Just A Hypocritical Farce From Beginning to End

Only the willfully blind, many though there may be who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the erroneous belief that they represent the Catholic Church, can refuse to see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the self-styled “merciful” and “humble” “pope” has been on a veritable crusade, if one can use such a “triumphalistic” phrase from the days of the “no church” that the Argentine Apostate disparages all the day, against “bishops” and religious communities who are deemed to be “traditionally-minded.”

The persecution of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate that was launched just months after Bergoglio’s “election” on March 13, 2013, is as of yet ongoing. All manner of Soviet-style false charges have been manufactured after the founder of these communities, Father Stefano Manelli. The “apostolic visitor” appointed to supervise these Franciscans’ “rehabilitation,” Father Fidenzio Volpi, has been merciless in carrying out Bergoglio’s agenda of pushing these semi-traditionally-minded to the “peripheries,” if you will, and to make them the brunt of the full force of “papal” authority.

There is a special irony in this, of course, in that it has long been the case that the Jacobin/Menshevik revolutionaries within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, although they preach “dialogue” and “encounter” as they rail constantly the “authoritarian” church that existed before the “Second” Vatican Council, while using their positions of power with complete arbitrariness by using the most brutal means available to them. “Openness” and “encounter” are one way streets with this penultimate hypocrites, men who hate the doctrine, liturgy and moral teaching of the Catholic Faith, a hatred that is simply part of their constitutional make-ups as revolutionaries.

To be sure, part of the conciliar revolutionaries’ hatred for the Holy Integrity of Faith, Worship and Morals stems from the fact that at least some of their number—and this understating the situation—are mired in unnatural, perverse sins against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law. Such people must invent new forms of art, architecture, music and “dogma” in order to reaffirm themselves and others in their chosen lives of unrepentant sin. Moreover, such perverts must “prove” to others how “Christian” they are by pretending to be champions of the “poor” and “marginalized” while, in effect, paganizing every aspect of what passes for “doctrine,” going so far as present Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as one who did not die for and redeem us from our sins but as a “doer of good deeds.”

This is why the conciliar revolutionaries make “environmentalism,” which is simply a code word for central government control of the economy and of what even private individuals are “permitted” to do on their own property, a centerpiece of their “dogma” even though it is nothing other than Druidism by another name. And it just “happens” to the case, of course, that “environmentalism” provides these revolutionaries with a perfect cover to preach openly in favoring of limiting the size of families, whether by natural, chemical or mechanical means, and of being indifferent to, if not completely supportive of, the destruction of innocent preborn life in their mothers’ wombs and “assistance suicide” in the name of “mercy” and “compassion.” Support for “environmentalism,” which has long been used in the world-at-large as a justification for stringent, if not mandatory, “population control,” has been a stable of the conciliar revolutionaries for decades now. It will soon become “dogma” when Jorge Mario Bergoglio issues his “green” encyclical letter.

As birds of an apostate feather stick together, they must band together to promote everything that is opposed to doctrine of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while seeking to crush, belittle, demean and humiliate those who hold even to a semblance of the Catholic Faith, making sure also to support and indemnify each other in their schemes, which derive from no other source than Antichrist himself.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, has seen to it that the radical, feminized pagans who belong to the “Leadership Conference for Women Religious” (LCWR) have been reaffirmed in their program just three years after the conciliar church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under the control of the protector and enabler of perverted clergy, William “Cardinal” Levada, a close friend of the likes as Roger “Cardinal” Mahony, Tod Brown and George Niederauer (who gave what purported to be Holy Communion to a group of drag queen perverts by the blasphemous name of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” on Sunday October 7, 2007, which is the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary and was “Respect Life Sunday” in American conciliar structures that year—see At the Very Doorstep of Joseph Ratzinger Himself and Rome's Forbearance With Sacrilege), issued a mild slap on the wrist that was considered to be “authoritarian” by LCWR. For the details of the “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR, please see Apostates Reprimanding Apostates).

It was never possible, of course, to compel the LCWC to adhere to the strictures of the conciliar Vatican when the false “pontiffs” and their associates have made warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth, thus unwittingly making their own pronouncements as "historically conditioned" and "time bound" by the dogmatic decrees issued by the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty legitimate councils and the encyclical letters issued by our true popes?

Bergoglio himself has, in essence, consigned the “doctrinal assessment” to the “past” now that each side--the American “bishops” committee that had been charged with the task of rendering the assessment and the LCWR--have come to a “mutual understanding.” In other words, the feminist pagans can go about their wretched business pretty much as usual:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican has unexpectedly ended its controversial overhaul of the main umbrella group of U.S. nuns, cementing a shift in tone and treatment of the U.S. sisters under the social justice-minded Pope Francis.

The Vatican said Thursday it had accepted a final report on its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and declared the "implementation of the mandate has been accomplished" nearly two years ahead of schedule. The umbrella group for women's religious orders had been accused of straying from church teaching.

The brief report stated the organization would have to ensure its publications have a "sound doctrinal foundation," and said steps were being taken for "safeguarding the theological integrity" of programs. But no major changes were announced and the direct Vatican oversight that the sisters considered a threat to their mission was over.

"I think there are still some questions about how this is going to play out, but that it concluded early was an overwhelming affirmation of what the sisters do," said Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a religious studies professor at Manhattan College.

The report's tone stood in stark contrast to the 2012 Vatican reform mandate, which said the nuns' group was in a "grave" doctrinal crisis. Vatican officials said the Leadership Conference had over-emphasized social justice issues when they should have also been fighting abortion, had undermined church teaching on homosexuality and the priesthood, and had promoted "radical feminist" themes in their publications and choice of speakers. The nuns' group called the allegations "flawed." But Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle was appointed to conduct a top to bottom overhaul of the conference.

Just last year, the head of the Vatican's doctrine office, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, sharply rebuked the nuns' group for its "regrettable" attitude and behavior during the process. He accused the LCWR of being in "open provocation" with the Holy See and U.S. bishops because they planned to honor a theologian, Sister Elizabeth Johnson, whose work had drawn sharp criticism from the U.S. bishops.

But on Thursday, leaders of the umbrella organization and the Vatican officials in charge of the overhaul released statements of mutual respect, and the sisters met in Rome for nearly an hour with Pope Francis. The Vatican released a photo of the nuns sitting across a table from a warmly smiling Francis.

The turnabout suggested possible papal intervention to end the standoff on amicable grounds before Francis' high-profile trip to the United States in September. The investigation, and a separate but parallel review of all women's religious orders, prompted an outpouring of support from the public for the sisters, who oversee the lion's share of social service programs for the church.

The review of the Leadership Conference emerged from decades of tensions within the church over the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Many religious sisters shed their habits and traditional roles, taking on higher-level professional work in hospitals and schools, with sisters increasingly focused on social justice issues. Theological conservatives grew concerned that the sisters were becoming too secular and too political, instead of focusing on traditional prayer life and faith. The tensions worsened as the number of American nuns dwindled from about 160,000 in 1970, to less than 50,000 today, and church leaders searched for a way to stem the losses.

Conservative-minded Catholics argued a return to tradition would help.

The investigation of the sisters' group began about seven years ago under Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, a German theologian who spent a quarter century as the Vatican's doctrine watchdog, after complaints from conservative U.S. bishops and influential Catholics about the organization's doctrinal soundness.

The first sign of a different outcome for the nuns' group came in December, when the Vatican's investigation of all women's religious orders ended with sweeping praise for the sisters for their selfless work caring for the poor.

On Thursday, Mueller said in a statement he was confident that the LCWR is now clear in its mission of showing its members a Christ-centered vision of religious life that is "rooted in the tradition of the church." Sister Sharon Holland, president of the nuns' group, said in a statement the process had been "long and challenging" but "we learned that what we hold in common is much greater than any of our differences."

The Vatican asked the sisters and church officials not to comment on the report for a month.

"Given the current moment in the church, with Francis emphasizing mercy and not judging and trying to see the best of what people are doing, they had to find a quiet way out of this," said Michele Dillon, a University of New Hampshire sociologist specializing in the Catholic Church. "What you'd love to hear directly from LCWR leaders is what exactly this oversight means. Who decides what's really the authentic doctrine?" (Vatican unexpectedly ends crackdown of US nun group.)

Who decides what’s really the authentic doctrine?

Well, Michele Dillon, it is not the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

A true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is the guarantor of the authenticity of Catholic doctrine as contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has revealed exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, though, believes that everything is a matter of “dialogue” and “encounter,” except, as noted earlier in this commentary, for those who have even a trace of an adherence to the “strictures” and “sterile” form of worship of that “no church” of yesteryear.

In Bergoglio’s false religious sect, therefore, the feminist pagans of the LCWR are simply reminded to maintain a “Christ-centered” approach to their work as though it has ever been necessary to remind consecrated religious of their mystical espousal to Christ the King as brides of His true Church, which is a remarkable commentary in and of itself, and conciliar “bishops” who are certainly deserving of being removed for their indemnification of, if not active participation in, perverted actions are appointed, promoted and retained at the direct desire of “Pope Francis” himself.

Meanwhile, of course, the former conciliar “bishop” of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri, Robert Finn, has become the latest conciliar “ordinary” associated with the “conservative” cult called Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God), to have his head handed to him by the “merciful” “Pope Francis.” Mind you, I carry no brief for Robert Finn, whose indemnification of “Father” Shawn Ratigan should have caused him to be removed by Bergoglio’s predecessors, the supposed “pope” of the “restoration,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Robert Finn’s crime in Bergoglio’s eyes, though, was not his indemnification of Shawn Ratigan, it was the fact that he was perceived to be “traditionally-minded” and thus not in accord with the false “pontiff’s” “merciful agenda of “going to the peripheries.”

Here is but a brief review of why Finn should have been removed by Ratzinger/Benedict, whose failure to do so provided Bergoglio with an expedient means of dispatching another supposed “traditionalist” in the name of “zero tolerance” to “protect” children while he, the Argentine Apostate, appoints, retains and promotes one perverted “bishop” and presbyter after another. The difference is, of course, that such men happen to be in a full, conscious and active “communion” with Bergoglio’s agenda:

A Jackson County grand jury has indicted Bishop Robert Finn and the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on misdemeanor charges of failure to report child abuse.

The charges, announced at a news conference today, make Finn — leader of the 134,000-member diocese — the highest-ranking Catholic official in the nation to face criminal prosecution in a child sexual abuse case.

The charges stemmed from the long-simmering controversy surrounding Father Shawn Ratigan, who is facing child pornography charges in Clay County and federal court.

“This is a significant charge,” said Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker. “To my knowledge, a charge like this has not been leveled before.”

In a statement, the diocese said its lawyers entered a plea of not guilty for the diocese. According to Gerald Handley and J.R. Hobbs, lawyers for Bishop Finn, the bishop also entered a plea of not guilty

“Bishop Finn denies any criminal wrongdoing and has cooperated at all stages with law enforcement, the grand jury, the prosecutor’s office, and the Graves Commission,” said Handley. “We will continue our efforts to resolve this matter.”

The charge against Finn carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The diocese faces only the fine.

Word of the charges quickly rippled through the Catholic world, drawing surprise.

“For a bishop to be indicted is absolutely extraordinary,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University and author of “Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church.”

“This is a first. And in terms of the Catholic Church, this is an extraordinary move which is going to signal that the times have changed. Neither people nor government are going to put up with any kind of activity that looks like a cover-up.”

Baker emphasized that the pursuit of the case was the result of a grand jury investigation.

“I’ve done my best to make sure that this was a fair process,” she said. “This has nothing — nothing — to do with the Catholic faith. This is about the facts of the case, nothing more. This is about protecting children.”

Baker said the grand jury issued a sealed indictment on Oct. 6, but Finn was out of the country and did not return until late Thursday. He and lawyers representing the diocese appeared in court shortly before the news conference and entered their pleas, Baker said.

Finn and the diocese had reasonable cause to believe that the Ratigan may have abused a child but did not report it to authorities between Dec. 16, 2010, and May 11, 2011, the indictment alleged. Evidence of that concern, the indictment said, was previous suspicions about Ratigan’s behavior around children and the discovery in December 2010 of hundreds of photos of children on Ratigan’s laptop.

Those photos included images of a child’s [private parts]and upskirt pictures focusing on the child’s crotch.

Finn and the diocese also must have had concerns about Ratigan’s conduct because they had restricted him from being around children after the laptop images were discovered, according to the charges.

A diocesan official reported Ratigan to police on May 11.

State law includes clergy as those who are required to report child abuse when they suspect it.

The grand jury did not charge Monsignor Robert Murphy, Finn’s vicar general and second in command, who handled much of the diocese’ response to the Ratigan case as it developed in the winter and the spring.

Baker declined to comment on Murphy’s role in the case. Like Finn, Murphy has cooperated with authorities investigating the case and appeared at least twice before local grand juries. Jackson County court records also list him as the highest ranking cleric available to testify for prosecutors.

Two local parishioners were saddened and troubled by news of the charges.

Matthew Copple of Gladstone, whose child attends St. Patrick School, said he was troubled.

“The man may have been guilty of incompetence and negligence but I do not see him as a criminal,” Copple said. “That seems wrong to me. Let’s punish the people who committed the deed. I don’t see the need for the bishop to have a criminal record or be guilty of a crime.”

Mike Murtha, attends St. John Francis Regis for 19 years, said he would continue to support Finn.

“It is sad that it has come to that,” Murtha said. “He has admitted to his failings and we will continue to pray for him.”

The Jackson County grand jury began meeting after federal authorities filed child pornography charges against Ratigan this year. According to the findings of the diocese’s own recent investigation, church officials knew for five months about troubling photos of young girls on Ratigan’s computer and did not formally notify police or state child abuse authorities. Under Missouri law, clergy must report any suspected child abuse.

Finn testified before the Jackson County grand jury on Sept. 16. At least five top diocesan administrators or advisers were called to testify before the panel, with Finn being the highest church official to appear.

After testifying, Finn told The Kansas City Star that “we’re doing the best we can to cooperate with law enforcement.”

Among those testifying before the Jackson County panel was Murphy, who had come under fire for the way he handled the Ratigan case. Others who testified include diocesan spokeswoman Rebecca Summers and a Kansas City police captain whose opinion diocesan officials sought on a photo that Ratigan allegedly took. The captain also serves on the diocese’s review board.

Diocesan officials came under sharp criticism for failing to take immediate action when concerns were raised about Ratigan’s behavior.

In May 2010, the principal of a Catholic school complained to the diocese about what she described as Ratigan’s inappropriate actions around children. Other than counseling Ratigan to moderate his conduct, however, his church supervisors took little substantial action.

In December, diocesan officials found what prosecutors later alleged was child pornography on Ratigan’s computer. The diocese said it contacted a police officer and described “one of the more disturbing images” from Ratigan’s computer, asking whether it constituted child porn, and the officer said it did not. Police later confirmed that the officer was Capt. Richard Smith, but said that he was told only about one photo and was not made aware that other, more graphic images were stored on Ratigan’s computer.

The church relieved Ratigan of his duties as pastor of St. Patrick Catholic Church in the Northland and assigned him to live at an Independence mission house. While there, according to a federal indictment, he allegedly attempted to take pornographic photos of a 12-year-old girl.

Ratigan was charged in Clay County in May with three counts of possession of child pornography. Federal grand jurors later indicted him on 13 counts of production, attempted production and possession of child porn.

After Ratigan’s arrest, Finn publicly apologized for his handling of the case.

Last month, a diocese-commissioned investigation led by former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves found that diocesan leaders failed to follow their own policies and procedures in responding to reports of child sexual abuse.

The investigation found that “individuals in positions of authority reacted to events in ways that could have jeopardized the safety of children in diocesan parishes, schools and families.”

Graves said that the investigation “identified shortcomings, inaction and confusing procedures, but we believe Bishop Finn and the leadership of the diocese understand the gravity of the issues and take these recommendations seriously.”

The diocese released the findings in a 141-page report compiled by Graves’ law firm. Finn called the recommendations “comprehensive, thoughtful and detailed.”

“We understand their importance and are focusing on them so we establish clear, strong and unequivocal procedures for all diocesan personnel and volunteers that ensure the safety of our children today and into the future,” the bishop said in a statement at the time.

A second grand jury — this one in Clay County — also has been hearing testimony in recent weeks that focuses on child sexual abuse issues. Finn and Murphy spent several hours testifying before that panel on Sept. 27. (Bishop Finn and diocese are indicted.)

"Bishop" Finn, who is a member of the "hear no evil, see no evil, report no evil" Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God), has apologized for his "mistakes." However, he does not believe that he has committed a crime or that he should have been convicted of a misdemeanor at his trial. He believes that "Father" Ratigan's behavior was a matter of what he called "boundary issues." See for yourselves:

“I truly regret, “ Bishop Finn said in court on Thursday, “and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused.”

The bishop had advance warning about Father Ratigan, well before pornography was discovered on the priest’s laptop. Julie Hess, the principal of the parochial school, next door to St. Patrick Parish where Father Ratigan served, had sent a memorandum in May of 2010 to the diocese, which said:

“Parents, staff members, and parishioners are discussing his actions and whether or not he may be a child molester. They have researched pedophilia on the Internet and took in sample articles with examples of how Father Shawn’s actions fit the profile of a child predator.”

Children in the diocese’s schools are taught about appropriate boundaries between adults and children in an abuse-prevention education program called Circle of Grace. Ms. Hess said that while she was inclined to believe that Father Ratigan’s behavior amounted to nothing more than “boundary violations,” other adults were alarmed about specific events: Father Ratigan had put a girl on his lap on a bus trip, attempted to “friend” an eighth grader on Facebook, and had an inappropriate “peer to peer” relationship with a fifth-grade girl. On a children’s group excursion to Father Ratigan’s house, parents spotted hand towels shaped to look like dolls’ clothes, and a pair of girls’ panties in a planter in his yard.

The bishop told Father Ratigan in June 2010 that “we have to take this seriously.” But the testimony showed that the bishop, too, perceived the concerns simply as “boundary issues.” (In Abuse Case, Conciliar Church Failed to Stop Priest.)

Pray tell, what's a "boundary issue" and why in the world should children have to be taught such things in in the context of what is thought to be a Catholic school?

God has given us an inherent sense of what is appropriate and is not. It is part of the very nature of the innocence of a child to recoil with discomfort when he is faced with even the approach of behavior that is out of the ordinary. And this is precisely why pioneers in the explicit classroom instruction of children in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments such as Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States (S.I.E.C.U.S.) who worked closely with the late "Bishop James T. McHugh (see Mrs. Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague), sought to implement and then propagate it. The pioneers and their descendants specifically wanted to break down the natural psychological barriers of resistance that children have to any mention of matters pertaining to that which is proper and licit in the married state and the married state alone.

The reality is, of course, that those children who have made it out of the most dangerous place in the world our times, their own mothers' wombs, alive are immersed in a culture that is filled with incentives to sin against Holy Purity. Boys and girls are dressed in the most immodest and indecent clothing imaginable. Their tender eyes are bombarded and their ears are filled with sights and sounds that are straight from the devil himself. Indeed, most children today spend long hours in front of some kind of video screen, including the old-fashioned device called the television, where they are permitted almost unrestricted access to rotten programming and "music videos" that are "performed" with suggestive gestures and movements. Every single bit of them breaks down a child's natural psychological resistance in order to make them willing "learners" about such matters in the classroom even though the "instructors" will never admit that their "instruction" gives children incentives to "experiment" with what they have been taught.

This is why most children today would not be confused by the behavior of predators, who seek to ingratiate themselves to their victims by "grooming" them with presents and gifts and to "push the boundaries" of a what a child knows inherently to be wrong, dangerous and displeasing to God so that their victims become "comfortable" with such "expressions" of "affection" and "devotion" that are thoroughly inappropriate and completely immoral.

"Father" Shawn Ratigan not only engaged in behavior that sought to exploit the "openness" of children today to matters that pertain exclusively to the married state for the procreation and education of children (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way, Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change; yes, I am completely unbent on this matter of moral truth as I am on the supposed "moral obligation" that we have to participate in farces of naturalism that agitate souls and attempt to convince people that "something" is being done to "improve" the world or to keep some "greater evil" from making things worse--Want to Reconsider the Lesser of Two Evils Business, Folks? as moral principles need to be applied in concrete circumstances in an exercise of what is known as prudential judgment), he acted surreptitiously to cater to his mortally sinful voyeurism that is beneath the dignity of any man, no less one who considers himself to be an "alter Christus" who has the power to bring the Divine Redeemer down from Heaven in Holy Mass ("Father" Ratigan is not a priest and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is not a Mass).

This is a "boundary issue"?

This is sick.

Sick.

"Bishop" Finn did not recognize this as being sick even though this very description was given to him by his diocesan attorneys?

This did not set off alarm bells and flashing red lights?

As the world has been deprived of the well-spring of Sanctifying and Actual Graces, which are what made it possible for a semblance or veneer of social order and even good common sense on the natural level to prevail even among unbelievers in many instances, as a result of the sacramental barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rite, most men walking amongst us today live lives of unrepentant sin. They are unaware of this. However, just as a man may have diabetes or cancer or heart disease without knowing it, thus suffering the effects of the disease in his body without being aware of what is happening to him, so is it the case that most men alive today live in states of sin, objectively speaking, and thus have a lessened capacity to use their intellects and wills even on the level of natural reason unaided by grace and without reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural. Thus it is that men must "reinvent the wheel" continuously to try to "create" artificial structures of human relationships to "define" what is appropriate behavior and what it is not. Most Catholics, of course, have lost the sensus Catholicus and thus follow the high priests an priestesses of the world uncritically to "find out" how to act in a "socially acceptable" way.

The corporate world has created an "alternative universe" filled with various structures and programs that are meant to "guide" men infallibly. It is almost as though they have replicated, albeit perversely, the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law so as to compel men to act in accord with the currently prevailing social strictures.

Mrs. Randy Engel, the founder of the U.S. Coalition for Life and the author of many books and articles, including The Rite of Sodomy, was gracious enough some years ago now to give me permission to post with a description of what has become known as "boundary issues" as found the Journal of Community Corrections:

Imposing on, attributing to or confusing your feelings, thoughts, or judgments with someone else's, especially in certain areas or topics.

My mother tells me to put on a sweater when she's cold, or to stop eating when she's full, my husband always speaks in the "Royal We," and my best friend criticizes my values - these are boundary issues. (Boundary Issues in Professional/Client Relationships.)

Yes, corporate America has had to create courses to "teach" what should be known inherently as part of the sensus Catholicus, filling the texts with "politically correct" strictures that consider al mention of objective moral truths, no less of Divine Revelation, "out of bounds."

The counterfeit church of concilairism, reflecting its "openness to the world" and its falsehoods, has bought into this ideology, building it into programs that are taught to presbyters, teachers and children, doing so with an special application to "touching" and expressions of "affection." Uncertainty and ambiguity are thus created as to what is said to constitute a "violation" of "boundaries." All manner of investigations conducted by mole men search for "clues" as to what is said to be an alleged "boundary violation" that one blessed with the sensus Catholicus would recognize in a heartbeat was evil and without any justification whatsoever.

What "Father" Shawn Ratigan did was sick. It was grotesque. "Bishop" Finn had something to "consider" and "ponder" when presented with the images on Ratigan's computer? Such is the morally fuzzy, unclear, uncertain world of conciliarism. Such is the world of unreality. Such is a world that is way out of bounds with God and very much in league in the adversary.

Inappropriate behavior that could be considered as the "grooming of abuse victims"?

Could be considered?

Excuse me, red lights and alarm bells should go off when a man who believes himself to be a priest has engaged in protracted tight, affectionate hugs and/or has tightly squeezed parts of a man or child's posterior anatomy. Professional predators who engage in such behavior do indeed carefully select emotionally vulnerable, trusting, credulous children or young men in order to groom them to break down their natural barriers of resistance against increasingly greater encroachments upon their persons, thus creating such ambivalent feelings in their prey that victims actually feel conflicted when these matters are brought to public life. Those who seek to minimize such egregious conduct as nothing aberrant, no matter where these enablers fall across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, as nothing extraordinary or aberrant or dangerous will have to answer to God in the face for failing to serve as a true friend to one who is predisposed to such behavior. I can assure such people that no priest raised as saint to the altars of Holy Mother Church ever saw such behavior as anything other than immoral and inexcusable.

To make matters even worse than all of this in the case of "Father" Shawn Ratigan, "Bishop" Finn's attorneys are appealing his conviction on the misdemeanor count twelve days ago by listing a number of their possible defenses, including the assertion that the Federal laws defining child pornography are "overbroad by prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct" and thus he, Finn, had no civil crime to report to the police:

Lawyers representing the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph recently responded formally to a federal civil lawsuit filed by a purported victim of the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, who now faces child pornography charges.

Buried deep in the filing, under the heading “Affirmative Defenses,” was this statement: “18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252A, 2255, 2256 and 2259 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statutes are overbroad by prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct.”

In English, that means the diocese’s defense lawyers announced that the church could, at some point, argue that federal laws banning the production of child pornography are too broad and that at least some of Ratigan’s alleged conduct was constitutionally protected.

Not sure that’s ever going to happen, but it’s worth chewing on. (Mark Morris, Kansas City Star.)

"Constitutionally protected conduct"?

Why in the world would Robert Finn seek to have the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph go through all of the expense and legal paperwork to file a notice of appeal in the first place, no less to have attorneys keep open the option of claiming that child pornography might be "constitutionally protected conduct"?

The answer is simple.

Very simple.

Elementary.

Money.

It's all about the money.

The Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph did not want to be held legally liable for monetary damages in the event civil lawsuits are filed against it by parents of the children whose images were photographed by "Father" Shawn Ratigan. It wasall about the money, certainly not about the protection of souls.

Inappropriate behavior that could be considered as the "grooming of abuse victims"?

Could be considered?

To let human respect stand in the way of discharging the Spiritual Works of Mercy is a grave crime before God and it leaves the souls of sinners without the necessary correction that is needed to start the process of reforming their lives. "Bishop" Robert Finn wanted to act in a "fatherly" way with "Father" Ratigan, thus refusing to disclose to the police the large number of pornographic images of children found on the man's computer, claiming that only one such image had been found. A "boundary violation"? A "boundary violation"? I'll tell what this is: an unspeakable violation of the laws of God and of men that truly shocks the conscience at a time when one has thought he has heard every sick excuse imaginable for clerical abusers.

Attorney James Bendell, who has worked on numerous cases involving clergy abuse, wrote to me after this commentary was posted to explain the indefensible "boundary violations" excuse goes back to the 1990s, that it is not something newly minted by the conciliar authorities:

In my Seattle molestation case, I deposed the priest who was head of vocations under [Archbishop Raymond] Hunthausen, even though he had given nighttime rubs to boys at a CYO camp (including rubbing their buttocks). He was sent to Southdown [Institute, located in Aurora, Ontario, Canada] for "treatment." When I asked him about their diagnosis, I recall him talking about "boundary" issues. That was in the 1990s, so this word has been around for a while. I think the bottom line is that homosexuality is not abnormal as long as you recognize proper boundaries. Very sick. (Mr. Bendell provided a link to a story about the priest, Father David Jaeger, that appeared on the Seattle Catholic website a decade ago now: The Strange Case of Father Jaeger. The article contained bold words by the then newly-installed conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Timothy Michael Dolan, about how predatory clergymen would not be protected under his stewardship. Bold words. Bold words that were not carried out during his six and one-half years in Milwaukee before his transfer to New York in 2009. See Examining Timothy Dolan's Record.)

Very sick.

Very, very sick.

To make matters even worse than all of this in the case of "Father" Shawn Ratigan, "Bishop" Finn's attorneys consider appealing his conviction on the misdemeanor count in 2012 by listing a number of their possible defenses, including the assertion that the Federal laws defining child pornography are "overbroad by prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct" and thus he, Finn, had no civil crime to report to the police:

Not sure that’s ever going to happen, but it’s worth chewing on. (Mark Morris, Kansas City Star.)

"Constitutionally protected conduct"?

Why in the world would Robert Finn sought to have had the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph go through all of the expense and legal paperwork to even consider proceeding to file a notice of appeal in the first place, no less to have had attorneys keep open the option of claiming that child pornography might be "constitutionally protected conduct"?

The answer is simple.

Very simple.

Elementary.

Money.

It's all about the money.

The Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph did not want to be held legally liable for monetary damages in the event civil lawsuits are filed against it by parents of the children whose images were photographed by "Father" Shawn Ratigan. It's all about the money, certainly not about the protection of souls.

Yes, there were grounds for Robert Finn’s removal. This is beyond all question.

However, he was not removed by the Argentine Apostate for his “confusion” about “boundary issues. He was removed because he brought in the community of non-ordained presbyters, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, who stage the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (even though most of its presbyters staged the unreformed Mass in accord with the rubrics in place prior to Cum hac nostra aetate, March 23, 1955, and Maxima Redemptoris, November 19, 1955; “reforms” that Bugnini himself were meant to be provisional or transitory as he wanted them to point the way for the complete “restoration” of what was purported to be the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church), and because he made the following two statements in 2008 about the unsuitability of candidates who support such things as the “Freedom of Choice Bill” (which was always a red-herring used by the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee; see Only Themselves to Blame):

When a candidate pledges to provide "comprehensive sex education" to school children and promises to promote - or to "sign immediately upon taking office" - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate's determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year. (cf. Michael New-Matthew Bowman, Combined Reductions in Abortions, with data supplied by NARAL Pro-Choice America)

As Archbishop [Joseph] Naumann [the conciliar “ordinary of the Archdiocese of Kanas City, Kansas] and I stressed in our recent Pastoral Letter, "Our Moral Responsibility as Catholic Citizens," we can never vote for a candidate because of his or permissive stand on abortion. At the same time, if we are inclined to vote for someone despite their pro-abortion stance, it seems we are morally obliged to establish a proportionate reason sufficient to justify the destruction of 45 million human persons through abortion. If we learn that our "candidate of choice" further pledges - through an instrument such as FOCA - to eliminate all existing limitations against abortion, it is that much more doubtful whether voting for him or her can ever be morally justified under any circumstance. (See:Statement on the Freedom of Choice Act.)

When a candidate regards the unborn child as unworthy of the defense of law, then he or she asks us to join them in ignoring the lessons of history by which African Americans in this country were once regarded as non-persons; or the Jews of Europe were once marked for genocide or racial purification. Had we known, would we have supported the "choice" to enslave or destroy these brothers and sisters of ours? Can a candidate expect us as Catholics to ignore the classification of the unborn as non-persons? Will he or she expect us to look aside while these babies are quietly exterminated at a rate of 4,000 per day? This is precisely what they are asking us to do.

Some groups calling themselves "Catholic" have suggested that generous programs for the poor will reduce abortions more than the repeal of Roe v. Wade. But a candidate who pledges that he or she will seek to immediately ratify the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), signals to voters that the reduction of abortions is not a goal. They are asking voters to suspend the effort to constitutionally protect human life, and - at the same time - to discard all the good progress we have made to actually reduce the number of abortions in the last thirty-five years. Such a candidate is asking Catholics to "give up" on abortion. They want us to deny our conscience and ignore their callous disregard for the most vulnerable human life.

If the candidate has addressed their legislative assembly, urging opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, then it must be concluded that this candidate wishes Catholic voters to be complicit in infanticide. Rejection of this Act, which would require that a baby who survived an unsuccessful abortion attempt be cared for and not laid aside to die with no medical assistance, is a convincing example of the numbing of our moral sensibility. The candidate who supports this fatal neglect of life and asks our vote, asks too much of any fellow human being.

Our country is at the edge of the precipice concerning the protection of the life and dignity of the human person. A significant new attack on innocent human life will likely send us into a moral freefall that would rival any financial decline. The price for such a "walk over the cliff" is millions more human lives for many more years to come.

A candidate who asks us to add our weight to such a destructive momentum in our society, asks us to be participants in their own gravely immoral act. This is something which, in good conscience, we can never justify. Despite hardship, beyond partisanship, for the sake of our eternal salvation: This we should never do. (See Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph.)

Although anyone who supports a single, solitary direct, intentional attack on an innocent human being from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until the time of natural death willed by God Himself from all eternity is unfit for public office (see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life Pols and Determined Not To Accept the Truth of Truth Himself, Christ the King, part five, the end), “Archbishop” Joseph Naumann, who to this day has not excommunicated former Kansas Governor and former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who took blood money from the late George “The Killer” Tiller (see Reichstag II and Fret Not About Denying The Faith, Fret Not) despite warning her not to approach what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, and “Bishop” Robert Finn were trying to assuage the consciences of pro-life “absolutists” who saw little substantive difference between the rhetorically “pro-life” United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, the neoconservative war hawk who never saw a conflict in the world that did require American “boots on the ground,” and his vacuous, insipid wholly-owned-by-Israel running-mate, then Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, by making it clear that Catholics could not vote for the fully-abortion ticket of then United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (D-Illinois) and then United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., (D-Delaware) despite their alleged support for the “poor.” To be sure, this was a well-meaning effort, although devoid of any real threat of what “ecclesiastical” sanctions.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio will have none of this. His silence on the “moral issues,” other than a few pro-forma statements he has made on various occasions and within the text of Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, is legendary, to say nothing of the false “pontiff’s” loving, affectionate embraces with one pro-abortion world leader and elected official after another. Although the spin doctors within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River in this time of apostasy and betrayal, Bergoglio betrayal his true beliefs about the “moral issues” when he said the following in 2013:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

The recently installed conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago, Blasé Cupich, was quick to seize upon Jorge’s remarks to “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., when he was the conciliar "bishop" of Spokane, Washington, to make it pretty clear the "fight," such as it pretended to be, against ObamaCare is over as he spoke after the election of Joseph Kurtz and Daniel "Cardinal" DiNardo, the conciliar "archbishop" of Galveston-Houston, yesterday, Tuesday, November 12, 2013, the Feast of Pope Saint Martin I:

Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Spokane, Wash., said in an interview after the vote on Tuesday: “The nuncio said the Holy Father wants bishops to have a keen pastoral sensitivity, shepherds who know the smell of the sheep. That’s a nice metaphor to use.

“Pope Francis doesn’t want cultural warriors, he doesn’t want ideologues,” he said. “That’s the new paradigm for us, and it’s making many of us think.” (Bishops Select Two Leaders Who Reflect New Tone Set by Argentine Apostate.)

No, there is no need to speak about the daily carnage of the preborn by chemical or surgical means, which Hillary Rodham Clinton believes is so sacrosant and cultural and religious beliefs have to be "changed" (see Hillary Says ' Religious Beliefs ' Must Change For Sake of Baby-Killing).

No, there is no need to speak with any urgency about the undermining of the family and thus of the stability of society itself by means of contraception on the promotion of the sin of Sodom under cover of the civil law and all throughout what passes for popular culture.

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, you see, there are "fundamental" teachings," thus making it incumbent, as he sees things in his own twisted way, for the "church's pastoral ministry" not to "be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently" as he does not believe that all "moral teachings of the church" are "equivalent:"

Following the sins against the first three Commandments, which are sins against God Himself, the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance must be denounced in order to exhort sinners to repentance and to force them to face the gravity of their sins while holding out to them the promise of God's ineffable Mercy if they have a contrite heart and have a firm purpose of amending their lives.

Alas, it is because the conciliar "popes" sin wantonly, openly and repeatedly against the first three Commandments that they accept with great ease of mind sins against the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis accomplished by speaking in 2013 to Antonio Spadoro as he did on Catholic morality was to undermine the work of every Catholic in the conciliar structures who has fought within his or her parish or within his or her parish or school or chancery office against silence about contraception, abortion and agenda of the homosexual collective.

At the same time, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis "canonized" the "consistent ethic of life" (seamless garment) that was championed by that friend of the lavender movement, the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, and countless other "bishops," priests/presbyters and religious in the conciliar structures, including Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, the disgraced Rembert George Weakland, Howard Hubbard, Joseph Fiorenza, Michael Sheehan, George Niederauer and endless numbers of others.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis validated the work of the National Catholic Reporter, which has long championed the cause of a "pope" such as he has shown himself to be.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that made the work of "conservative" Catholic newspapers and websites irrelevant.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has made the work of lay-run "canon law" organizations, several of which have petitioned the conciliar-occupied Vatican to penalize pro-abortion Catholics in public life, completely moot. Those who run these organizations are trolling for dollars under false pretenses as they have no "friend in the Vatican" to support them.

By what stretch of logic can anyone still fighting in the jungles of Mindanao seek to continue fighting delegations from their local parishes participating with parish banners in the local "gay pride parade"?

By what stretch of logic can anyone still fighting in the jungles of Mindanao write to their local chancery office or to "Rome" to complain about some presbyter's speaking highly of the "gay lifestyle"?

Although what “Bishop” Robert Finn had said about the 2008 elections that had been joined on at least on one occasion by the conciliar “ordinary” of the neighboring Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas, Joseph Naumann, who has continued his predecessor’s openness to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, James P. Keleher, as long as its presbyters do not preach about traditional standards of modesty of dress (one such presbyter was called into his office after giving such a sermon some years ago now), the case of “Father” Shawn Ratigan gave Jorge Mario Bergoglio the perfect reason to remove a supposedly “restorationist” thorn from the side of his “yes church.” Bergoglio had said the following about “restorationism” in his interview with “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J.:

“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing.Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Robert Finn was perceived as a “restorationist,” which is why he had to go, and it is also why Rogelio Ricardo Liviares Plano was removed as the conciliar “bishop” of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, after his long history of enabling the notorious homosexual predator, Father Carlos Urrutigoity (see Relevant Once Again: A Special Report on the Society of Saint John (2000), No Excuses For Those Who Indemnify the Society of Saint John, Modernists In Love With Old-Fashioned Clericalism and Mr. James Bendell’s (Pray for the Children), provided Bergoglio’s theological, dogmatic, liturgical and moral compatriots in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este the opportunity to request their fellow South American, Bergoglio, to toss him out, and out Rogelio Ricardo Liviares Plano went.

As was noted the case of Robert Finn, there is simply no justification for Rogelio Ricardo Liviares Plano’s constant denial of the facts surrounding Urrutigoity, who had been ordained a priest for the Society of Saint Pius X despite his well-known predatory activity (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s belief that Urrutigoity should be “watched like a hawk” was not good enough as it was the case in many Catholic seminaries of yore that men showing even a trace of homosexuality, no less active perverse behavior, were dismissed). Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano would not have been ousted if he had been of the same mind as Bergoglio and other Latin American conciliar “bishops” such as Commissar Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez (Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four) of Honduras in Central America and if he, Liviares Plano, had agreed with Urrutigoity’s supposed commitment to a “true” liturgical restoration that relied very much upon the rubrics of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick’s Ordo Missae of 1965.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has also got rid of a conciliar “bishop” of Limburg, Germany, Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, who was supposedly “traditionally-minded” (even though the man staged the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on a regular basis and, of course, embraced conciliarism’s false ecumenism), on March 26, 2014 following a period of suspension for an investigation to take place into the money he spent on the rebuilding of his residential palace, a project that begun under his predecessor, Franz Kamphaus. Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, who turns fifty-six years of age this year, has been consigned to a “catechetical” role in that bastion of traditionalism, the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Pontifical” Council for Promoting the “New Evngelization”.

Interestingly, Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst’s aforementioned predecessor, Franz Kamphaus, was permitted by Karol Josef Wojytla/John Paul II and then Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to remain in power fully five years after he became the last conciliar “bishop” in Germany to stop issuing “counseling certificates” to enable expectant mothers to kill their innocent preborn children. Here is an account of Kamphaus’s reluctant compliance with the mandate issued by “Pope John Paul II” in 2002:

BERLIN, MARCH 8, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The last German diocese to issue a certificate allowing women to procure an abortion has announced that it will quit the public system of consultation centers, as the Pope requested.

German bishops in general made this decision in 1999. Participation in the system required Catholic consultation centers to issue certificates to women who asked for advice. The women could then use the certificates to obtain an abortion legally.

In effect, this made the consultation centers implicit, if unintentional, accomplices to abortions.

Now, Bishop Franz Kamphaus of Limburg, the only prelate who had not complied with John Paul II´s request, received a letter from the Holy Father asking him to support the decision of his brothers in the episcopate.

Cardinal Karl Lehmann, president of the German episcopal conference, reported the news today, describing it as a "positive solution" that puts an end to "a long and difficult process."

The papal decision to insist on an end to the issuance of the certificate, and to allow the bishop to remain in office, "reveals the esteem that John Paul II has shown for Kamphaus and his decision to appreciate the service of the bishop of Limburg to the Church," Cardinal Lehmann added, in statements to the press.

According to the archbishop of Mainz, what was required for this decision was "availability for dialogue and the patience and sensitivity of all parties involved."

"It is obvious that the Pope has intervened with a spirit of fraternity to offer a common witness of the Church and to maintain communion," Cardinal Lehmann added.

He explained that to obey the Pope was a "painful decision at the personal level" for Bishop Kamphaus, who wished to keep the Catholic consultation centers in the public system, in order to reach more women.

In fact, Bishop Kamphaus did not conceal his disappointment. "Until the end I had hoped that we would arrive at a solution other than conflict," he said. He said he would continue "to do what is possible for the poor and the diocese." (German Diocese Will Stop Issuing Abortion Certificates.)

Esteem for Franz Kamphaus?

Only from a “canonized” conciliar “pope” and his successors.

Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not excommunicate Father Manuel Pousa in Spain even after he personally gave a woman his own pay to pay to have her baby butchered in a Spanish killing center (see What's Good For Manel Pousa is Good for Benedict XVI).

Men such as Franz Kamphaus and Manel Pousa, both of whom are true priests, now have a complete ally and protector in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who may have been miffed at Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst’s decision to discipline a conciliar presbyter, Peter Kollas, in 2008 for “blessing” the “marriage of two persons of the same gender.

Showing himself yet again to be a caricature of hypocrisy in the cases of Robert Finn and Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plan, Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself personally appointed a notorious perverted member of the conciliar presbyterate, “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, as the director of the Institute of Religious Works, the Vatican Bank, despite the mountain of evidence against him that Bergoglio told his spokesflack, “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., to spin, spin, spin, and spin Bergoglio's fellow lay Jesuit revolutionary and sycophant certainly did:

Questioned on L'Espresso's cover story on the prominent promotion by Pope Francis of a supposed member of the Vatican "Gay Lobby" (previous post), Fr. Federico Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, called the accusation "untrustworthy" (non attendibile). Not only that, according to journalist Matteo Matzuzzi on Twitter, Lombardi said today that, "the Pope has had the chance to verify whether the accusations against Msgr. Ricca were consistent or not," and that "Pope Francis is aware of the accusations made against Msgr. Ricca but has decided to keep him in his position".

Sandro Magister, the well-known Vaticanist and article author, and L'Espresso (institutionally) fired back:

This was the immediate reply of L'Espresso:

"To Father Lombardi, who defines as 'not trustworthy' what was published regarding Msgr. Ricca, L'Espresso replies reaffirming point by point the facts referred by Sandro Magister in his piece, confirmed by several primary sources and, as a whole, considered at the time of such gravity by the same Vatican authorities that forced them to remove the Monsignor from the Uruguay nunciature, in which he rendered his service, giving scandal to bishops,priests, religious and lay persons in that country.

"It can be added that the Vatican authorities, instead of making up improbable and ad-lib denials, could verify the trustworthiness of all that was published by L'Espresso by simply consulting the exhaustive documentation in their possession on the affair, in particular that related to his time in the Montevideo nunciature. Further documentation is available from the Uruguayan authorities, from security forces to fire brigades. Not to mention the numerous bishops, priests, religious, laymen in Uruguay who were direct witnesses of the scandal and are ready to speak." (On "Gay Lobby", Sandro Magister challenges the Vatican: "We have the evidence".)

Remember, it was in reference to Ricca's record as an abuser that Bergoglio responded "Who am I to judge" when questioned by reporters aboard his flight back to Rome on Monday, July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha, following the conclusion of the travesty known as World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (see Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three):

Speaking of other problems within the administration of the Holy See, including rumours of a ‘gay lobby’ within the Vatican, Pope Francis said there are many saintly people working in the Curia but also those who are not so saintly and cause scandals which harm the Church. Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that people with homosexual tendencies must not be excluded but should be integrated into society. “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” he asked. (Francis the Revolutionary holds press conference on flight back from Brazil.)

Put into this context, therefore, what the false "Bishop of Rome" said on this twenty-one months ago meant that Battista Ricca was his "brother" as long as he had "good will" and "seeks God," that he, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, has no problem with supposedly "past" sins of perversity as God forgives and forgets, requiring him to do the same.

Similarly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio personally chose and appointed a known and proven pervert, Juan Barros, to be the conciliar “bishop” of Osorno, Chile, and continues once again to “stand by his man” despite the massive protests that his appointment has generated in Chile and the concerns of most of the other conciliar “bishops” there:

SANTIAGO, Chile — Hundreds of demonstrators dressed in black barged into a cathedral in a city in southern Chile on Saturday and interrupted the installation ceremony for the city’s new Roman Catholic bishop, Juan Barros, whom they accuse of complicity in a notorious case of clerical sexual abuse, blocking his passage and shouting, “Barros, get out of the city!”

The scene inside the Cathedral San Mateo de Osorno was chaotic, with television images showing clashes between Barros opponents, carrying black balloons, and Barros supporters, carrying white ones. Radio reports said several protesters tried to climb onto the altar where Bishop Barros was standing. After the ceremony, he left the cathedral through a side door escorted by police special forces. Outside, about 3,000 people, including local politicians and members of Congress, held signs and chanted demands that he resign.

Weeks of protests, candlelight vigils and letters to Pope Francis were not enough to persuade him to rescind his decision in January to appoint Bishop Barros to lead the Diocese of Osorno, 570 miles south of the capital, Santiago. Bishop Barros was a close associate of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, a prominent Santiago priest whom the Vatican found guilty of sexual abuse in 2011. Father Karadima, now 84, was ordered to retire to a “life of prayer and penitence.”

Parishioners in a southern Chile diocese are gathering wherever their new bishop appears, but their presence is not the sort of assembly the Catholic Church would expect.

In the month since Bishop Juan Barros was installed in Osorno, the priest has had to sneak out of back exits, call on riot police to shepherd him from the city's cathedral and coordinate movements with bodyguards and police canine units.

Such is the public routine of the bishop who is denounced by his opponents as having shielded Chile's most notorious pedophile priest. For his part, Barros says relations are improving.

The appointment of Barros by Pope Francis has unleashed an unprecedented protest, with more than 1,300 church members, 30 diocesan priests and nearly half of Chile's Parliament sending letters urging the pope to reconsider.

At least three men say Barros was present when they were sexually molested in the 1980s and 1990s by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. Karadima was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for sexually abusing minors, ordered to live out his life cloistered in a nun's convent. Barros has said he knew nothing of Karadima's abuses.

The controversy is being watched by victims, advocacy groups and lawmakers as a test of the pope's promises to crack down on clerical sex abuse. On April 12, members on the pope's sex abuse advisory committee traveled to Rome to voice their concerns.

The pope has not spoken publicly about the case. In late March, however, the Vatican released a statement defending Barros, saying the Congregation for Bishops examined his candidacy "and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment."

But many of the Catholic faithful in Osorno, 510 miles (820 kilometers) south of Santiago, are holding to their protest, which they say is gathering support.

"We are beginning to energize our movement and make it more mainstream," said Mario Vargas, 52, a sex-abuse survivor and one of the leaders.

On April 10, some 600 people protested outside the Osorno cathedral holding black umbrellas, a color they said represented the stain of sex abuse on the church. The action drew Catholic school teachers as well as community members.

"New faces are joining the protests," said Juan Carlos Claret, one of the organizers.

Barros, who declined repeated requests for an interview, has said the situation has improved since his March 21 installation. He told reporters last week he had met with parishioners and priests in 10 communities and there was "a good understanding and the love of God reigns."

Barros, previously chaplain of Chile's armed forces, has celebrated Mass a half-dozen times, including during Holy Week, but parishioners say attendance is down and the bishop must travel with a police escort to keep protesters at bay.

"You can feel something sour that transcends all kinds of church activities," said Carlos Meza, a 43-year-old parishioner. "It's not just during Masses."

An April 8 meeting between Barros and parishioners fell apart when the bishop showed up with two body guards and police dogs, a move the parishioners said was unnecessarily aggressive.

On a video recorded at the scene and reviewed by the AP, a woman in the group is heard yelling: "We are a pacific lay movement. You can't push us around like this."

Barros joined other bishops last week at a seminary held by the Catholic University in Santiago. About 50 protesters calling for his resignation were out front, but Barros avoided them by exiting through a back door.

Canon law experts say rescinding an appointment would be unprecedented, so Barros likely is there to stay unless he resigns. So far, there is no indication he plans to do so. (Month after bishop ordained amid protests in southern Chile.)

Those who believe that it is necessary for them to know some of the more graphic accounts of Barros’s own involvement in perverse behavior, details of which were given to Bergoglio for his review before he refused to rescind the twisted man’s appointment, may read: (Pope’s zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test in Chile.}

In this, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis demonstrates himself once again, yes, for the gazillionth time, to be completely sanguine about the horror of personal sin and his total openness to having "gay men" in the clergy as long as they "seek God" and "have good will."

This implies fairly strongly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes in the moral theological heresy known as the "fundamental option," which contends that one is never guilty of any kind of truly serious, no less mortal, sin unless his "option" is said to be against God. A sinner is just "fine" with God as long as he not opt to turn away from Him. It is no accident that this heresy was propagated in the 1970s by a Jesuit "theologian" by the name of Father Richard McCormack, who died in 2000, and it certainly does not matter to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that the "theology of the fundamental option" was condemned even by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Persona Humana on December 29, 1975 (see Persona Humana.)

Readers of this site should know, however, that every sin involves a turning away from God as we seek creatures, starting with our own sinful temptations, and that Mortal Sins involve a casting out of the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity that is found in baptized souls who are in states of Sanctifying Grace. The theology of the "fundamental option" ("seeking God with a good will") is destructive of individual souls and thus of nations. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis sees none of this. None of this whatsoever.

Contrary to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and many of his fellow revolutionaries in the conciliar clergy believe, those afflicted with effeminacy of any kind and/or any sort of inclination to the commission of perverse sins, no less the commission thereof, are unfit to serve in the Holy Priesthood and those discovered to be so inclined or are guilty of such sins must be removed from all pastoral work immediately. Predators must be removed and then sent to a monastery to live in isolation as they make reparation for their sins.

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio his fellow revolutionaries do not realize is that to believe that those who have a "gay orientation" represent no clear and present spiritual danger to the good of souls, starting with their own, is the same thing as saying that a person inclined to the commission of serial killings must be treated as "brothers" and even "mainstreamed" into society as long as they do not "act" on their murderous inclinations. In other words, the conciliar revolutionaries believe in absurdity, which is why they speak and act absurdly.

Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, warned the Catholic bishops of the 1950s not to place predators back into any parish assignments, going so far as place a $5,000 deposit towards the purchase an island to isolate these men as he did not believe that they were capable of reforming their behavior, that the best that could be done for them was to keep them away from possible future victims as they made reparation for their sins and attempted to save their immortal souls:

As early as the mid-1950s, decades before the clergy sexual-abuse crisis broke publicly across the U.S. Catholic landscape, the founder of a religious order that dealt regularly with priest sex abusers was so convinced of their inability to change that he searched for an island to purchase with the intent of using it as a place to isolate such offenders, according to documents recently obtained by NCR.

Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately.

Fitzgerald was a prolific correspondent who wrote regularly of his frustration with and disdain for priests "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls." His views are contained in letters and other correspondence that had previously been under court seal and were made available to NCR by a California law firm in February.

Fitzgerald's convictions appear to significantly contradict the claims of contemporary bishops that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served.

It is clear, too, in letters between Fitzgerald and a range of bishops, among bishops themselves, and between Fitzgerald and the Vatican, that the hierarchy was aware of the problem and its implications well before the problem surfaced as a national story in the mid-1980s.

Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, reacting in February to a federal investigation into his handling of the crisis, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."

Indeed, some psychology experts seemed to hold the position that priest offenders could be returned to ministry. Even the Paracletes, as the order developed and grew, employed experts who said that certain men could be returned to ministry under stringent conditions and with strict supervision.

The order itself ultimately was so inundated with lawsuits regarding priests who molested children while or after being treated at its facility in Jemez Springs, N.M., that it closed the facility in 1995.

Whatever discussion occurred during the 1970s and 1980s over proper treatment, however, for nearly two decades Fitzgerald spoke a rather consistent conviction about the dim prospects for returning sex abusers to ministry. Fitzgerald seemed to know almost from the start the danger such priests posed. He was adamant in his conviction that priests who sexually abused children (often the language of that era was more circumspect in naming the problem) should not be returned to ministry.

In a 1957 letter to an unnamed archbishop, Fitzgerald said, "These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." The letter, addressed to "Most dear Cofounder," was apparently to Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, N.M., who was considered a cofounder of the Paraclete facility at Jemez Springs and a good friend of Fitzgerald.

Later in the same letter, in language that revealed deep passion, he wrote: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat -- but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better they had not been born -- this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?"

The documents were sealed at the request of the church in an earlier civil case involving Fr. Rudolph Kos of Dallas. Eleven plaintiffs won awards in the case in which Kos was accused of molesting minors over a 12-year period. He had been treated at the Paraclete facility in New Mexico. The documents were unsealed in 2007 by a court order obtained by the Beverly Hills law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, according to Anthony DeMarco, an attorney with the firm that has handled hundreds of cases for alleged victims of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese and elsewhere.

According to Helen Zukin, another member of the firm, the documents have been used in some cases to dispute the church claim that it knew nothing about the behavior of sex abusers or the warning signs of abuse prior to the 1980s.

In a September 1952 letter to the then- bishop of Reno, Nev., Fitzgerald wrote: "I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. ... Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." The advice was ignored and the priest was allowed to continue in ministry, and was ultimately accused of abusing numerous children, for which the church paid out huge sums in court awards.

While Fitzgerald told anyone who would listen of the futility of returning sexually abusive priests to ministry, that conviction became less absolute as the order, today headquartered in St. Louis, grew and the scope of its work became more complex. Fitzgerald, by most accounts, was deeply motivated by a sense of obligation to care for priests who were in trouble. Originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese for 12 years, he became a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1934, and started the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947. His concern at the time was primarily for priests struggling with alcoholism. As his new order matured and its ministry became known, bishops began referring priests with other maladies, particularly those who had been sexually abusive of children. The order for years was the primary source for care of priests in the United States with alcohol and sexual problems.

At times, Fitzgerald appears to have resisted taking in priests who had sexually abused youngsters. In his 1957 letter he requested concurrence from the cofounder archbishop "of what I consider a very vital decision on our part -- that for the sake of preventing scandal that might endanger the good name of Via Coeli [the name of the New Mexico facility] we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce" children. "Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here."

In September 1957 the bishop of Manchester, N.H., Matthew F. Brady, sought Fitzgerald's advice regarding "a problem priest," John T. Sullivan, who seemed sincerely repentant and whose difficulty "is not drink but a series of scandal-causing escapades with young girls. There is no section of the diocese in which he is not known and no pastor seems willing to accept him," Brady wrote. The "escapades" involved molestation of young girls. In at least one instance, he procured an abortion for a teenager he had impregnated. In another case, he fathered a child and provided support to the mother until she later married. The charges of molesting girls would follow him the rest of his life.

"The solution of his problem seems to be a fresh start in some diocese where he is not known. It occurred to me that you might know of some bishop who would be willing to give him that opportunity," Brady wrote in his original letter.

Fitzgerald responded that in his judgment the "repentance and amendment" in such cases "is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."

Fitzgerald added that the Paracletes had "adopted a definite policy not to recommend to bishops men of this character, even presuming the sincerity of their conversion. We feel that the protection of our glorious priesthood will demand, in time, the establishment of a uniform code of discipline and of penalties."

He acknowledged the degree of deference with which Catholic clergy were treated even by civil authorities. "We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the care of souls]," he wrote.

Sullivan apparently had already been pulled from active ministry. In October 1957, less than a month after contacting Fitzgerald, Brady wrote a response to the bishop of Burlington, Vt., among the first of more than a dozen bishops approached by Sullivan for the next five years, warning against accepting him.

Brady then wrote a letter that he sent out time after time to bishops inquiring about Sullivan after he had requested acceptance for ministry. "My conscience will not allow me to recommend him to any bishop and I feel that every inquiring bishop should know some of the circumstances that range from parenthood, through violation of the Mann Act, attempted suicide, and abortion.

"Father Fitzgerald of Via Coeli would accept him only as a permanent guest to help save his soul but with no hope of recommending him to a bishop."

According to a 2003 Washington Post story, Sullivan, who had bounced around from diocese to diocese for nearly 30 years, "was stripped of his faculties to serve as a priest after he kissed a 13-year-old girl in Laconia, N.H., in 1983, when he was 66. He died in 1999, never having faced a criminal charge." After his death the church paid out more than a half-million dollars in awards to Sullivan's victims, including three in Grand Rapids, Mich., and one in Amarillo, Texas, two dioceses that did not heed the warnings of the bishops in New Hampshire. The victims said they were abused when they were between 7 and 12 years old.

In April 1962, Fitzgerald wrote a five-page response to a query from the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office about "the tremendous problem presented by the priest who through lack of priestly self-discipline has become a problem to Mother Church." One of his recommendations was for "a more distinct teaching in the last years of the seminary of the heavy penalty involved in tampering with the innocence (or even non-innocence) of little ones."

Regarding priests who have "fallen into repeated sins ... and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization."

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

But by 1963, Fitzgerald's powerful hold on the direction of the order was weakening. According to a 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General, the appointment of a new archbishop, James Davis, began a new era of the relationship between the order, which was a "congregation of diocesan right," and the archdiocese. Davis and Fitzgerald apparently clashed over a number of issues. Davis was far more concerned than his predecessor about the business aspects of the Santa Fe facility and demanded greater accountability. He also demanded greater involvement of medical and psychological professionals, while "Fr. Gerald [Fitzgerald] distrusted lay programs, psychologists and psychiatrists," favoring a more spiritual approach, according to McNamara.

McNamara said Fitzgerald was eventually forced from leadership by a combination of factors, not least of which was a growing disagreement with the bishop and other members of the order over the direction of the Paracletes. After 1965, said McNamara, Fitzgerald "never again resided at Via Coeli Monastery, nor did he ever regain the power he had once had."

Nor did he get his island. In 1965 Fitzgerald had put a $5,000 deposit on an island in Barbados, near Carriacou, in the Caribbean that had a total purchase price of $50,000. But the new bishop apparently wanted nothing to do with owning an island, and Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, was forced to sell his long-sought means for isolating priest sex offenders.

When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Paraceltes referred NCR to historic accounts previously written about the order. (Bishops were warned of abusive priests.)

True bishops before the "Second" Vatican Council had been warned by Father Fitzgerald. They did not care. The seeds of corruption were planted long ago. They only managed to come to the forefront and receive liturgical expression and now even "papal" approbation in the decades thereafter.

On the other hand, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio indemnifies men such as Battista Ricca, Juan Barros and, of course, the disgraced enabler of clerical perversion and clerical thug who imposed diabolically-inspired “education” programs concerning the Sixth and Ninth Commandments upon the souls of innocent children and has constantly endorsed one perversity and moral aberration after another, Godfied “Cardinal” Danneels, who served as the conciliar "archbishop" of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, Godfried Danneels, from December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010. Danneels has been chosen by Bergoglio to help guide the 2015 “synod of the bishops” that will, in essence, make a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher and the other martyrs of England and Ireland who gave up their lives during the Protestant Revolution in England. Perhaps even most egregiously, Godfried Danneels, who said as early as 1994 that he could never refuse what purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to those who knew to be divorced and civilly “remarried” without the benefit of a the fig leaf represented by a conciliar decree of nullity, also used King Bouduoin of Belgium to sign a baby-killing law that had been passed by the Belgian Parliament:

Two Belgian politicians admit for the first time openly that Cardinal Godfried Danneels tried to convince King Baudouin to sign the law on abortion in 1990. Former politicians Philippe Moureau (PS, Parti Socialiste) and Mark Eyskens (CVP, Flemish Christian Democrats) said this in a documentary for the Flemish Broadcasting Corporation VTM on April 6, 2015 (http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/135916-25-jaar-abortuswet-boudewijn-onder-druk, at 2:05). According to VTM, cardinal Danneels did not want to comment.

In 1990, the 14 members of the Belgian Government - a coalition led by CVP-Prime Minister Wilfried Martens, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the world. King Baudouin, a devout Catholic, refused to sign this bill into law, and was temporarily considered fictitiously "incapacitated" so that the government could have the bill turned into law.

Danneels, rabid liberal and a known pedophile-bishop-protector, was picked by Pope Francis as one of his personal choices for the 2014 Family Synod. (http://www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/cardinal-danneels-family-expert-chosen.html. For a summary of Father Danneels’s wretched work, see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty.)

Thus it is that discipline is reserved in Jorge’s “merciful” agenda only for those who are said to be “traditionally-minded” or “conservative” or bent of “restorationism” when some other justifying cause can be used to provide cover for what are simply “papal” purges of a Stalinist sort. Those who coddle practitioners of two of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are champions of “mercy” who are as committed to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said directly is the “irreversible” path of the “purification” of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape:

“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”

As we know, the “merciful” “Pope Francis” has been whittling away at Summorum Pontificum brick-by-brick. So have some of his conciliar “bishops.” The path of the “re-reading of the Gospel in light contemporary culture” by “actualizing is message for today” is indeed absolutely reverse in Jorge’s false church, which is not the Catholic Church, where no true bishop or priest dared to offer a “funeral Mass” for a dog! (See Gone to the Dogs at Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

As has been noted in the past, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a pagan who projects onto Divine Revelation his Modernist prescriptions based on emotion, sentiment and illogic. He is also a pantheist whose “concern for the earth,” which contrasts with his relative silence about the daily slaughter of the innocent and his complete indemnification of those who participate in unnatural sins and/or have engaged in perverted sins in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and against nature itself.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s pantheism, although not called such by “conservatives” in the conciliar structures, is causing a lot of angst among “orthodox” scholars, including Dr. Robert George of Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey, who has said that a true pope’s encyclicals on such matters as the environment do not bind the faithful (see Bergoglio Steps Up Campaign on Climate Change).

Au contraire, Dr. George, who was a presenter, albeit on different panels, at least two conferences of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists where I had given presentations. Au contraire. The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the highly respected American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943 to 1963, explained that Pope Pius XII settled the matter of the binding nature of papal encyclical letters and allocutions once and for all in paragraph twenty of Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer. This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9] Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10] In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta." The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis." This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence. It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view. The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology. For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth. And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching. The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

You are wrong, Dr. George. Very wrong. You are grasping at straws. You have a false claimant to the papal throne, the sixth in a row now, and you must obey and follow one you believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter without complaint and without a word of public criticism. To fail to do so is to directly disobey Pope Leo XIII’s clear and unequivocal reminder, stated in 1885 and again in 1888, that a Catholic may publish nothing critical of a true pope or his decisions at any time.

Most, although not all, of the readers of this site, understand that none of what has been recounted in this article, no less the thousand or more that have been written on the conciliar apostasies in the last nine years and that are only highlighted in No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth, does not come from the authority of the Catholic Church or has issued forth from the mouths or the pens of true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. We are simply witnessing only the manifestation of the perfect of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism and its falsehoods.

Pope Saint Pius X warned us of the apostasy of the present moment. There is thus little excuse not to see this apostasy for what it is and to recognize once and for all that the Catholic Church enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Today is the Feast of Saint Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Congregation of Discalced Clerks of the Holy Cross and Passion of Our Lord, the Passionists, who bore the sufferings of the Divine Redeemer with joy, patience and gratitude. So must we.

Here is an account of this lover of the Cross of Christ the King as found in the readings from Matins for today’s Divine Office:

He betook himself to Rome, and when he had there studied a regular course of theology he was ordained Priest in obedience to the command of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIII., who also gave him permission to gather comrades around him. He withdrew to the solitude of Mount Argentaro, whither he had been already called by the Blessed Virgin, at which same time she also showed him in vision a black habit marked with the emblems of the sufferings of her Son. At Mount Argentaro, he laid the foundations of his new Congregation, which under the blessing of God grew quickly, through the labours of Paul, and attracted to it eminent men. It received the confirmation of the Apostolic See more than once, with the rules which Paul himself had received from God in prayer and the addition of a fourth vow, that, namely, to promote the blessed remembrance of the sufferings of the Lord. He founded a congregation of holy virgins also, who should dwell constantly upon the overflowing love of the Divine Bridegroom. Amid all these works his untiring love for souls caused him never to weary in the preaching of the Gospel, and he led into the path of salvation men almost countless, among whom were some of the most lost, or those who had fallen into heresy. The greatest and most wonderful power of his preaching was how he told of the sufferings of Christ, so that he himself and his hearers would alike burst into tears, and hardened hearts were cloven by repentance.

The fire of the love of God burnt so in his heart that the part of his under-garment which was next thereto often presented the appearance of having been scorched, and two of his ribs seemed to be raised. He could not withhold his tears, more especially when he was saying Mass, and when he was in a state of trance, as oftentimes befell, his body was sometimes seen to be raised into the air, and his face to shine as with light from heaven. Sometimes when he was preaching a heavenly voice was heard prompting him, or his words became audible at the distance of several miles. He was eminent for the gifts of prophecy, of speaking with tongues, of reading the heart, and of power over evil spirits, over diseases, and over the inanimate elements of nature. The Supreme Pontiffs themselves regarded him as dear and venerable, but he held himself to be but an unprofitable servant, and a sinful wretch upon whom devils might well trample. He held to the bitter hardships of his life, even unto a great age, and passed to heaven from Rome, (upon the 18th day of October,) being the day which he had himself foretold, in the year 1775, after he had addressed to his disciples noble exhortations which are as the heritage of his spirit, and had been comforted by the sacraments of the Church, and by an heavenly vision. The Supreme Pontiff Pius IX. numbered his name among those of the blessed, and then, after renewed signs and wonders, among those of the Saints. (Matins, The Divine Office, April 28.)

We must have the same love of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacred Passion as Saint Paul of the possessed, seeking to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives, keeping close to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, doing the penances that are visited upon us, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and passing out Our Lady's Green Scapular to as many people as we can, being sure to pray "Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death" for each person.

Saint Louis de Montfort, whose feast is commemorated today, the Fourth Sunday after Easter, has given us great words of wisdom for these our times:

Predestinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves by their impious lives, laziness and lack of devotion--and, without delay, recite often your Rosary, with faith, with humility, with confidence and with perseverance. . . .

Dear Rosary Confraternity members, if you want to lead a fashionable life and belong to the world--by this I mean if you do not mind falling into mortal sin from time to time and then going to Confession, and if you with to avoid conspicuous sins which the world considers vile and yet at the same time commit "respectable sins"--then, of course, there is no need for you to say many prayers and Rosaries. You only need to do very little be "respectable": a tiny prayer at night and morning, an occasional Rosary which may be given to you for your penance, a few decades of Hail Marys said on your Rosary (but haphazardly and without concentration) when it suits your fancy to say them--this is quite enough. If you did less, you might be branded as a freethinker or a profligate; if you did more, you would be eccentric and a fanatic. But if you want to lead a true Christian life and genuinely want to save your soul and walk in the saints' footsteps and never, never, fall into mortal sin--if you wish to break Satan's traps and divert his flaming darts, you must always pray as Our Lord taught and commanded you to do.

If you really have this wish at heart, then you must at least say your Rosary or the equivalent, every day. I have said "at least" because probably all that you will accomplish through your Rosary will be to avoid mortal sin and to overcome temptation. This is because you are so exposed to the strong current of the world's wickedness by which many a strong soul is swept away; you are in the midst of the thick, clinging darkness which often blinds even the most enlightened souls; you are surrounded by evil spirits who being more experienced than ever and knowing that their time is short are more cunning and more effective in tempting you.

It will indeed be a marvel of grace wrought by the Most Holy Rosary if you manage to keep out of the clutches of the world, the devil and the flesh and avoid mortal sin and gain heaven! If you do not want to believe me, at least learn from your own experience. I should like to ask you, if when you were in the habit of saying no more prayers than people usually say in the world and saying them they way they usually say them, you were able to avid serious faults and sins that were grievous but which seemed nothing much to you in your blindness. Now at last you must wake up, and if you want to live and die without sin, at least mortal sin, pray unceasingly; say your Rosary every day as members always used to do in the early days of the Confraternity. . . .

Even if you suffer from dryness of soul, boredom and interior discouragement, never give up even the least little bit of your Rosary--for this would be a sure sign of pride and faithlessness. On the contrary, like a real champion of Jesus and Mary, you should say your Our Fathers and Hail Marys quite drily if you have to, without seeing, hearing or feeling any consolation whatsoever, and concentrating as best you can on the mysteries. You ought not to look for candy or jam to eat with your daily bread, as children do--but you should even say your Rosary more slowly sometimes when you particularly find it hard to say. Do this to imitate Our Lord more perfectly in His agony in the garden: "Being in agony, he prayed the longer," so that what was said of Our Lord (when He was in His agony of prayer) may be said of you too: He prayed even longer.

Pray with great confidence, with confidence based upon the goodness and infinite generosity of God and upon the promises of Jesus Christ. God is a spring of living water which flows unceasingly into the hearts of those who pray. The Eternal Father yearns for nothing so much as to share the life-giving waters of His grace and mercy with us. He is entreating us: "All you that thirst, come to the waters . . ." This means "Come and drink of My spring through prayer," and when we do not pray to Him He sorrowfully says that we are forsaking Him: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." (Saint Louis de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary; pp. 99-101; 103)

Let us not forsake Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Let us go to Him through the very instrument His Most Blessed Mother gave to Saint Dominic, the Holy Rosary. Let us take seriously the words that Our Lady told Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria to pray many Rosaries and to do penance for the conversion of poor sinners and to save them from Hell.

We are poor sinners in need of conversion!

We need to be saved from the fires of Hell. We must use the spiritual weapon that Our Lord has given us through His Most Blessed Mother to defeat the enemies of our salvation at the very gates of our soul this day and every day our lives as we lift high the standard of His Most Holy Cross, which is adorned to every Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother, as we seek to spread devotion to this paramount weapon against all sin and heresy.

The world is in the state that it is because of the infidelity of men, including our own!

We can beseech Our Lady to help us remain faithful to the point of our dying breaths, especially by beseeching her through her Most Holy Rosary and by making sure that we offer our daily penances and prayers to her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart through her own Immaculate Heart. She will help us to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith as we exclaim with love the great words that bespeak of our allegiance to her Divine Son, the King of our hearts, the King of the world, Who does indeed want us to recognize that concilarism is a farce and a mockery of His Sacred Deposit Faith from beginning to end.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Paul of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Vitalis, pray for us.

Saint Peter, Chanel, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

You are here

Just A Hypocritical Farce From Beginning to End

Support Christ or Chaos