We have reached an alarming level of moral imbecility when politicians are more exercised about changing weather patterns than they are infanticide.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE
FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTSDemocrats Balk At Condemning Murder
February 5, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an abortion survival bill blocked by Senate Democrats:
 
Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said yesterday that the Senate “can no longer unanimously condemn murder.”
 
Ernst was referring to Democrat Sen. Patty Murray’s objection to the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, legislation that would ensure medical care for an infant who survives an abortion; the bill, introduced by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, required unanimous consent.
 
Murray did the bidding for her fellow Democrats. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she said. We did.
 
When Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator, he pushed hard for legislation that would allow a child who survived an abortion to die unattended by medical staff. Just last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law that allows the child born alive following an abortion to die without any consequences to physicians or the non-physicians who can now perform abortions. Also last week, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam championed a bill that would permit infanticide.
 
Even if Murray believes the laws on infanticide are sufficient, why would she—and the Democrats—want to stop a bill that enhances legislation of great moral weight? If a child born alive does not have a right to life, then human rights are a chimera. Why worry about anti-discrimination laws if we begin by discriminating against children at the time of birth?
 
Murray was chosen to do the bidding of the Senate Democrats because she is a Catholic woman. In 2014, she sported her Catholic bona fides by staying up all night to draw attention to the issue of climate change. But unfortunately for the kids, her Catholic colors did not kick in yesterday. We have reached an alarming level of moral imbecility when politicians are more exercised about changing weather patterns than they are infanticide.
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

SURPRISE, HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING STATISTICS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD USE IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TOMORROW NIGHT


34,709 Recent Crimes Committed by Illegal Aliens:

Where’s the News Coverage?
By Kumar Balani

There were 34,709 crimes of various types committed by illegal aliens in fiscal years 2016, 2017 and the 11 months of 2018, according to the United States Customs and Border Patrol or CBP, one of the seven components of the Department of Homeland Security.

While the largest number of crimes – more than fifteen thousand or 44 percent of the arrests and convictions of illegal aliens – were for unlawful entry or reentry, all the other crimes – 19,510 offenses or 56 percent – caused financial, medical, physical, psychological or sexual harm, impairment, or damage to the hapless victims, or led to their deaths.  

This includes crimes such as ‘driving under the influence’ of alcohol or drugs or narcotics, or the possession, trafficking, and transport of deadly weapons and drugs – that resulted in, or had the potential to result in harm to or death of people.   

The range of crime types during this three-year period was so wide that almost 5,700 or one of every six crimes were placed under the category of ‘other’. Needless to say, these ‘other’ un-categorized crimes may also have caused bodily harm. 

The United States provides means for people who entered it, to adjust their illegal status to legal, temporary-stay nonimmigrant visa status for various purposes, such as business, study, or tourism. Before the expiration of any of these visas, the nonimmigrant visa holder, with the assistance of a practicing attorney on immigration law, can apply for permanent residence, if eligible. Conviction for crimes makes it more difficult.

Biz India Online News conducted extensive research to find coverage of these crimes on the websites of major news media in the United States, from June 2016 when the campaigns for the US presidency were in full swing, through January 2019, and concluded that apart from one Fox News episode by Tucker Carlson on December 17, 2017 quoting U.S. Census data titled “Why didn’t we know truth about illegals and crime?”, there was no other major media news report providing a compilation of data on crimes committed by illegal aliens. 

That research included such straight forward searches phrases as “illegal aliens’ crimes”, yet they found nothing.  Does that surprise you?

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in Texas alone, there have been more than 251,000 criminal aliens in Texas jails between 2011 and 2018 charged with 663,000 criminal offenses. Those arrests include 79,049 assault charges; 18,685 burglary charges; 1,351 homicide charges; 815 kidnapping charges; 79,900 drug charges; 44,882 theft charges; 50,777 obstructing police charges; 9,938 weapon charges; 4,292 robbery charges; and 7,156 sexual assault charges! Of the total criminal aliens arrested in that timeframe, over 168,000 or 66% were identified by DHS status as being in the US illegally at the time of their last arrest.

Remarkably, even during the 2016 presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, there was a virtual blackout in US major news media on such important news on illegal aliens’ crimes that affect the security and safety, in terms of protection against bodily harm, hurt, and death, of over around 325 million people in the US.

This raises the all-important question: What could be the possible reasons for the omission of such important news by US news media? 

This absence of coverage continued even after frequent mentions by presidential candidate Donald J. Trump about Mexicans who, he had said repeatedly in his campaign rallies, were illegally coming in daily as “drug dealers and traffickers, MS-13 gang members, murderers, and rapists.”

As early as in elementary school in Manila, Philippines, we learned the essential requirements of good journalism, particularly in the straight-news reporting format including accuracy, balance, clarity, fairness, impartiality, and especially perspective. 

A reporter’s opinion, stance, or view, has no place in a straight-news reporting, the journalism professor emphasized in high school-level workshops. So these days when I read front-page straight-news reports in US newspapers, this question comes up in my mind over and over: Is this the writer’s personal opinion? If so, should it not be in the Opinion or Op-Ed section?. 

Is it any surprise that in a January 2018 Pew Research Center poll involving 38 countries, the title itself highlighted that the US public had the greatest dissatisfaction with its news media and its ability to deliver unbiased coverage?: Publics Globally Want Unbiased News Coverage but Are Divided on Whether Their News Media Deliver: Deep political divides in many nations on satisfaction with news media; greatest is in the US.

One of the most important findings of this study, quoting the report, was this: “The survey finds that a median of 75 percent across 38 countries say it is never acceptable for a news organization to favor one political party over others when reporting the news.”

The Washington Examiner summarized the poll results in the headline: US media bias ranks worst in the world

In the politically-divided US, the highest scores given news media were 61 for perspective, a low 58 for balance, just 56 for accuracy, and a very low 47 for fairness. 

In contrast, Philippine respondents in the same poll held the second highest regard for their news media. Being a columnist for the Philippines Daily Tribune, I’m keenly aware of the slogan on our masthead: “Without Fear, Without Favor.” The American news media might learn something from such a simple slogan from their oceanic neighbors. 

Kumar Balani is founder, publisher, and editor-in-chief since 2002, of Biz India Online News and has an AB Journalism degree from the University of the Philippines and an MA in International Politics from New York University. His US-based Sunday column appears in the Philippines Daily Tribune.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WHAT NEXT ???

Bergoglians are the party of Apostasy, and no one can deny it NOW!

4 Feb19

by The Editor

fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/bergoglians-are-the-party-of-apostasy-and-no-one-can-deny-it-now/

4qFhChDn

Today, if not beforehand, Jorge Mario Bergoglio publicly and manifestly apostatized from the Catholic Faith, when he signed the “Human Fraternity Document” which professes all religions to be “willed by God in His wisdom.”

According to The National, Bergoglio signed the “Human Fraternity Document” in Abu-dhabi today (see link for more photos).

The Human Fraternity Meeting official website gives the text of the document: the outrageous affirmation is found under the second bullet point, which reads:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Apostasy is apostay, whether you apostasize in the bathtub or on the papal throne; whether you do so out of fear of being slain by a Jihadi or whether you do so for a pot of porrige, an invite form George Soros, or a photo op.  The reason or cause or motive can be different, but the result is the same: you reject faith in the One True God.

While a man may apostasize by embracing a non-Christian Faith, such as Judaism or Islam, he can apostatize also by affirming that which destroys the entire faith.  Thus, its apostasy to say such things as, “God does not exist” or “God is a devil”.

If you were to say God wills that religions be different and many, then you have also apostasized, because you are saying that God is indifferent to religion. But the god who is indifferent to religion is not the Christian God. So by saying such a thing, you have taken as your god, the Father of Lies.

Some of the most fundamental names of God, of which no Christian can feign ignorance, is that God is True, One, Good and exists. To deny any of these is apostasy.

Perhaps a Modernist, who is trained somewhat in canon law, will say that you cannot know with certitude that anyone is an apostate — if you are a Modernists, you do not believe in objective religious truth, so its to be expected that you say such a thing — but as Catholics we know that the certitude of conclusions flows infallibly from the certitude of principles and facts and laws.

In canon 1364 §1, the Pope levels excommunication latae sententiae against all apostates, even if they  be the Pope.  This is how the Pope in promulgating the Code of Canon Law protects Catholics from future popes who apostatize.  Those who have not the faith will say, the Code of Canon law does not bind the pope (though canon 38 contradicts them), or that to deny God is the author of only 1 true religion is not apostasy (they will attempt to pretend that Judaism of old still exists, and that Talmudic Judaism is not another false religion). But Catholics know better.

Finally, they will call Catholics names for saying what I just said. Maybe they will even call me a “sedevacantist” — I am not, becauase I hold with Canon 332 §2 that Benedict is still the pope —but no Catholic, even those who still think that Benedict’s resignation is valid, are sedevacantists for holding such things, as its simply common sense to say that Bergoglio is an apostate when he publicly signs a document which contains such a statement.

Please put your local priest on notice about what Bergoglio said, and INSIST that his name no longer be mentioned in the Canon. Catholics are right to disrupt the Mass, if need be, to shout down anyone who thinks otherwise. We have this right, because God is a God of Truth, He is no condoner of falsehood of any kind. And our Baptism requires that we hold fast with God in this.

Please put your Favorite Cardinal on notice. Write or call or email him, however you can contact him. Remind him, that if he will not stand up and defend God as the author of One True Religion, he is an apostate too.

Remind the clergy, in particular, that if some sort of division arises among those who say that Bergoglio is by this an apostate and that he is not by this an apostate, that the division is not caused by those who say he is, but by Bergoglio for signing such a document, and by those who refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of that sin. Therefore, if anyone should be quiet and shut up, its the latter 2 groups, not Catholics who agree with what I have written here!

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Cardinal Dolan OF New York ARCHDIOCESE HAS LOST THE RESPECT OF CATHOLICS NOT ONLY IN New York BUT AROUND THE WORLD BY HIS REFUSAL TO TAKE A HARD STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE INFANTICIDE BILL SIGNED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO

COMPLETELY MENTAL

Touched. Off his rocker. Out to lunch.

CHURCH MILITANT

February 4, 2019  

T

New Yorkers have a local expression, “That guy’s mental” — as in, “Hey, Louie’s mental.” It’s not a compliment. It means pretty much what it sounds like, that there’s something wrong upstairs.

Well, for the record, Cardinal Dolan’s mental. His reaction and media comments following Governor Cuomo signing the new state abortion law reveals some serious issues upstairs with His Eminence.

He says Cuomo shouldn’t be excommunicated because it would be giving ammo to the enemy — that the Left would seize on the excommunication and portray Cuomo in a sympathetic light. Yeah, they probably would — so what? Is that worse than allowing the world to think — or actually realize — that U.S. bishops are lily-livered cowards when it comes to the hard truths.

Dolan claims it would be counter-productive. What a stupid analysis; counter-productive to what, exactly? What’s counter-productive is letting the world think leaders in the Church don’t think this is a big deal, and what’s worse, other Catholics think it’s not a big deal.

But then again, based on decades of inaction, the world already thinks that. So here’s an opportunity to actually begin to turn things around and set the record straight. The reality is Dolan is an emasculated wimp who looks for excuses to avoid teaching Church teaching.

For example, when he was on FOX & Friends answering questions from the hosts about all this, FOX actually took down and edited out part of the live interview where Dolan simply got it wrong about Church teaching.

He said, in sum, that those involved in an abortion are not excommunicated, in direct defiance of existing canon law. Here’s the exchange:

Steve Doocy: “Have the rules changed inside the Catholic Church, because it used to be pretty black and white about ‘yes, no,’ now you’re saying, ‘Come back.'”

Cardinal Dolan: “Yes, you would say, yeah, you would say that it used to be pretty, pretty clean that an abortion would cause the excommunication not only of the one who did it, people who encourage it and the one who had it. The Church, in the last 50 years, beginning with Pope John Paul II and especially intensified under Pope Francis, has said, ‘I don’t know if that’s Gospel values here’ because mercy trumps everything.”

And this is where we can freely say: Dolan’s mental.

What he said is simply incorrect. Here is canon law — existing, on the books right now — canon law 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication” — meaning, kill the unborn baby and you are automatically excommunicated as well as the “doctor” other personnel and friends or family who conspired in the killing.

Sorry, Cardinal Dolan, you’re wrong — flat out wrong. There are exceptions to the canon — for example, someone physically forced against her will, or a child, but those are exceptions. The rule is the rule, and Dolan seems to have no knowledge of it. And he doesn’t get to say unchallenged that “oh, we are more merciful than that now.”

First of all, that’s wrong, so either he is flat out lying, which can’t be taken off the table, or he is woeful, this prince of the Church, woefully malformed in what the Church actually teaches. Neither option is good.

Secondly, the implication is that for the past 2,000 years the Church has been unmerciful. After all, in a first-century teaching manual — 1900 years old — the Didache, willful abortion incurred expulsion from the sacraments for 10 years.

The Didache was the first recorded teachings of the Apostles themselves. So Dolan says the Apostles were unmerciful. The man is flat out mental. And then, he writes an opinion article in the New York Post where he asks the question, “Why are Cuomo and Democrats alienating Catholics?” — again proving he’s gone completely mental.

The answer, Your Eminence, is because you and so many of your worldly emasculated brethren in the episcopate have been so busy watering down the Faith and confusing them that there aren’t really that many of them left.

Cuomo, being a prime example of that, has done the political calculus and the answer is they don’t give a rip about alienating Catholics because there are so few left that they make no difference at the polls in New York as well as many other places.

Secondly, Dolan and the rest of his mental crowd are the ones who actually helped get these guys elected and keep them elected by their constant sucking up to them and wanting to be seen in pictures with them and rubbing elbows with them and hobnobbing. It’s disgusting. Have some dignity for the love of God. Know your office.

For 10 years in New York, Dolan has been on a PR tour of the local media with his stupid bombastic laugh and “aw shucks” fake persona, thinking he could somehow charm people into believing the truth.

Dolan is viewed as a huckster, a snake oil salesman or a bad used car dude who has nothing to sell that anyone is interested in.

But he has had the prestige of his office — which has eroded tremendously under the weight of his reign — which still has another five years to go — talk about people needing mercy; resign already.

And because of his office, the media love to play him and follow him around and put his picture on the papers; and being mental, he’s believed all of that is good and helpful to the Faith. It reinforces his own bloated self-importance, which is the butt of jokes behind his back.

But — and this is the problem when someone is mental — they don’t understand the world around them. They aren’t plugged in because they lack the capacity to understand the obvious.

Dolan is 0 for 4 in his political dealings. He has been played and used in every political cause he has gone after. First, he lost — if he ever really cared about it — the gay marriage fight in the state back in 2011.

Second, he lost the state funding for Catholic education initiative, something lawmakers, including Cuomo, were never going to give him. And for that deal, he allowed gays into the St. Patrick’s Day parade — and they stabbed him in the back anyway.

Dance with the devil and, well, you know what happens.

Next, Dolan and the gang claiming to care about the abortion law, and he loses that in staggering fashion — unanimous vote in the New York state senate and almost unanimous vote in the state assembly.

And then the fourth “rock his world” defeat is the new law extending the statute of limitations for suing the Church for all their sodomite priests raping altar boys — which they deserve.

Dolan is completely mental, and the reason he is is because he long ago gave up the only job he is supposed to be doing: defending souls. He has been a boy in a man’s game with New York’s Killer Catholic politicos, and they have chopped him to pieces.

Dolan is owned by Cuomo, so much so that Dolan believes the teachings of the Church have changed — completely mental.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Cardinal Dolan OF New York ARCHDIOCESE HAS LOST THE RESPECT OF CATHOLICS NOT ONLY IN New York BUT AROUND THE WORLD BY HIS REFUSAL TO TAKE A HARD STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE INFANTICIDE BILL SIGNED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO

THE COWARDICE OF BISHOPS WHO ARE SO AFRAID OF BEING CALLED CONSERVATIVE FOR INVOKING THE CANONICAL PENALTY OF EXCOMMUNICATION AGAINST ABORTIONISTS AND THOSE POLITICIANS WHO ENABLE ABORTION-ON-DEMAND UP TO THE MOMENT OF DELIVERY OF THE UNBORN CHILD IS AN ABOMINATION THAT CRIES TO HEAVEN FOR PUNISHMENT !!!

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Pope John Paul II rebuked Peters, US Bishops & Francis: “The Excommunication… includes those Accomplices [to]… Abortion”

Pope John Paul II rebuked Ed Peters’ claim that abortion accomplice Andrew Cuomo can’t be excommunicated in Evangelium Vitae, 62:

“The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime… and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed… abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime… excommunication is to… foster genuine conversion and repentance.”
(The reproach of Christ, Catholic theologian  Ronald Conte Jr., “Contra Ed Peters on Excommunication for Abortion,” September 9, 2015)

In fact, Pope John Paul II rebuked not only Peters, but Cardinal Timothy Dolan and all the United States bishops except for Bishop René Gracida and, it appears possibly, about five other US bishops.

Moreover, he rebuked Pope Francis who lauded as “a great Italian” abortionist Emma Bonino who was “directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of approximately six million Italian babies.”(LifeSiteNews, “Notorious abortionist lauded by Pope Francis to speak at church in Italy,” July 19, 2017)

Look at what the bishops and Francis do, not to the lip service they give to protecting the unborn babies. And remember what Jesus said about doing:

“Then he will answer, ‘In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.'”

“‘And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.'”

Francis, the bishops, everyone reading this and I should tremble in our boots as we read Our Lord’s words. Joseph and Mary pray to Jesus that we receive the grace to do what He asks.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Fred Martinez at 5:37 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Saint John Paul II SENT ME TO Corpus Christi TO CLOSE THE THREE ABORTUARIES IN THE CITY NAMED FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST AND I DID BY EXCOMMUNICATING THE ABORTIONISTS

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Pope John Paul II rebuked Peters, US Bishops & Francis: “The Excommunication… includes those Accomplices [to]… Abortion”

Pope John Paul II rebuked Ed Peters’ claim that abortion accomplice Andrew Cuomo can’t be excommunicated in Evangelium Vitae, 62:

“The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime… and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed… abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime… excommunication is to… foster genuine conversion and repentance.”
(The reproach of Christ, Catholic theologian  Ronald Conte Jr., “Contra Ed Peters on Excommunication for Abortion,” September 9, 2015)

In fact, Pope John Paul II rebuked not only Peters, but Cardinal Timothy Dolan and all the United States bishops except for Bishop René Gracida and, it appears possibly, about five other US bishops.

Moreover, he rebuked Pope Francis who lauded as “a great Italian” abortionist Emma Bonino who was “directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of approximately six million Italian babies.”(LifeSiteNews, “Notorious abortionist lauded by Pope Francis to speak at church in Italy,” July 19, 2017)

Look at what the bishops and Francis do, not to the lip service they give to protecting the unborn babies. And remember what Jesus said about doing:

“Then he will answer, ‘In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.'”

“‘And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.'”

Francis, the bishops, everyone reading this and I should tremble in our boots as we read Our Lord’s words. Joseph and Mary pray to Jesus that we receive the grace to do what He asks.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Fred Martinez at 5:37 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Saint John Paul II SENT ME TO Corpus Christi TO CLOSE THE THREE ABORTUARIES IN THE CITY NAMED FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST AND I DID BY EXCOMMUNICATING THE ABORTIONISTS

WITH THE PASSAGE OF EACH DAY THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCH BECOMES MORE DANGEROUS. A SPECIAL ‘CONCLAVE’ OF TWELVE GOOD CARDINALS MUST BE HELD SOON.

While the good Cardinals must try to determine the identity of those cardinals who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, it is not my understanding that the reality of the excommunication, in fact, requires “due process” or that 
it is “rash judgment” in every case for a member of the faithful, especially a lay 
person, to make a private determination in conscience that the last supposed 
conclave was null and void.  It is true that, but for the gravest reasons, a lay 
person should not proclaim or publicize such a judgment unless and until the 
College of Cardinals exercises their ongoing competence to make those 
necessary judgments within their canonical jurisdiction.  But, a priest, for 
example, who is offered a Bergoglian appointment as a bishop could and 
should rightly arrive at the conclusion that any putative Bergoglian 
pontifical mandate supposedly appointing him as a bishop would be null and 
void, and without stating that, in conscience simply decline being elevatedto the office of bishop.  And, without an eventual (sooner rather than later) 
rectification of the College of Cardinals membership, the undeclared real 
invalidity will spread to the point that The Church is both without a valid 
Successor of Saint Peter, and absent divine intervention in human history, 
without any valid mechanism to obtain a new Successor of Saint Peter.  
This situation would leave the world, the human race, without the grace 
of The Papacy, but with a randomly (e.g., some Catholic, some Orthodox) 
valid episcopal hierarchy suchwise that we can synthesize two superficiallyopposing prophecies:  the prophecy that Our Lord Jesus will remain with 
us in the Sacraments, especially The Eucharist [“And behold, I (in The Most Blessed Sacrament) am with you always, untilthe end of the age.”  Matthew 28:20b (NAB)], 
with the prophecy stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶677
[“The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, 
when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.  .   .   .  God’s triumph 
over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic
upheaval of this passing world.”]  The Church then, in a very real sense, as an
integrated whole, can suffer death with the destruction of the means to have a true 
and valid Supreme Pontiff, yet The Lord Jesus can remain in the Sacraments through 
a less unified and somewhat disparate, yet validly ordained hierarchy. 

N. de PlumeUn ami des Papes______

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WITH THE PASSAGE OF EACH DAY THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCH BECOMES MORE DANGEROUS. A SPECIAL ‘CONCLAVE’ OF TWELVE GOOD CARDINALS MUST BE HELD SOON.

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE STATUS OF CARDINALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SCANDAL OF THE CONCLAVE THAT ELECTED FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL

Excommunication of Cardinals





CFeb 1, 2019, 4:27 PM (2 days ago)
to me

Your Excellency Bishop Rene H. Gracida:

Of all the perplexing issues facing Catholics in this time of crisis, the most delicate topic of them all deals with the validity of the current papacy. It is an area in which canonists must tread lightly, and my usual policy, when asked for my opinion, is to leave the question open. However, I am writing now, after having read this recent blog post, due to some concerns I have with the author’s reasoning.

First it would seem prudent to clarify that I fully believe that due to the arguments Your Excellency has made regarding Universi Dominici Gregis, as well as arguments in favour of the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation, there is enough cause for doubt. In addition, in voicing my objections to the post, I am not attempting to defend Francis (or his various heresies) in any way, shape, or form, and I believe there definitely should be an investigation into the validity of his papacy. If an investigation were to reveal that he was never a true Pope, I would be happy for the Church to be freed from this scourge. And yet, before this investigation is done, it appears that in some instances we have come dangerously close to putting the cart before the horse. 

At this stage, I do not feel comfortable taking sides in the debate regarding the validity of Benedict’s resignation; however, it is not necessary in order to point out that Br. Bugnolo’s arguments concerning excommunication are flawed because the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation has not been proved in the external forum, and because allegations of canonical crime can only be definitely ascertained by the competent authority. While he is correct in stating that “to call a conclave when there is still a true Pope…is illicit”, his appeal to canon 359 is a non-starter. It is not up to any individual Catholic, using his own private judgement, to declare a conclave invalid. If the College of Cardinals has the authority to elect the new Pope during periods of sede vacante, they likewise have the authority to determine when this is necessary. Though these Cardinals could very well be in error regarding the (in)validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation, rendering an investigation necessary, Br. Bugnolo errs in building his entire argument upon an alleged fact not yet proved in the external forum. 

Even assuming that he is correct in his belief that the resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid, thus making Francis an usurper, the logic he employs in his attempt to prove that the Cardinals are excommunicated contain quite a few canonical errors. To begin, he appears to have a misunderstanding of canon 1382, as though episcopal consecrations performed without a pontifical mandate are intrinsically schismatic actions. This is impossible, as demonstrated by the fact that under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the penalty for illicit consecrations was “merely” suspension, rather than excommunication (c. 2370). Thus, his use of the word “ordain” throughout his article is misleading; “appoint” would be more appropriate to describe the situation in the case he outlines. Merely consecrating a bishop without the proper mandate is not an act of schism, unless those performing the consecration pretend to confer jurisdiction upon the newly ordained, implying that the consecrating bishop is appointing somebody to begin a rival hierarchy. 

Pius XII, who changed the old canon 2370 and set the precedent for canon 1382 of the new Code, saw the schismatic action as referring to the unapproved appointment of the bishop to an ecclesiastical office with jurisdiction, rather than the sacramental consecration itself. He speaks of the “canonical appointment” of bishops, decreeing that no one except for the Supreme Pontiff “can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See” (Ad Apostolorum Principis, 47). What is schismatic is not the consecration itself, but the pretended conferral of jurisdiction signifying canonical appointment, because “jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff” (ibid., 39). Performing the unauthorized juridic act of appointing a bishop without papal approval is indeed schismatic, but performing the unauthorized sacramental act of consecration in itself is not. 

This error aside, Br. Bugnolo is correct in stating that if Pope Francis were not validly elected, the Cardinals who elected him, as well as the Bishops appointed by him, would have been cooperating in acts of usurpation, objectively speaking. (Whether they are subjectively culpable is another matter.) He is also correct in stating that those who are guilty of supporting an Antipope are liable to a latae sententiae excommunication for schism, in accordance with canon 1364. However, to conclude from here that these prelates are excommunicated due to their cooperation, as per canon 1329 §2, is still an act of rash judgement. Here, Br. Bugnolo demonstrates a misunderstanding of the true nature of latae sententiae penalties, first indicated by his misleading translation of the precise Latin term as “automatic”, which subsequently leads to an error regarding the need (or lack thereof) for competent authority in such cases.

Ascertaining a latae sententiae penalty also requires canonical competence, something not possessed by just any ordinary individual, even though the penalty occurs “by the law itself”. This is not to say that an individual Catholic does not have the ability to recognize canonical crimes when he sees them, but merely that he has no right to ascertain, on his own, that a latae sententiaecensure has taken place, and hold to that opinion definitively. It is only through due process, established by ecclesiastical law, that the entire Church may know for certain who has incurred a censure. Because the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals (c. 1405 §1, 2°), and in such cases the incompetence of any other judge is absolute (c. 1406 §2), his authority is necessary to definitively ascertain a canonical crime on the part of any Cardinal, even if he does not subsequently confirm this judgement with a decree. If the 2013 Conclave were indeed invalid (again, this is not certain), then as of now, only Benedict XVI would have the authority to determine if any Cardinals are guilty of usurpation. 

Furthermore, Br. Bugnolo’s appeal to canon 15 §2, which establishes that “ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed” is irrelevant. An assertion, legally speaking, cannot be considered a true “fact” until it is proved in the external forum, while the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation has not yet been held up to this type of scrutiny yet. Therefore, his claim that any Cardinal who reads the text of Benedict XVI’s resignation and notices the problematic uses of munus and ministerium is ipso facto culpable is incorrect, and for another reason as well. If a Cardinal concluded today that the resignation was invalid, and supposing his conclusion is ultimately proved correct by an ecclesiastical tribunal, how can it be presumed that he was of a similar mind in 2013 and thus engaged in the election while having guilty knowledge? 

Finally, Br. Bugnolo’s point regarding the Cardinals not “verifying” the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation, added almost as an afterthought, is a strange remark. Not only does he not provide any citations for the claim that “in the case of a papal resignation, there is no such presumption [of validity]”, his own citation of canon 322 §2 undermines his own argument. A Pope’s resignation does not have to be accepted by anyone for validity, and nor is it written that the Cardinals are responsible for letting the rest of the world know about this, if the Pope himself has manifested his intention. 

In short, it is not up for an individual Catholic to decide on something which has never been investigated by the competent authorities in the external forum. One may honestly hold to the opinion that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid, or that the validity Francis’s election is subject to positive doubt, but to behave as though this is the only correct viewpoint betrays a schismatic mentality. To go even further and be as audacious as to judge the Cardinals excommunicated without due process is also contrary to the law of justice, usurping the authority which belongs to the Supreme Pontiff alone and denying the canonical rights of these Cardinals to be judged with canonical equity. 

To present a position such as Br. Bugnolo’s without making it explicitly clear that this is private opinion, has the potential to give scandal to the faithful who are already bewildered over today’s crisis.  It is not at all conducive to the salvation of souls, the Church’s mission and supreme law. 

I will keep Your Excellency in my prayers, trusting you will do the same for me. 

Respectfully in Christ, 

credidimus caritati


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

UNLIKE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL WHO HAS A HISTORY OF LOVING DICTATORS BEGINNING WITH PERON, POPE Pius XII ACTUALLY WAS PARTY TO THE PLOT TO REMOVE ADOLPH HITLER FROM POWER


  • Catholic League for Civil & Religious Rights

WHEN THE POPE TRIED TO REMOVE HITLER FROM POWER IN GERMANY

Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler
by Mark Riebling
Basic Books, New York, 2015
375 pages, $29.99.

Ronald J. Rychlak

Pope Pius XII and the Nazis: far too many writers have wandered into this fascinating subject without bringing anything new to the table. Many of the late pope’s critics have simply repeated information that appeared in already discredited books and articles, but even some supporters have done little more than parrot earlier accounts. Thus, as one who has read almost all of the books on the topic, I approached Mark Riebling’s Church of Spies cautiously.

The first chapter seemed promising as it covered the outbreak of World War II and the new pope’s first encyclical, Summi Pontifictus and its striking condemnation of racism. Unlike many other writers, Riebling acknowledged Pius XII’s profound and express statement that there was no room for distinction between Gentiles and Jews in the Catholic Church. That was good, but Riebling also wrote about the perception that Pius was insufficiently outspoken and the problems that created between Catholics and Jews. It looked like the book might go either way, but then Riebling came out with a line that smacks the reader upside the head: “The last day during the war when Pius publicly said the word ‘Jew’ is also, in fact, the first day history can document his choice to help kill Adolf Hitler.” Fasten your seatbelt; you’re in for one heck of a ride.

It has long been known that the pope tipped off the Allies about at least one planned coup attempt and certain German troop movements, and other writers have noted that Pius was involved on the periphery with efforts to topple Hitler. Riebling, however, uses documents from German, Italian, Vatican, and other archives to prove that rather than being on the periphery, Pius was deeply involved in the various plots to assassinate Hitler.

The assassination plot began inside the German high command in August 1939. Hitler had already ordered the extermination of those who were mentally or physically defective, he had begun his war against the Jews, and he was just days away from invading Poland. He called together his top generals and admirals to brace them for the invasion, which would be carried out with “merciless severity.” The Führer, who saw Catholicism as incompatible with Nazism and particularly hated Pope Pius XII, capped off his talk by saying that he would “snuff out the least flicker of Polish strength by liquidating thousands of Catholic priests.”

The head of German military intelligence, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, had once admired Hitler. A year earlier, however, he became disillusioned when
Hitler began turning ferociously on Germany’s own citizens, including some German officers. Although he was a Protestant, extermination of Catholic priests was the final straw. Canaris already had a small circle of like-minded friends. Now they made the fateful decision to depose Hitler, even if they had to kill him.

The logistics of any coup would be complicated enough, but the Canaris group was also concerned about how the Allies would respond. They did not want to see a repeat of the Treaty of Versailles, the harshness of which had assisted Hitler’s ascendance to power. They needed to communicate and coordinate with the Allies.

The question was how to make contact with Allied leadership. Canaris determined that the only person with sufficient prestige and freedom to act was the pope. Canaris had known the future pope as a Vatican diplomat in Germany back in the 1920s. He knew about Pius XII’s many talents and his utter disdain for Hitler. He just needed someone to help him make contact.

Munich attorney Josef Müller was a war hero and devout Catholic who had represented the Church against the Reich in legal matters. Riebling described him as “part Oskar Schindler, part Vito Corleone.” In 1934, Müller survived a beating and interrogation at the hands of SS Commander Heinrich Himmler, who asked the lawyer about a controversy that had taken place in Bavaria. Without apology, Müller admitted that he had advised the Bavarian prime minister to have Himmler killed. Impressed by his courage, Himmler invited Müller to join the SS. Müller replied: “I am philosophically opposed to you. I am a practicing Catholic, and my brother is a Catholic priest. Where could I find the possibility of compromise there?” Himmler appreciated this “manly defense,” and let the lawyer go. This made Müller somewhat of a legend even among Hitler loyalists.

Riebling introduces Müller in the prologue to Church of Spies. He is in leg irons at Flossenbürg concentration camp in 1945, hands tied behind his back, and forced to “eat his food like a dog from a plate on the floor.” On the next page, he is being led to the gallows. The chapters that follow explain how and why he got there.

In addition to being an attorney, Müller was a pilot, and he often traveled to Rome on business. So, in 1939, when the conspirators tapped him as their messenger, his trips did not draw undue attention. For his first mission, German intelligence gave him a dossier of Nazi atrocities in Poland. He flew to Rome and asked the pontiff’s top assistants whether Pius would be willing to contact the British government and ask for support.

Not only did Pius XII agree to assist the conspirators, saying “the German opposition must be heard,” he also mobilized Catholic religious orders, especially the Jesuits and Dominicans. These orders did not report to local bishops, who might be susceptible to Nazi pressure, but to leaders of their orders, who reported directly to the pope. The head of the Jesuits in Northern Germany, Augustin Rösch, had been battling the Gestapo since well before World War II, and he became the driving force behind the pope’s team in Germany. Rösch linked his group with the military intelligence unit headed by Canaris and worked on planning the coup.

Müller also built a spy network among “army, college, and law-school friends with access to Nazi officials—a community of the well-informed, who worked in newspapers, banks, and even … the SS itself.” His office soon became a clearinghouse of information for the Vatican.

The issue of a political assassination, even of Hitler, raised many questions. Riebling, however, explained that: “Over the centuries, Catholic theologians had developed a nuanced doctrine of tyrannicide, covering virtually every conceivable context.” After peaceful means had been exhausted, the assassination of a tyrant could be justified if it would improve conditions in a subjugated nation without sparking a civil war. Unfortunately, Lutheran and Calvinist generals were tied to a Protestant theory of state authority, and they had a much harder time justifying such an action.

Although initially suspicious, British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and Francis D’Arcy Osborne, British ambassador to the Holy See, were won over by the pope’s personal intervention. They would negotiate with “The Decent Germany” if Hitler could be removed. Unfortunately, there were many doubts in high British circles, and the Allies failed to take advantage of much reliable information.

The plotters organized several attempts on Hitler’s life, but he had “the luck of the devil,” surviving repeated assassination attempts. He canceled speeches without knowing that snipers were in position and ready to take him out. He missed parades where bombs were set to explode. Plotters attempted to kill him by blowing up his plane, but the bomb didn’t go off. By shifting a meeting from a concrete bunker to a wooden barracks, Hitler evaded another attempt, memorialized in the movie Valkyrie.

Resistance to the Führer at home began to melt away after his military victories in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and France. Outside of Germany, others began to lose patience with the conspirators. Upon becoming prime minister, Winston Churchill put no faith in “decent Germans” taking out Hitler.

German military intelligence eventually learned about Müller’s work with the pope and brought him in for questioning. The lawyer was shocked when they asked him to work with them against Hitler. They gave him a cover story. He was to be a German operative using his contacts with the Vatican to spy on Italians. He would do this by posing as a conspirator seeking out Italians who might rally against Mussolini. “Müller would advance the war effort by pretending to talk peace,” explained Riebling. “But he would only be pretending to be pretending.” He actually was the anti-Axis plotter that he was pretending to be. Müller, of course, informed the Vatican of what was going on. It dramatically escalated the risk and potential reward of the pope’s work with Müller.

At this point, Vatican officials introduced the German lawyer to the concept of Disciplina Arcani—the “way of secrecy.” Those involved in the Vatican spy ring developed code names. Müller was known as “Herr X,” and Pius XII was called “the Chief.” Some high security meetings were held in the most secure place possible, excavation sites under Vatican City.

Plotters from Germany’s intelligence services asked “the Chief” to keep quiet: “Singling out the Nazis,” one later explained, “would have made the German Catholics even more suspected than they were and would have restricted their freedom of action in their work of resistance.” Explaining this to a French diplomat, Pius once said: “You know which side my sympathies lie. But I cannot say so.”

In 1943, as the SS narrowed its focus, a member of German intelligence finally revealed the names of the conspirators. Müller’s dramatic flights across the Alps came to an end, and the Gestapo found his secret files, including the conditions that the plotters had established to kill Hitler, which were printed on Vatican letterhead. This sent Müller into Dachau for the remainder of the war.

When Mussolini was ousted in July 1943, Hitler ordered a division of paratroopers to the borders of St. Peter’s Square. “On one side stood German soldiers in black boots and steel helmets, with carbines on their shoulders and Lugers on their hips. On the other side were the Pope’s Swiss Guards, in ruffled tunics and plumed hats, holding medieval pikes in white gloves.” Fortunately, Hitler’s advisors talked him out of an immediate invasion, though Hitler vowed to finish the job after the war.

Hitler ultimately avoided assassination and died by his own hand, but not before the SS tracked down the resistance. The SS interrogated conspirators, tortured them, and executed or sent them to concentration camps. Some were subjected to show trials before being publicly executed.

Church of Spies reads so well that one is inclined not to reveal what happened to Müller and Rösch (spoiler alert: it’s not as bad as the prologue might suggest). In fact, that aspect of Church of Spies, involving multiple death sentences, paperwork problems, and well-timed favors, could be a book unto itself.

 Church of Spies reads like an adventure novel, but it is documented history. It explains the virtually universal perception of Pius XII during and after the war as a staunch opponent of the Nazis and defender of the Jews. It also reveals Moscow’s perception that Pius was anti-Soviet, which certainly could account for the post-war assault on his reputation. It’s a great read and an enormously important book.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2016/06/17/pius-xii-active-conspirator-three-anti-hitler-plots/

Pius XII was involved in plots to change the German regime, rather than to kill Hitler.  The documents show very clearly that both the plotters and the pope went well out of their way to avoid implicating the Vatican directly in political violence.  The Holy Father didn’t put out a “hit” on Hitler, like a Mafia don.  That said, Pius XII was a veteran diplomat, and no schoolboy.  I don’t think he was under any illusions that Hitler would personally survive these coups d’état.
The pope supported three of these coup plans. 

The first, from 1939 to 1940, aimed to end the war before Hitler invaded France. It collapsed because a lone-wolf communist nearly killed Hitler in a November 1939 bombing, and the SS imposed new security policies which denied the German military plotters access to explosives.

The second plot, which culminated in March 1943, failed because a bomb planted on Hitler’s plane failed to explode. The fuse froze when the plane climbed to a high altitude to evade Allied flak.

In the third plot, familiar to many through the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie, Catholic Colonel Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg wounded Hitler by detonating a briefcase bomb in a staff meeting. But Hitler survived – and the resulting crackdown decimated the German-Catholic resistance.

In each of these plots, Pius XII acted as the German plotters’ foreign agent. He managed their contacts with the Western allies and their intelligence services.

Pius was not merely a passive relayer of information; he was an active conspirator. He took the initiative to call midnight meetings with British agents at the Vatican, pushing them to take seriously the German plotters’ plans. In fact, as British Foreign Office records show, Pius’ personally vouching for the plotters’ anti-Nazi credentials was the key factor in London’s 1940 agreement to back the plots.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

OH THE HORROR! THE HORROR!!!!

Life & SoulLife and Soul

A biography of Bugnini paints a startling picture 

Fr Dominic Allain 31 January, 2019

The Catholic Herald, UK

Many facts once dismissed as conspiracy theories are shown to be historically accurate 

For Christmas I was given a copy of the newly translated biography of Annibale Bugnini, architect of the Novus Ordo Mass – and hero or éminence grise of the Council’s liturgical reforms, depending on your viewpoint. It is difficult not to tend towards the latter, though I don’t think the author intends it so.

Startling things emerge: many facts once dismissed as conspiracy theories because they were originally reported by those who opposed some reforms are here held to be historically accurate, perhaps the most notorious being the revelation that Eucharistic Prayer II was substantially composed in a Roman trattoria, since its authors were given only 24 hours for the task.

The tenuous thesis that the liturgical landscape of today is a direct outcome of the Council Fathers’ deliberations doesn’t survive a reading of this book. I suppose it is possible that the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills, can work through the manipulations of committees, but it seems it is to such manipulations that we owe much of the reform. Consider the following facts recounted in the text.

When Pope John called the Council he set up an ante-preparatory commission to survey the world’s bishops. The replies to this committee (of which Mgr Bugnini was the secretary) reveal a desire to reform the liturgy. In what sense? Out of 2,109 responses from bishops, just three expressed the desire to restore Communion under both kinds. There was a sizeable demand for limited use of the vernacular, but only one French bishop wanted the entire Mass in French. Cardinal Montini (later Pope Paul VI) argued forcibly for “an extended use” of the vernacular, saying that “unless we do so the faithful will leave the churches.’’

In fact the limited use of the vernacular (because the Fathers naively thought that’s what they would get) was so uncontroversial that even a French missionary bishop, Marcel Lefevbre, voted for it. How has this filtered down as the mantra that the Council “did away with” Latin?

And how did we end up with a pastoral reality that in so many ways contradicts what the Constitution of the Ecumenical Council says, or guards with rubricist rigidity things never sanctioned by the liturgical reforms? And why the continuing attempts to marginalise anyone or anything having recourse to the directives of the Council’s Liturgical Constitution?

For example, I recently visited a religious house where I was told that plainchant is banned. The Constitution says it is to occupy “pride of place” in the Roman liturgy, but if you suggested reintroducing it you would be accused of wanting to “turn the clock back”. Yes, to the very point at which the Church said reform begins.

Ask for how to get to somewhere in rural Ireland and your interlocutor will reply, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” It is clear that the approach of the committees responsible for preparing and implementing the liturgical Constitution took a similar approach. Many of their minutes record discussion of radical innovations like Bugnini’s own unauthorised experiments from the 1940s, and several practices which would subsequently be introduced in the name of the Council. The discussion is followed by the request to omit them from the preparatory schema for the Council or postpone specifying details until afterwards, precisely because the measures were too radical to be agreed by the bishops.

Reading this makes me angry. Perhaps Lefebvre had a point inasmuch as he realised that when it came to the liturgy, the Council was sold a pup.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is an excerpt from an email I just received from a priest I ordained when I was Auxiliary Bishop of Miami, Bishop Rene H. Gracida:

https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/when-it-came-to-liturgy-cardinal-bugnini-manipulated-the-council/

Coming up on the inevitable celebrations this year for the New Mass, (50th anniversary) this article above is a review of a significant new work about Archb Annibale Bugnini and the “reforms” of the Holy Mass after the close of the Second Vatican Council.  The reviewer, the Dominican Fr. Allain, says that reading the book made him angry.
—Me too, and just by reading his review.
I went into the seminary in late Aug of 1964;  by then 2 Sessions of the Council had already been completed.  The Decree on the Sacred Liturgy had been promulgated the year before, but the first significant implementation would only come a year later.
That would be Bugnini’s life-work, —to go way beyond what the Council called for.

Fr. John Young, cm, was the Vincentian Rector of my seminary then, St John Vianney In Miami and he served as “peritus” to Coleman Carroll through all four sessions of the Council.  In 1965 I remember him strongly, -positively, -assuring us before the “reforms” began that the ONLY thing we could expect to see would be the Mass Collects and the Readings to be in the vernacular.  EVERYTHING else in the Mass would remain in Latin; Gregorian Chant would be maintained.  
He did expect the vernacular to be more widely used in the  administration of the other sacraments, such as Confession, Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction and Holy Matrimony.    Indeed, this was already being done widely by rescript throughout the world, and had been done for some years.  E.g., even throughout High School, I remember, most of the absolution in confession was done in English.
It was Bugnini’s work and the cooperation of various other leftists that gave us the destruction of Chant and altars turned around.  It was that rapid revolution that destroyed sanctuaries and art and altar rails.  The same that produced such banal translations of the Liturgy and such tacky paper missals and decorations.
Yes, indeed, even 50 years later, we have a right to be angry.  
Father Allain is an honest man.


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments