disclosed he has a serious brain cancer, but has remained in office casting critical votes that affect all Americans, although this type of cancer can impair thinking and judgment and cause behavior changes.

President Trump has not exhibited any of the behaviors described above to suggest a medical or mental problem affecting performance. His speech is fluid, articulate, and does not show the pauses and loss of common words that are easily observable with Pelosi, Clinton, or McCain.

The public is already aware of a marked double standard for members of Congress and political elites with regard to offenses that would lead to jail or major financial or other penalties for the average consumer and voter. Some recent examples include insider trading, failing to disclose contributions properly, failing to pay taxes, failing to disclose foreign investments, and a host of other offenses leading to politicians’ personal financial gain.

But what has not been discussed in the public debate or media is the even more serious issue of politicians’ failure to disclose to voters any physical or mental impairment and failure that may affect their ability to perform the job they are paid to do in representing us.

Compare politicians’ lack of transparency regarding serious medical illnesses or drug or alcohol abuse with what we see in other professions:

• Physicians are required, as a condition of their license to practice medicine, to disclose any mental or physical impairment, condition or disability that may affect their ability to carry out their duties to patients, including any substance abuse. They are also required to disclose any arrests (for anything other than minor traffic violation, such as speeding). Failure to disclose this information on a license application or renewal is terms for sanctions that can include loss of license to practice medicine, or inability to obtain hospital privileges in all 50 states.

• Airline pilots have similar requirements for an annual physical and mental exam, regular performance evaluations in the cockpit with instructors evaluating in-flight performance on required “check rides.” Airline pilots also have random drug screening

• Commercial truck drivers have requirements for random drug screens and physical and psychological exams as part of their commercial drivers license renewal.

• Law enforcement officers also face random drug screening, and are subject to internal affairs investigations if they display behavior that is unprofessional, or show physical impairments that may affect job performance.

Why are members of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch of government exempted from similar requirements when they are making decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans?

As a prescription for what is making Washington toxic and dysfunctional, this physician suggests requiring all politicians holding or running for office to release their medical records and disclose any medical or mental conditions for which they are being treated with prescription medications.

Would YOU want a pilot for your flight to show the problems exhibited by Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton or John McCain [or Joe Biden]? Would YOU want your doctor displaying such incoherence and memory loss during your exam? [https://thetriallawyermagazine.com/2017/11/politicians-fitness-for-office-transparency-needed/]

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

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

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. 
  

Words of St. Nathaniel

OCTBER 30, 2021

“It wasn’t really 30 pieces of silver,

It was much more abstract and much more lofty, 

For it was the idea of making all men brothers, of slowing down climate change,

Why, of even improving the state of the world.  

And what he offered in return, this man in white,

Was not a betrayal as it had been before,

For there was not a broken body on the cross, 

And there had been no scourging, no crowning with thorns.

What he offered was simply confirmation that it was well and good for one in mortal sin to receive communion,

And he hastily pushed from his mind what he knew to be true,

That there was indeed a broken body, a cross, a scourging and a crowning with thorns involved

In that bread and wine. 

But he smiled and shook hands, this man in white,

As he walked carefully with this leader of the nation, 

Over the slaughtered bodies of the infants upon the floor.

And all the shepherds held their breath, 

Wondering whether they would be indicted in this betrayal, 

But they held their tongues,

And averted their eyes,

From the cross upon the hill.”

-S

______________________

The Ignoble Lie

By: Victor Davis Hanson

The Epoch Times

October 28, 2021

In a controversial passage in Plato’s “Republic,” Socrates introduced the idea of the “noble lie” (“gennaios pseudos”).

A majestic fiction, he says, could sometimes serve society by persuading uninformed citizens of something good for them.

Ever since, many prevaricators have used the excuse that they lied for the common good.

Take Dr. Anthony Fauci, our point man on the COVID-19 epidemic.

Fauci misled the country about mask-wearing during the pandemic by claiming they were of little use. But he argued that he lied so the public would not make a run on masks, deplete the supply, and thus rob medical professionals of protective equipment.

Fauci also told “noble” lies about the likely percentage of the public needing to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. He kept raising the bar—from 60 percent to 70 percent to 75 percent to 80 percent, to 85 percent.

Apparently, Fauci feared a lower figure, even if accurate, might lull people into complacency about getting inoculated.

Fauci also lied about his own role in routing U.S. aid money to subsidize gain-of-function viral research at the Wuhan virology lab—the likely birthplace of COVID-19.

Either Fauci was hiding his own culpability, or he believed the American people might not be able to fully accept that some of their own health officials were promoting the sort of research that was partially responsible for more than 700,000 American deaths.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has serially lied about the number of undocumented immigrants who have crossed into the United States. He falsely claimed mounted agents were whipping migrants. He fibbed about the purported lack of federal data of apprehensions, detentions, and deportations. His assertion that the border is secure was a joke.

Apparently, Mayorkas believes the public would go ballistic or his own administration would be roundly despised, if he told the bitter truth about the border: by intent, the Biden administration has apparently deliberately left it wide open.

And it will likely allow 2 million undocumented immigrants into the country in the current fiscal year.

Lots of other unelected federal officials lied over the past five years by claiming or implying that harming the Trump administration was in the public interest.

Former FBI directors Andrew McCabe and James Comey likely misled the nation. McCabe admittedly lied that he did not leak FBI information to the media.

James Comey lied under oath on multiple occasions in congressional cross-examinations, and claimed he did not know or could not remember basic facts about his own role in promoting the Russian collusion hoax.

Apparently, Comey and McCabe believed that by being less than truthful, they might better emasculate Donald Trump. And that result would be beneficial to America.

Our former intelligence leaders may have been the most brazen liars. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA surveillance program, though he denied it.

When caught in the untruth, Clapper reverted to the noble lie that he gave the least untruthful answer, apparently on the pretense that he did not wish to damage the reputation of an important intelligence agency.

Ditto John Brennan, the former head of the CIA. On two occasions he lied under oath about the agency’s monitoring of Senate staffers’ computers and the deaths of civilians caused by U.S. drone assassination missions along the Afghanistan border.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley lied for days about the details of an accidental drone strike that killed innocent women and children in Afghanistan.

Either Milley is now lying when he says he warned Joe Biden about the disasters to come in Afghanistan or Biden is lying when he denies hearing any such advice.

Many of the details of Milley’s conversations with authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa as reported in their recent muckraking book were abjectly denied by Milley.

The list of such lies could be vastly expanded.

IRS functionary Lois Lerner never told the whole untruth about weaponizing the IRS.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch spun an implausible yarn that she accidentally bumped into Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and never discussed the then-current FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Special counsel Robert Mueller told a whopper under oath, claiming to know almost nothing about the Steele dossier and the misadventures of Fusion GPS. Both were the two catalysts that prompted his entire investigation of “collusion” in the first place.

In some of these cases, when caught and exposed, the liars will hedge by claiming temporary amnesia.

But sometimes they admit they lied but suggest they did so for higher purposes like national security.

In truth, in most cases there was nothing noble at all in their lying. They simply spread untruths to protect their own endangered careers by masking their own wrongdoing or fobbing it onto others.

In other words, “noble lies” are rarely spun for anyone’s interests other than those of the liars themselves.

St. Nathaniel

10-29-2021

“Christ could not have been placed in a vessel of sin

Upon His coming to earth in the womb of a Mother,

For if He had been placed in a vessel of sin,

The soul of that vessel would have been gravely wounded, and have suffered spiritual death,

For Christ cannot be thrust into the hell of an unclean vessel.

Therefore, Christ was instead placed in a vessel that was not tainted,

But indeed had been kept sinless and pure,

And this spotless soul received the announcement of His coming with her Fiat,

And thereby participated in this glorious act. 

So, Christ cannot be placed in a vessel of sin,

As occurs when one receives the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Son of God in the Eucharist,

While being in mortal sin,

For this causes that soul to be gravely wounded,

And to suffer spiritual death.

What priest, then, would allow this sacrilege, 

For it is a great sin that brings with it great judgment. 

Even if the one receiving the Eucharist unworthily believes not in the transubstantiation,

Which unbelief in itself is a grievous sin because by his “amen” he has said he believes,

It is still true, and therefore, he betrays the Son of God with a kiss.

The one who comes to receive the Eucharist while in mortal sin

Must be directed first to sacramental confession,

For any attempt to unite the Holy of Holies to such a soul 

Is an attack on Jesus Christ. 

Priests, you are ordained to the care of souls;

Therefore, to allow souls to be wounded even unto spiritual death

By permitting souls to receive Our Lord unworthily,

Is to deliver up souls that were given into your keeping 

Into destruction.

And this act will indeed incur the judgment of God.”

-S

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Is the New Soros, “Monomaniacally Obsessed” Never Trumper Omidyar, “Financing” Totalitarian Censorship of the “Internet… the Last Instrument of Dissent and Free Discourse” in America?

October 29, 2021

– Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen apparently has some very powerful people in her corner — namely one Pierre Omidyar, the “billionaire tech critic who founded eBay,” Politico reports Wednesday. – This Week [https://theweek.com/facebook/1006238/the-founder-of-ebay-is-reportedly-helping-frances-haugen-take-on-facebook] 

– “Who is George Soros? He is anti-God, anti-American and anti-Catholic. Even though he is a billionaire. He lavishly funds Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and countless media outlets.”

“He seeks a one world order world governed by the elites.”

“Make no mistake: this is about tyranny.”

This is megalomaniac who bragged that he considered himself a god. This is George Soros. And he even claimed he was the boss of the pope. That was in the early 2000’s. That has become a fact.”

“Suddenly it appears his prophecy has come true. George Soros operatives are embedded in the Vatican. They have drafted Vatican documents that set up the Soros agenda which mirrors the Francis agenda.” – Internationally known sex abuse expert, investigator and Attorney Elizabeth Yore

– When it comes to billionaire funders of political and journalistic projects, Omidyar — despite the long list of political views and activities of his that I regard as misguided or even toxic — is, for the reasons I just outlined, as good as it gets. And yet despite all that, it is simply unavoidable — inevitable — that the ideology, views and political agenda of a billionaire funder will end up contaminating and dominating any project for which they are the exclusive or primary funder. Omidyar is not some apolitical or neutral guardian of good internet governance; he is a highly politicized and ideological actor with very strong views on society’s most debated questions.

And that is why it is so dangerous that the campaign to control and police the internet — to launch pressure campaigns to further centralize the control over what can and cannot be said online, and to further restrict the range of views that is deemed permissible — is being funded almost entirely by a small handful of multi-billionaires like Omidyar. No matter how benevolent and well-intentioned they may be, the power and control they will inevitablywield, even if they try not to, will be limitless. – Pulitzer winner and liberal Glen Greenwald

It appears that there is a new George Soros-like evil billionaire named Pierre Omidya, the founder of eBay, who is apparently “financing” the totalitarian censorship of the”internet… the last instrument of dissent and free discourse” in America and the world according to Glen Greenweld. 

The Pulitzer winner and liberal Greenwald, who is a co-founder of the Intercept news outlet which was renowned for its accurate journalism on intelligence when he was involved with it, reported “Pierre Omidyar’s Financing of the Facebook “Whistleblower” Campaign Reveals a Great Deal”:

The internet is the last remaining instrument for dissent and free discourse to thrive outside state and oligarchical control. This campaign aims to put an end to that.

It is completely unsurprising to learn, as Politico reported last Wednesday, that the major financial supporter of Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen’s sprawling P.R. and legal network coordinating her public campaign is the billionaire founder of EBay, Pierre Omidyar. The Haugen Show continues today as a consortium of carefully-cultivated news outlets (including those who have been most devoted to agitating for online censorship: the New York Times’ “tech” unit and NBC News’s “disinformation” team) began publishing the trove of archives she took from Facebook under the self-important title “The Facebook Papers,” while the star herself has traveled to London to testify today to British lawmakersconsidering a bill to criminally punish tech companies that allow “foul content” or “extremism” — whatever that means — to be published.

On Sunday, Haugen told The New York Times that her own personal Bitcoin wealth means she is relying on “help from nonprofit groups backed by Mr. Omidyar only for travel and similar expenses.” But the paper also confirmed that the firm masterminding Haugen’s public campaign roll-out and complex media strategy, a group “founded by the former Barack Obama aide Bill Burton,” is “being paid by donors, including the nonprofit groups backed by Mr. Omidyar.” He is also a major donor to a shady new groupcalling itself “Whistleblower Aid” — bizarrely led by anti-Trump lawyer and social media #Resistance star Mark Zaid, who has been one of the most vocal critics of actual whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, both of whose imprisonment he has long demanded — that is now featuring Haugen as its star client. 

Omidyar’s net worth is currently estimated to be $22 billion, making him the planet’s 26th richest human being…

… When I left the Guardian in 2013 at the height of the Snowden/NSA reporting to co-found a new media outlet along with two other journalists, it was Omidyar who funded the project, which ultimately became The Intercept, along with its parent corporation, First Look Media. Our unconditional demand when deciding to accept funding from Omidyar was that he vow never to have any role whatsoever or attempt to interfere in any way in the editorial content of our reporting, no matter how much he disagreed with it or how distasteful he found it. He not only agreed to this condition but emphasized that he, too, believed the integrity of the new journalism project depended upon our enjoying full editorial freedom and independence from his influence.

In the eight years I spent at The Intercept, Omidyar completely kept his word. There was never a single occasion, at least to my knowledge, when he attempted to interfere in or override our journalistic independence. For the first couple of years, adhering to that promise was easy: he was an ardent supporter of the Snowden reporting which consumed most of our time and energy back then and, specifically, viewed a defense of our press freedoms (which were under systemic attack from multiple governments) as a genuine social good. So our journalism and Omidyar’s worldview were fully aligned for the first couple of years of The Intercept’s existence.

The arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene in 2015 changed all of that, and did so quite dramatically. As Trump ascended to the presidency, Omidyar became monomaniacally obsessed with opposing Trump. Although Omidyar stopped tweeting in March, 2019 and has since locked his Twitter account, he spent 2015-2019 as a very active user of the platform. The content he was posting on Twitter on a daily basis was utterly indistinguishable from the standard daily hysterical MSNBC panels or New York Times op-eds, proclaiming Trump a fascist, white nationalist, and existential threat to democracy, and depicting him as a singular evil, the root of America’s political pathology. In other words, the Trump-centric worldview that I spent most of my time attacking and mocking on every platform I had — in speeches, interviews, podcasts, social media and in countless articles at The Intercept — was the exact political worldview to which Omidyar had completely devoted himself and was passionately and vocally advocating.

The radical divergence between my worldview and Omidyar’s did not end there. Like most who viewed Trump as the primary cause of America’s evils rather than just a symptom of them, Omidyar also became a fanatical Russiagater. A large portion of his Twitter feed was devoted to the multi-pronged conspiracy theory that Trump was in bed with and controlled by the Kremlin and that its president, Vladimir Putin, through his control over Trump and “interference” in U.S. democracy, represented some sort of grave threat to all things good and decent in American political life. All of that happened at exactly the same time that I became one of the media’s most vocal and passionate critics of Russiagate mania, frequently criticizing and deriding exactly the views that Omidyar was most passionately expressing on Twitter, often within hours of his posting them. 

My dissent on Russiagate became so vocal, just as Omidyar was devoting himself to it with greater and greater zeal, that liberal outlets began publishing lengthy and highly critical profiles of me that had little purpose but to expel me from Decent Liberal Society due to my Russiagate heresy and to cast that dissent as the byproduct of mental instability rather than genuine conviction. This extreme divergence between my public profile and Omidyar’s core views expanded for years. Often Omidyar would promote and herald a view on Twitter in the morning, and I would then publish an article on The Intercept attacking that same view in the afternoon, and then go on television that night to attack it some more.

Perhaps most extraordinary was that Omidyar became convinced that salvation from the evils of Trump and Russia was to be found primarily in propping up the faction of #NeverTrump Republicans — led by people like neocon Bill Kristol, career CIA operative Evan McMullin, and the consummate scumbags of the Lincoln Project — who he regarded as uniquely patriotic and noble for putting country over party (even though their influence was confined to cable news green-rooms and major newspaper op-ed pages). Omidyar began funding many of the #NeverTrump groups overseen by Kristol — who I often denounced and still regard as one of the most toxic and deceitful figures in American political life — as well as groups whose sole purpose was to hype the Russian threat and who claimed they were united in patriotic bipartisan unity to combat Russia-and-Trump-fueled disinformation on the internet. To underscore how deeply ensconced Omidyar became in the very political faction for which I harbored the greatest scorn and expressed the most unbridled contempt, his very last tweet since he stopped using Twitter in 2019 was an approving re-tweet of the Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson, claiming for the ten thousandth time that conclusive proof had emerged of Trump’s criminality.

That Omidyar’s political activism and my journalism did not just diverge, but became polar opposites, was so glaring that it began attracting the attention of journalists who contacted us to tell us they intended to write stories on this strange situation. It was indeed extreme: there were times when I was publishing investigative articles or scathing denunciations of the very groups Omidyar was funding and promoting, putting him in the situation in which the U.S. government often finds itself: essentially funding both sides of the same war. It was an irresistible story to journalists: at the time, I was the most prominent and the highest-paid journalist associated with The Intercept, which relied almost entirely on Omidyar’s annual multi-million dollar largesse, and yet my primary political and journalistic focus at The Intercept was tantamount to a war on Omidyar’s most cherished political beliefs and core objectives. 

On at least two occasions, journalists with major outlets contacted each of us to let us know they wanted to write about this glaring split. Yet neither ended up doing so for a simple reason: Omidyar made it emphatically clear that I had the absolute right to express whatever views I wanted, and that my doing so would never create a problem with him, let alone cause him to re-think his funding of The Intercept. 

To underscore the point, Omidyar told me privately on both occasions that he knew when he decided to fund The Intercept that the day would come, likely soon, when not just me but other journalists there would be publishing articles with which he vehemently disagreed or even undermined his other interests. When he decided to fund The Intercept, he told me, he was supporting independent journalism, not promoting a particular ideology or political agenda. And indeed, no matter how much my attacks escalated on his core beliefs and the other groups he was heavily funding — and escalate they did! — I never received any remote signal that my outspoken journalism and commentary were imperiling his ongoing funding of The Intercept.

I recount all of that for two reasons. First, I want to make clear that my analysis of Omidyar’s role in this scam Facebook “whistleblower” campaign and the dangers it presents is in no way motivated by personal animus toward him. Indeed, I harbor no personal hostility toward him; to the contrary, I genuinely respect that he kept his word for all those years by honoring our editorial freedom even as he was funding my journalism and the journalism of others with which he vehemently disagreed. As I made clear when I quit The Intercept in protest over their censorship of my pre-election article about Joe Biden, I viewed the degradation of The Intercept as the fault of its senior editorial management team, who had no involvement in the outlet’s founding, did not share its core mission or values, and had reduced it to little more than a trite ideological mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But the second point is the more important one. When it comes to billionaire funders of political and journalistic projects, Omidyar — despite the long list of political views and activities of his that I regard as misguided or even toxic — is, for the reasons I just outlined, as good as it gets. And yet despite all that, it is simply unavoidable — inevitable — that the ideology, views and political agenda of a billionaire funder will end up contaminating and dominating any project for which they are the exclusive or primary funder. Omidyar is not some apolitical or neutral guardian of good internet governance; he is a highly politicized and ideological actor with very strong views on society’s most debated questions.

And that is why it is so dangerous that the campaign to control and police the internet — to launch pressure campaigns to further centralize the control over what can and cannot be said online, and to further restrict the range of views that is deemed permissible — is being funded almost entirely by a small handful of multi-billionaires like Omidyar. No matter how benevolent and well-intentioned they may be, the power and control they will inevitably wield, even if they try not to, will be limitless. 

And when it comes to a free internet, few things are more dangerous than allowing a tiny number of like-minded billionaires to use their vast wealth to control the contours of permissible speech. Yet that is exactly what has been happening. And the obviously orchestrated, well-planned and well-financed campaign centered around this new high-tech Joan of Arc, ready to be martyred to save us all from an unsafe internet, is merely the latest example.

---

To understand the dangers of a small group of billionaires funding campaigns like this Facebook “whistleblower” spectacle and other “anti-disinformation” and “anti-extremism” groups, put yourself in the place of senior editors of The Intercept. Despite Omidayr’s genuine affirmation of editorial independence, they live in complete captivity to, and fear of, Omidyar’s whims and preferences.

As is true of so many billionaire-funded NGOs and “non-profits,” editors and senior writers at The Intercept receive gigantic, well-above-the-market salaries. Because the site depends almost entirely on Omidyar’s infinite wealth, it does not sell any subscriptions or ads and it therefore does not have any pressure to produce at all in order to generate revenue. It is a dream job for most of them: enormous salaries, endless expense accounts, a complete lack of job requirements, and no need even to attract an audience. For years, outside of three or four journalists, articles published by The Intercept produce almost no traffic. With rare exception, nobody reads the site. They have a massive budget to create highly-produced videos and yet their videos almost never exceed even 10,000 views: most tiny, from-their-garage, zero-budget YouTubers attract larger audiences. And nobody cares, because the money flows in from Omidyar no matter what. 

It does not get better than that, and that is why almost nobody ever quits The Intercept. Why would they? They just stay for years and years, collecting a huge salary, with no need to do anything but avoid angering one man. They work in an industry where jobs disappear with astonishing frequency, where layoffs are the norm, where the very existence of most organizations is precarious, and where the slightest dissent from liberal orthodoxies can render someone permanently unemployable. Those who work in outlets funded by billionaires have essentially won a type of lottery, at least temporarily, and very few people are willing to risk losing a winning lottery ticket, especially if they know they have no alternatives in the event that their security blanket is taken away.

That means that the entire news organization has a constituency of one: Pierre Omidyar. If you were an Intercept editor who knows you could never get anywhere near that high salary working anywhere else — and that is true for virtually the entire senior editorial staff at The Intercept other than its Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim — you will of course be desperate to keep the sinecure going. That is not really corrupt as much as it is just basic self-preservation. If remaining in Omidyar’s good graces is the only way to pay your large mortgage and maintain your lifestyle — which is true for most of them — then that will be all you ever think or care about. And you will know that your ability to keep the money spigot flowing depends on one thing and one thing only: keeping Pierre Omidyar happy or, at the very least, never displeasing him.

Consider the power that bestows on Omidyar in the lives of those dependent on him. He is literally like a god to them: for those unlikely to find any similar position if The Intercept shuts down, his every whim can mean life or death for their careers and their happiness. They wake up knowing every day that one man has the power, on a whim, to destroy their livelihood. That desperate dynamic produces a climate where catering one’s worldview and work product to Omidyar’s ideological preferences becomes the overarching imperative. The only thing that matters to them in their work is keeping their sole benefactor happy and avoiding his wrath.

I want to avoid the caricature here. This need to please Omidyar is often more subliminal than conscious. There are numerous journalists who work at The Intercept who do great work and rarely think about Omidyar in any conscious or direct way. They produce valuable reporting and investigations. But the inescapable reality is that the senior editorial management absolutely knows that their only real job is to foster a climate that will keep Omidyar happy, which means only hiring or publishing voices that will not offend him, ensuring that The Intercept’s political and journalistic posture is aligned with his ideological worldview and, most of all, prohibiting anyone or any journalism from remaining at The Intercept if it strays too far from Omidyar’s political project.

And when my journalism and Omidyar’s vocally expressed views began to diverge so radically and publicly, that is precisely what they began to do. In response to my increasingly vocal heretical views on Trump, Russia, and Russiagate, The Intercept’s senior editors started hiring mainstream journalists from places like The New York Times to do nothing but produce the most hysterical Russiagate fanaticism and anti-Trump agitprop: in other words, they did everything possible to bring The Intercept’s journalistic brand in full alignment with Omidyar’s Twitter feed and political funding. 

Thus did The Intercept begin routinely publishing and aggressively headlining #Resistance dreck from these former New York Times reporters and others under Omidyar-pleasing tabloid headlines like “IS DONALD TRUMP A TRAITOR?” and “Reporters Should Stop Helping Donald Trump Spread Lies About Joe Biden and Ukraine” and “Democrats Need to Wake Up: The Trump Movement Is Shot Through With Fascism,” the latter of which peddled a slew of false claims found in the sewers of anti-Trump Twitter that Trump had ordered “involuntary hysterectomies conducted on people in a migrant detention center” and ignored reports of Russian bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers. They were one of the outlets which published and ratified the CIA’s lie in the weeks before the election that the Biden emails published by The New York Post were “Russian disinformation” (and they are also one of the outlets that has refused even to acknowledge the new book by Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger proving that the documents were authentic and the CIA lied, because they know that their only reader who matters — Omidyar — does not mind that they circulated lies in order to help defeat Trump). 

As a reward for these scripts, perfectly tailored to Omidyar’s Twitter feed, The Intercept was gifted with appearances on MSNBC’s most deranged prime-time shows. Just a couple of months before Chris Hayes hosted New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait to explore whether Trump had been a Kremlin asset since the 1980s, the DNC-loyal host invited James Risen on to discuss his Intercept article accusing Trump of treason:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes speaks to the former New York Times reporter James Risen about his Intercept article accusing Trump of treason on Feb. 17, 2018 

Though The Intercept was originally designed to be a platform for voices too anti-establishment and radical for mainstream corporate outlets, the site under its new editorial management entirely stopped publishing any writers who could remotely be described that way, relying instead solely on journalists who could be and are published by at least a dozen of other standard, inoffensive left-liberal publications. Ever since I left, there has been barely a syllable published ……

Subscribe to Glenn Greenwald to read the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Glenn Greenwald to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.Subscribe

What Pope Said To Biden Is Unconfirmed October 29, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the conversation between the pope and the president: After Pope Francis and President Biden met today, President Biden said that the pope called him a “good Catholic” and that he should “keep receiving communion.” The Vatican has not confirmed the veracity of Biden’s account. Like everyone else, we at the Catholic League have no way of knowing whether Biden’s remarks are accurate. But from what we know about the Vatican’s handling of the meeting, and Biden’s long record of lying about many important matters, we are maintaining a healthy skepticism about the president’s rendition. It is certainly in Biden’s interest to have everyone think that the pope encouraged him to keep receiving communion. This issue matters because it has troubled many American bishops; they will meet in a few weeks to discuss it. Biden’s lust for abortion rights, for instance, is cause for grave concern. One reason why we are skeptical of Biden’s account is that it seems to be at odds with the Vatican’s decision to deny media press coverage of the meeting. The White House was banking on a photo-op, knowing that the optics would serve the president’s interests. But they were stiffed the day before the meeting. If it is reasonable to conclude that the Vatican did not want the appearance of being played by the White House—sending the message that this pro-abortion Catholic president is a model Catholic—then it appears contradictory to laud his Catholic credentials. More important, why would the pope inject himself into the controversy between U.S. bishops and the president, knowing that by doing so he would undercut the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)? Then there is the issue of lying. That Biden is a pathological liar cannot be denied. Here are a few instances. The first example looks like small potatoes, but when coupled with the other examples, it takes on significance. In 1974, when Biden was a freshman senator from Delaware, he bragged how he hit a ball 358 feet at his second congressional baseball game on July 2nd. In fact, he went 0-for-2. The year 1987 was not a good one for the presidential hopeful. David Greenberg, writing in Slate, a left-wing media outlet, recalled how Biden plagiarized a speech given by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. “Biden lifted Kinnock’s precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideas—a degree of plagiarism that would disqualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn’t apply to Biden. Unlike Kinnock, Biden wasn’t the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock’s words.” This was just the beginning of Biden’s lies. It was then revealed that he plagiarized from speeches given by Robert Kennedy, John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. The next day he admitted to telling more lies. He confessed to receiving an “F” in a law school course because he plagiarized five pages from a published article. According to the Washington Post, Biden also told several lies about his academic credentials. He said he graduated with “three degrees” from the University of Delaware. Wrong. He graduated with one degree. He said he won a coveted political science award at the university. He lied. He said he graduated at the top of his class at Syracuse Law School. He did not. He was 76th in a class of 85. He said he had a “full scholarship” at Syracuse. Another lie. He had a half scholarship. Shaun King is an African American writer who has tracked Biden’s civil rights record. Here is what he wrote last year about this issue. “On two very important occasions, Joe Biden actually told the entire truth about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Nearly everything else has been a lie. I’ve counted at least 31 different lies he has told about being an activist, organizer, sit-in demonstrator, boycott leader, voter registration volunteer, Black church trainee and more in the Civil Rights Movement, but every time I dig, I actually find more interviews, more lies, more fabrications, more tales he told to voters, reporters, historians, and more (his emphasis).” When an anti-Semite attacked the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, leaving 12 dead, Biden claimed he later visited the synagogue, saying he spoke to the people there. He lied. He was never there, as officials at the synagogue recounted. In his first 100 days in office, the Washington Post listed 78 false or misleading statements he made. Recently, several high ranking military officials said that Biden’s rendition of the advice they gave him on withdrawing from Afghanistan was patently untrue. It is for these reasons that we are skeptical of Biden’s account of what the pope said to him at their meeting.