Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who conducts a daily masquerade as “Pope Francis,” encouraged attendees of “World Youth Day in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, on July 27, 2013, to “make a mess” when they returned home:
“I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!” he said, speaking off the cuff in his native Spanish. “I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!” (Jorge Says To Make A Mess of Things.)
Well, no one is better than the Argentine Apostate in making messes of things as he tosses stink balls and figurative Molotov cocktails to deflect attention from the fact that the conciliar revolution against the Holy Faith and her Sacred Liturgy is the most diabolical and hence destructive force on the face of earth. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the very embodiment of Modernism, so much so that one wonders if Pope Saint Pius X, who is said to have had mystical experiences, was permitted to glimpses of the likes of Bergoglio and his predecessors in the conciliar seat of apostasy as he was writing Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907. There is not one passage of Pascendi Dominci Gregis or have Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, that does not apply in a very particular way to the reprobate lay Jesuit revolutionary.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was noted for being a self-seeking liar who used his trademark coldness and authoritarianism to run roughshod over believing Catholics while he the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 1997 to March 13, 2013, going so far as to attempt to corrupt the purity of a community of religious sisters who he judged to be “too rigid” and “too closed in on themselves” by appointing a women to show them pornographic films. The community disbanded as a result. This wretched apostate, who my dear wife keeps insisting is a demon dressed up to look like a human being, has reaffirmed non-Catholics in their false religions, constantly denounced “Pharisees” and “Pelagians” who attempt to adhere to the immutable truths of the Holy Faith and given every manner of support and encouragement to statists, leftists, pro-aborts and pro-sodomites, if not actual sodomites, in public life while aligning himself both overtly and covertly with George Soros’s diabolical schemes, which is why several of the latter’s trained stooges have received appointments to various “papal” academies.
Bergoglio consorted with major supporters of “liberation theology” shortly after his “ordination” in 1969, has been at the back and call of Talmudists at every turn, including a silent “apology” to Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, by standing at his tomb in a reverent position to present a contrast with Pope Saint Pius X’s stirring rejection of Herzl’s Zionism on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, and has read “prayers” from the blasphemous Talmud at the Casa Sant Marta. He preens and postures for the cameras while he hugs and kisses women, reaffirms sodomites, including those living with other sodomites, as well as mutants who have attempted to change their gender by chemical and surgical means. Significantly, of course, Bergoglio used Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, to give “papal” sanction to the longstanding de facto practice within many of the most revolutionized parishes in conciliar captivity of distributing what purports to be Holy Communion in the abomination of desolation from which we must flee that is the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty to Catholics who are civilly divorced and “remarried” (and to even just plain fornicators) without the fig leaf of a decree of marital nullity from a conciliar diocesan tribunal.
Perhaps most to the point of this particular commentary is the fact that Bergoglio, as has been noted so many, many times on this site and most recently in Jorge Mario Bergoglio "Papally" Blesses Unions Made in Hell, has indemnified his clerical friends and collaborators who have been accused credibly of engaging in sodomite activity of one sort or another. Bergoglio has looked the other way most times until he was forced to take some kind of remedial action for the sake of public relations but not for the underlying sinful actions that scandalized and bewildered the faithful who are as yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the erroneous belief that they are under the control of Catholics and not apostates who hate the Holy Faith.
Longtime readers of this site who are blessed with good memories may recall when Jorge Mario Bergoglio tried to defend a newly appointed “bishop of Osomo, Chile, Juan Barros, who was guilty of protecting a clerical abuser. Here is a reminder for those who have forgotten about this scandal in 2015:
Even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio is breaking new ground as a Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionary by performing the “spontaneous” marriage, he has made it a point to carry on a few “traditions” of his immediate predecessors, especially when it comes to defending his false “bishops” who have protected perverted putative clergymen and when it comes to defending “bishops” themselves who have been accused of perverted behavior.
Yes, it was a day after illegal, lawless church’s version of William Jefferson Blyth “I feel your pain” Clinton, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, prayed and cried with victims of clerical abusers that this little pest of a human being, who might be demon dressed up to look like a man, denounced those who have criticized his own lavender-friendly appointee as the “bishop” of Osorno, Chile, Juan Barros, for having protected a proven perverted presbyter, Fernando Karadima:
SANTIAGO, Chile — A number of Chilean Catholics reacted with disappointment and anger on Friday, a day after Pope Francis spoke in defense of a bishop who they say protected a pedophile priest. The remarks, made on Thursday just before Francis left Chile for Peru, upended his efforts to rehabilitate the Catholic Church’s reputation while visiting South America.
Francis told reporters Thursday there was not a shred of evidence against Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, who victims of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Chile’s most notorious priest, have accused of being complicit in his crimes.
“The day someone brings me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk,” Francis said before celebrating Mass outside the northern Chilean city of Iquique. “But there is not one single piece of evidence. It is all slander. Is that clear?”
The pope’s comments set off a storm in Chile, raising questions about his commitment to repairing the damage from sexual abuse scandals and improving the decline in the church’s image and following in the traditionally devout country.
Benito Baranda, coordinator of the pope’s visit to Chile, told a radio station in Santiago that Bishop Barros “should have ceased to be bishop a long time ago.” He added: “The damage he is inflicting on the church is big.”
Mr. Baranda, a psychologist, said that the church “never believed Karadima’s victims from the start” and that the pope’s support for the bishop “reignites the feeling of not being believed, or that they are exaggerating or being deceitful. It’s like when children say they suffer abuse but no one believes them because they are children.”
However, the president of the Chilean bishops’ conference, Msgr. Santiago Silva, said the organization would “unconditionally support” the pope’s position on Bishop Barros. “The pope told us what he wants, and he wants Monsignor Barros to continue,” Monsignor Silva said.
Alejandro Goic, the bishop of Rancagua, said that what “the pope says has extraordinary value,” but he added that “the church’s main priority should be the victims.”
Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, a group that monitors abuse cases, called the pope’s remarks “a stunning setback.”
She added: “He has just turned back the clock to the darkest days of this crisis. Who knows how many victims now will decide to stay hidden, for fear they will not be believed?”
And the government’s spokeswoman, Paula Narváez, said on her Twitter account: “Respecting, believing and supporting victims of sexual abuse is an ethical imperative. No institutional defense can override this basic principle for a fair society, one that is empathetic with those who most need it.”
Father Karadima was convicted by the Vatican in 2011 of abusing teenage boys beginning in the 1980s, and he was ordered to lead a “life of prayer and penitence.” That year, a judge found the allegations “truthful and reliable” but dismissed a criminal case because the statute of limitations had expired.
Bishop Barros, a former military chaplain, was part of Father Karadima’s inner circle and, according to one of the victims, witnessed the priest’s advances on him.
“As if I could have taken a selfie or picture while Karadima abused me or others and Juan Barros stood there watching it all,” one of Father Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, wrote on Twitter.
The pope told a group of tourists visiting Vatican City in 2015 that people in Orsono who protested the appointment were “dumb.”
“The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” he said, according to video recorded by one of the tourists. The city had “let its head be filled with what politicians say, judging a bishop without any proof.”
This week, lay and religious groups from Osorno and Santiago, the capital, protested throughout the pope’s visit and called for action against the bishop.
But Bishop Barros has continued to enjoy the support of the Vatican, and there was no public indication that Francis was reconsidering his position. Bishop Barros participated in the pope’s ceremonies in Santiago, Iquique and the southern city of Temuco. In Iquique, Bishop Barros told reporters that Francis had offered him “words of support and affection.”
The Associated Press reported this week that Francis had acknowledged the furor over the legacy of Father Karadima in a 2015 letter to the Chilean bishop’s conference. The letter said the pope proposed Bishop Barros and two other bishops go on sabbatical before taking up any new positions, a plan that ultimately fell apart.
Francis began his visit to Chile on Tuesday morning by publicly apologizing for the sexual abuse involving the clergy, saying he felt “pained and ashamed” over the “irreparable damage” done to their victims. But he refused to meet with victims of Father Karadima.
“What the pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses,” James Hamilton, one of the victims, said during a news conference Thursday.
The archbishop of Santiago, Francisco Javier Errázuriz, who has been harshly criticized by Father Karadima’s victims for failing to protect them or investigate their accusations at the time, said the controversy over Bishop Barros was an “invention.” (Jorge Says Critics of Barros are Slanderers.)
Bergoglio was finally forced to accept the resignation of his dear friend and fellow indemnifier of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and scandalize Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ’s little ones after he reluctantly ordered an investigation. However, it took over three and one-half years for Juan Barros to step down formally as the “bishop” of Osorno on June 11, 2018, despite the fact that one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own Commissars, Sean “Cardinal” O’Malley, the conciliar “archbishop” of Boston, Massachusetts, had an eight page letter replete provided statements to Bergoglio from a variety of witnesses, who had verified complaints about Barros and the priest he protected, Father Fernando Karadima, long beforehand even as Bergoglio kept insisting, falsely, as late as January of 2018 that he had seen no evidence or statements from any victims. Bergoglio reacts to these crises when he is forced to do so, not because he has any personal or faux clerical intention to undertake such action on his own initiative.
The same is true in the case of the disgraced Father Theodore McCarrick, who pranced around the world as Theodore “Cardinal” McCarrick Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI refused in 2006 to accept McCarrick’s request to remain in power as the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, beyond the conciliar church’s mandatory age of seventy-five, and then, according to “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano, to withdraw from public life altogether, a Ratzinger/Benedict request that went unheeded and, entirely unsurprisingly, unenforced. Bergoglio, however, was more than happy for Theodore Edgar McCarrick to continue his globetrotting even after Vigano had provided him with a dossier about “Uncle Teddy” and his lifelong pattern of homosexual behavior.
Here is a reminder of what Father Carlo Maria Vigano said in the first of his now famous missives that was written in collaboration with Marco Tossati, an Italian journalist:
I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.
Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.
Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.
The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.
Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.
Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.
In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.
The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.
By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.
Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.…
I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.
…At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do … If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!
Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.
In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them. (As found at Vatican "Archbishop" Accuses Francis of Protecting McCarrick.)
Leaving aside the fact that Father Carlo Maria Vigano accepts Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” all the while criticizing him without realizing that he himself is not a bishop and that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church, Vigano provided additional proof to document that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a pathological liar who is unconcerned about the sanctification and salvation of souls. Indeed, Bergoglio is an enemy of God and an enemy of the souls for whom His Co-Equal and Co-Equal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed every single drop of His Most Precious during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem.
Thus it is that the whitewash that is the McCarrick Report is not about truth. Far from it as it ignores the plain fact that sodomites have long been recruited, promoted and protected by the lords of conciliarism and that this problem even antedates the rise of the false church as was already a network of homosexuals in the hierarchy, in religious communities and the diocesan priesthood for decades before the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958 (see Mrs. Randy Engel’s The “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick Case and, of course, her pioneering The Rite of Sodomy that even a traditional Catholic priest protested with me not to promote because of its explicit details.)
Now, while it is certainly easy to criticize Father Vigano for not seeing the truth of the counterfeit church of conciliarism at this late date, many of us, including this writer, of course, “fought from within” on Mindanao for a long time before coming to accept the fact that, as I had been hearing now and again when I first learned of The Nine in 1983 at a time when I was busy trying to help save the pastorate of the late Father Robert Mason, who was under assault by his “bishop,” the pedestrian Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionary named John Raymond McGann, and thus paid little attention to sedevacantism, which I dismissed as not “possible” under the “defender of the Faith” named Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Fighting for the restoration of Catholicism in a non-Catholic entity, however, is simply a Sisyphus-like exercise in continuous frustration just as is trying fight against Communism and the moral evils of the day within our political and legal structures by using merely naturalistic tools always fails and always winds up institutionalize such evils at either a greater or lesser rate of speed. Error and falsehood can never be the foundation of anything other than more error and falsehood.
Look, as one can see from “Time for Plain Talk,” which I wrote in March of 2002 and was published in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos a short time later, that I recognized the problems of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s lack of governance and his utter indifference when presented with facts about the rot of moral corruption right under his nose and that he indemnified almost at every turn until press reports forced him to react in a very nominal way at the beginning of 2002:
As I noted in last month's issue of Christ or Chaos, the explosion of public revelations dealing with scandals involving priest pederasty and the cover-up of such scandals by ecclesiastical officials in this country and across the world is partly the result of the failure of bishops to understand that no man who demonstrates any homosexual tendencies whatsoever can be ordained to the priesthood. The Holy Father's spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro Valls, made this exact comment himself recently.
However, there needs to be some plain talk spoken in love about the Holy Father's own responsibility in this matter. Pope John Paul II has abdicated his responsibility to personally supervise the appointment of bishops and he has failed quite utterly to discipline bishops, who have let scandals fester and doctrinal impurity to go unchecked in their dioceses. The Holy Father's abdication of his role as governor of the Church has done incalculable damage to the Holy Faith. Thousands of souls have been lost to the Church as a result of scandals which need never have occurred, and by the failure of the Holy Father to use his disciplinary power to remove bishops responsible for knowingly ordaining homosexuals, and for believing that such behavior after ordination is a disqualification for further pastoral assignments. And this is to say nothing of the Holy Father's refusal to admit that his bishops are responsible for the promotion of doctrinal impurity, creating, instead, a climate of a siege-mentality in which some Catholics have come to believe that all bishops everywhere are beyond criticism for anything. Indeed, His Holiness has done much to help create such an environment by his praise of bishops-and his abject refusal to do anything to remove men who are harmful to the Faith (Roger Cardinal Mahony, Matthew Clark, Howard Hubbard, Rembert Weakland, Tod Brown, Robert Brom, Joseph Imesch, Patrick McGrath - and to recently permit others to continue to preside over the destruction of the Faith until the point of their retirement, most notably the late John Raymond McGann, the long-time Bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre.) Sadly, the Holy Father refused to take action against a French bishop who supported RU-486, the French abortion pill, until the laity in France kept pestering Rome for the man's removal, which took place in January of 1995.
The Holy Father's lack of governance of the Church undoes the claim of some of his great apologists, such as George Weigel, that history will record him as John Paul the Great. Pope John Paul II will go down in history as a man who traveled widely and wrote much. However, he will also go down in history as a man who let ecclesiastical bureaucrats beneath him determine the human fate of the Church at this point in salvation history. There is no escaping this conclusion. One can love the Holy Father while recognizing in all candor the weaknesses of his pontificate. No great holder of the Chair of Saint Peter would stand by idly as bishops, such as Reginald Cawcutt in South Africa, justify homosexual behavior and mock the pursuit of holiness which is supposed to be the universal vocation of every baptized Catholic. And no "great" pope would attempt to positivistically reaffirm bishops in their fidelity to the Deposit of Faith when the truth of the matter is that most of the world's bishops help to undermine the Faith.
It is not difficult for any pope to know who his episcopal appointees are. There are only three thousand dioceses in the world. More important than any pilgrimage or World Youth Day is the duty a Pope has to know the men he appoints as ordinaries of dioceses. He should not rely upon the word of ecclesiastical functionaries in the Vatican, nor should he rely upon the foxes around the world in episcopal attire who want to replicate themselves by nominating men who will continue the theological and liturgical revolution begun in earnest in the 1960s at Vatican II. It is important for a pope to personally interview all possible candidates for episcopal appointments (even as auxiliary bishops) and to elicit information from well placed sources in the laity in a particular diocese. A pope's most lasting legacy is the quality (or lack thereof) of his episcopal appointments. Far from being an impossible task, the job of supervising the selection of bishops is eminently possible and morally mandated for the good of the salvation and sanctification of souls.
For example, the Holy Father created then Monsignor Emil Wcela of the Diocese of Rockville Centre as an auxiliary bishop in 1988 even though it was known to Vatican officials that Wcela was a supporter of women's ordination. Wcela has been a prominent player in the now-named United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, pushing hard for "inclusive language" in the Mass and participating in scandalous New Age/feminist "paraliturgies" on Long Island. True, His Holiness refused the late Bishop John R. McGann's request to have Wcela named as his Co-Adjutor in the 1990s. However, the damage was done when Wcela was named by the Holy Father as an auxiliary bishop.
Similarly, the Holy Father waited for two long years before forcing Springfield, Illinois, Bishop Daniel Ryan into an early retirement even though Vatican officials knew that Ryan is a homosexual who had abused his own priests and consorted with male prostitutes. Ryan still functions as a retired bishop in good standing, laying his dirty, unrepentant hands on a man at his ordination to the priesthood in the Diocese of Joliet on Saturday, March 16, 2002. It is more than a little interesting that Ryan was promoted to the episcopacy by that notorious supporter of the homosexual agenda, Joliet Bishop Joseph R. Imesch. It is scandalous that Ryan is continued to function as a bishop in good standing.
Please, please, do not give me the shopworn line that the Holy Father wants to avoid a de jure schism. Far more dangerous to the Faith than an actual break from Rome on the part of modernist bishops is the de facto schism which permits such bishops to use all of their disciplinary powers against those who promote our living liturgical tradition and against those who want to protect their children from the rot of sex instruction and from doctrinal heresy. Catholics who love God are thus forced in many instances to seek refuge in the catacombs, so to speak, in order to protect their children and to save their own souls, being branded as "disobedient" to their local bishops by going to independent chapels to preserve the Faith whole and undiluted. Indeed, the failure of the Holy Father to supervise the appointment of bishops and his failure to discipline and remove those he has appointed has rendered the institutional Church in most dioceses utterly corrupt and untrustworthy. Men who have juridical power as bishops considered to be in full communion with Rome act as power drunk despots who have a contempt for the Holy Father, knowing full well that they will never be disciplined for their revolutionary activities against the Faith.
And, please, do not tell me how much the Holy Father has done to promote the sanctity of innocent human life. All of the Holy Father's passionate pleas for the defense of the innocent unborn and the elderly and the infirm have been undermined by the fact that many of the men he has appointed as bishops look the other way as contraception and the horrible rot of sex-instruction, which undermines the innocence and purity of the young, are promoted in Catholic schools and colleges and universities and so-called theological workshops. Indeed, the horror of sex instruction is now foisted on Kindergarten students in the name of "AIDS Awareness." The "Gospel of Life" is contradicted when bishops take no action to prevent alleged theatrical productions with unspeakable titles from being performed at Catholic colleges and universities. The sanctity of innocent human life is vitiated when Catholic bishops sign agreements with secular health-care facilities to permit physicians who prescribe contraception and kill babies to have privileges at Catholic hospitals (and to have such "services" made available to patients in Catholic hospitals by means of references provided to them in "separate wings" of those hospitals by the secularists).
Furthermore, the Holy Father has given at least the appearance of religious indifferentism when appearing on an equal footing with rabbis and mullahs, to say nothing of lay men such as the alleged "Archbishop of Canterbury," who is not an ordained priest or bishop. Sure, the Holy Father has written about the importance of avoiding religious indifferentism (see, for example, Redemptoris Missio, 1991). However, he feeds such indifferentism with his Assisi events, and when he praises the voodoo witch doctor for the "contributions" he makes to African tribal life. A picture is worth a thousand encyclical letters. The average Catholic is going to conclude that there is no need to invite people into the true Church (the only means of human salvation) when the Pope himself gives the appearance of indifferentism and universal salvation. And the average non-Catholic interested in converting to the Faith may have second thoughts when the Pope gives the impression, both in action and in speech, that such conversion is unnecessary (as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger more or less said recently when reaffirming Jews in their Judaism).
The failure of the Holy Father to govern the Church is what has led revolutionaries to use the current climate of scandal and cover-up to blame priestly celibacy and the non-admissibility of women to the priesthood as being responsible for the misbehavior of priests. Such is not the case at all. While admitting full well that the weakness of the flesh which is the result of the Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, is responsible for the fall of priests who have been faithful to the Deposit of Faith, it is nevertheless true that men who have been noted for the infidelity to the Deposit of Faith are more prone than others to engage in perverse behavior. Their perversity is not the result of the discipline or the teaching of the Church. It is the result of human weakness and/or persistence in unrepentant perversity, a failure either to recognize the necessity of rooting out sin in one's life or the necessity of amending one's life when he falls.
As I note continuously in all my writing, each of us is a sinner. Each of us bears responsibility for the state of the Church and the world. Each one of our sins wounded the God-Man on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and wounds His Mystical Body, the Church, today. However, it is one thing to sin and to be sorry, to seek out the mercy of our Lord in the hospital of Divine Mercy which is the confessional. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet for those in ecclesiastical authority to do so or to be indifferent to those who do so. Sinners can amend their lives. However, it is important for them to recognize the need to amend their lives and to cooperate with the graces our Lord and our Lady make available to them to do so. What we need to understand is that the scandalous behavior making such headlines at present is the result principally of an un-Catholic, indeed, even anti-Catholic, bias of bishops and priests and educators themselves. Such a bias has been allowed to fester by the Holy Father himself.
This is plain talk. It is tough talk. However, it is written in love. As a son of the Church, I love the Pope and respect him as the Successor of Saint Peter, praying fervently for his needs daily. A respect for the person of the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff does not mean, though, that we lionize him or overlook his administrative weaknesses and his approaches to ecumenism which border on the heretical. Such weaknesses and approaches prove once more the indefectibility of the Church: nothing humanly organized could possibly survive the mistakes and sins of those who compose her, including popes and bishops.
No one wants to place the blame for the crisis we are facing at present at the feet of the Pope. The truth is, however, that he is at least partly to blame for the explosion of this crisis by his refusal to govern the Church, for refusing to supervise the appointment of bishops, and for refusing to believe the reports sent to him by concerned members of the clergy and laity alike about the true state of the Church in one diocese after another.
Consider, for example, a report which appeared on WorldNet Daily on Palm Sunday, March 24, 2002:
"In the early 1990s, a group of priests, including [Father Charles] Fiore, assembled a dossier on ecclesiastical problems in the U.S. The information was carefully collected and documented with guidance on Church law given by the Rev. Alfred Kunz, a canon lawyer.
"Kunz also assisted in the founding of Roman Catholic Faithful. In 1998, Kunz was mysteriously murdered, and the police thus far have been unable to make any conclusive progress toward solving the murder. Fiore described Kunz as "having no enemies - except those who hated the Church."
"According to Fiore, the dossier was sent by courier to Rome. The courier was a Polish-speaking priest and a friend of Pope John Paul II's personal secretary, then-Monsignor, now Archbishop, Stanislaus Dsiwisz.
"Dsiwisz brought the file to the pope's attention. The pope briefly examined the documents, Fiore says, put them aside and then, referring to his previous attempts to lead and discipline the bishops regarding various issues, exclaimed, 'I've told them, and they don't listen to me.' John Paul II, in effect, admitted that the U.S. bishops did not properly lead the Catholic Church in America." (WorldNet Daily 3/24.)
As men and women of faith, we need to pray to Our Lady, the Mother of the Church, to help us intensify our own efforts to sanctity our own souls. The rebuilding of the Church starts with us. We need to pray, to sacrifice, to fast, to be totally consecrated to our Lady's Immaculate Heart in order to be of true help in the resurrection of the Church, and in order to help this Pope and his successor, whoever he turns out to be, to govern the Church with clarity and firmness for the good of the salvation of souls and thus the right ordering of the world to the Social Kingship of our Lord and the Queenship of our Lady. (“Time for Plain Talk,” from the printed pages of Christ or Chaos, April 2, 2002. Remember that name of Father Stanislaus Dziwisz as it will come into prominence in this commentary a short time later.)
Obviously, I had a lot to learn, but I was beginning to examine the statement of The Nine and Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus concerning the doctrinal justifications supporting the conclusion that the See of Saint Peter had been vacant from the time of the death of Pope Pius XII. The “best” that I could say to Sharon at the time when I wrote “Time for Plain Talk” was that “You know what? The sedevacantists may one day prove to be correct.”
Anyhow, the purpose of including “Time for Plain Talk” in this commentary, however, is to demonstrate that Karol Josef Wojtyla’s complicity in the appointment, retention and promotion of such men as Matthew Clark, Joseph Imesch, Daniel Leo Ryan, Sylvester Ryan, Robert Lynch, Joseph Bernardin, Roger Mahony, Tod Brown, George Niederauer, George Patrick Ziemann, Thomas Joseph O'Brien, Joseph Keith Symons, Bernard Francis Law, John Magee, Christoph Schonborn, Hans Hermann Groer, Theodore Edgar McCarrick, Emerson Moore, James Timothy McHugh, Donald Wuerl, Reginald Cawcutt, et al., was well-known before Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney ordered the release in November of 2001 of all over 10,000 pages records pertaining to a notorious serial clerical abuser, Father John J. Geoghan, who was the subject of eight-four different lawsuits at the time, that had been requested by reporters for the Boston Globe. Those of us who wrote for The Wanderer in the 1990s had documented some of the most notorious cases of clerical abuse that had been brought to the attention of those close to, if not in fact, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes to see how most communities of religious men had been overrun with sodomites.
The situation was so bad that the late Frank Kelly, who was the founder of Virginia Right to Life (a no-exceptions, take-no-prisoners organization that maintained no ties to the Not So Right to Life Committee in Washington, District of Columbia), showed me a sheaf of documentation when he hosted me while I was speaking at the Washington Catholic Rendezvous in February of 1987. He told me that he had tried to convince the late Alphonse J. Matt, Jr.,, of the evidence but to no avail up that time, something that changed in the early-1990s as The Wanderer became the leader in exposing such cases. It just happened to be the case that Mr. Kelly, a tough-as-nails ex-Marine who was a legislative aide for national security to a United States Senator, was also hosting a true priest who had left the Salvatorian Fathers (Society of the Divine Saviour) because of the prevalence of sodomy within its ranks. The situation is of such longstanding that a vocations director for an Eastern diocese told me that, “Do you know that there are dioceses within two hundred miles of here who accept practicing homosexuals?” And even before I met the late Father Benedict Groeschel, O.F.M. Cap., in 1981, several conciliar presbyters had told me that he had said the following when addressing them in seminary, “Gentlemen, there is an infestation of homosexuals in the priesthood that will explode into scandal within twenty years and shake the faith of many.”
Thus, nothing in the McCarrick Report is “new” to many of us who are older, but the report itself is noteworthy is a complete whitewash because Jorge Mario Bergoglio saw to it that accuse Father Carlo Maria Vigano’s credibility was put into question concerning the information that he, Vigano, said he gave personally to him, Bergoglio, about McCarrick’s record as a clerical predator (see https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-interview-with-raymond-arroyo-vigan-denies-accusations-from-mccarrick-report-57946.) To be sure, Mrs. Randy Engel pointed out two years ago that Vigano is not exactly a knight in shining armor with an unblemished record on the issue of dealing with clerical predators (see The strange case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt, Part I – A homosexual cleric on the fast track, The strange case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt, Part II, The strange case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt, Part III, and The strange case of Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt Part IV – Opus Dei's Role in the Viganò Affair). However, Bergoglio hates Vigano passionately and thus saw to it that his enemy, Vigano, who has received such attention in “conservative” Catholic and even in a few Protestant circles, including neighbors of ours who are not inclined to read anything that is remotely Catholic, got muddied up by the McCarrick Report.
This having been noted, though, the real purpose of the McCarrick Report, other than to rewrite history and to make it appear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants “transparent” when the only transparent thing about him is that he is deceiving apostate and master schemer (who might even have the tendency to click the “like” button on some social medial platform featuring a scatological photograph; if not him, someone with access to the particular social media platform did so) who loves to exact revenge on his enemies, perceived or real. This reveals Bergoglio once again as a figure of Antichrist in everything he says and does, including by practicing the exact opposite of what Our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ preached in the Sermon on the Mount:
You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.  But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:  That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?  And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?  Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5: 41-48.)
Remember, Bergoglio hates everything about Catholicism before the “Second” Vatican Council and, as a Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionary, also hates the Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionaries who, he believes, have served as “obstacles” to the “full realization” of the robber council’s full potential, which is why Bergoglio despises Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI even though both believed in dogmatic evolutionism, the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State and religious liberty, and were champions of the heresy that the Old Covenant was never superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday as the earth quaked and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
Saint John Paul II” gave his consent to “Monsignor” Piero Marini’s schemes to use outdoor “papal” extravaganza “liturgies” of the like that would have made even the heretics of yore blush with shame. The indecent, impure and scatological “theology of the body” is based upon the series of general audiences he gave on the Book of Genesis in 1981 and this Polish phenomenologist and pioneering conciliar Modernist was instrumental in propagating the conciliar inversion of the ends of marriage that helped to justify what has become known as “natural family planning.” None of this was “good enough” for Bergoglio, who scoffed at what he perceived as Wojtyla/John Paul II’s
“imprisoning” theological “development, permitting the criticism of “liberation theology,” and vocally opposing the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children and opposing the sodomites who marched on Rome in 2000.
Indeed, Bergoglio, who has shown his “openness” to those who identify themselves by their freely chosen proclivities to commit perverse sins against nature, would never do what “Saint John Paul II” did twenty years ago when expressing his “bitterness” about the sodomite “festival” in Rome during the holy year that he had called:
Pope John Paul II expressed ''bitterness'' today about a gay pride festival held in Rome during this Roman Catholic Holy Year, saying that the event, which ends today, was an affront to the church and the ''Christian values'' of the Italian capital.
''In the name of the church of Rome, I cannot not express bitterness for the affront to the Grand Jubilee of the year 2000 and for the offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world,'' the pope said in a Sunday message delivered from a balcony over St. Peter's Square.
For months, church officials lobbied to cancel the festival, but today was the first time the pope personally addressed the issue. That he did so even after the most contested part of the program, Saturday's gay pride parade, was over was a sign of how strongly he feels about an issue that still divides many Catholics.
So was the fact that he spoke out right after holding a special Jubilee Mass for inmates at a Rome prison, effectively eclipsing the appeal he made there for governments around the world to reduce sentences for prisoners during the Holy Year. (John Paul II Declares His Bitterness over Sodomite Event.nytimes.com/2000/07/10/world/pope-declares-his-bitterness-over-gay-event.html.)
Lost on Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II was the simple fact that the heresies of “religious liberty” and “separation of church and state” that he embraced so fervently and propagated so willingly were responsible for letting loose the forces that had become so emboldened by the last year of the Twentieth Century, the year 2000, as to hold a “festival” of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance near the Eternal City, which, thanks to Wojtyla/John Paul II, lost its status as a holy city in the Lateran Concordat of 1983:
In the light of political and social changes which have occurred in Italy over the last decades and developments promoted by the Church since the Second Vatican Council;
Bearing in mind the principles sanctioned in the Constitution by the Italian Republic and, on behalf of the Holy See, the declarations of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council on religious freedom and relations between the Church and the government, including the new codification of Canon Law;
Considering furthermore that, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, the relations between the State and the Catholic Church are regulated by the Lateran Pacts, which, moreover, can by modified by mutual consent by both Parties without having recourse to any process of constitutional revision;
[The Parties] have recognised the opportunity to agree on the following mutually agreed amendments to the Lateran Concordat:. . . . (Modifications to the Lateran Concordat (1984) : text)
Upon the signing of the Accord which modifies the Lateran Concordat, the Holy See and the Republic of Italy, desirous of ensuring with fitting precision the application of the Lateran treaties and the agreed modifications, and of avoiding any difficulties of interpretation, declare with mutual interest:
1. With Reference to Article 1
The principle, normally stated in Lateran treaties, that the Catholic religion is the sole religion of the Italian state is no longer in force. (Supplement to Modifications to the Lateran Concordat (1984) : text)
Obviously, we can see just how well much influence the conciliar "popes" have had in Italian politics as baby-killing has been permitted under cover of the civil law and has rank pornography is displayed on Roman billboards as part of the "fruit," shall we say, of the soon-to-be "canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's 1984 Concordat between the State of Vatican City and the Republic of Italy:
ROME, Aug. 3— The Italian Senate today approved a new concordat with the Vatican that will end Roman Catholicism's status as the state religion of Italy and that officially guarantees freedom of religion for non- Catholics.
The new concordat, which will replace one that has been in effect since 1929, will go before the Chamber of Deputies for final approval in September.
It easily cleared the Senate today after a two-day debate.
The concordat, which was drafted by a joint church-state commission, was signed by the Government and the Vatican in February, but the commission was given six months to work out final details.
The concordat is the formal realization of an article in Italy's 1948 Constitution on religious liberty and a revision of the Lateran Pacts signed in 1929 by Mussolini and Pope Pius XI.
Under the new accord, religious education in schools will now be optional. Rome will lose its status as a ''holy city,'' a role that had allowed the church to ban plays, books and films considered offensive to the church. (New Concordat With Vatican Is Approved by Italian Senate.)
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II thus helped to complete the Masonic overthrow of the Papal States by removing the concession that Pope Pius XI had won from Benito Mussolini in the 1929 Lateran Concordat that established the sovereign State of Vatican City, thus ending what was a sixty year virtual imprisonment of popes in the Vatican and Castel Gandolfo. Pornography, filth, and degradation abound in Rome now as a result of the 1984 Lateran Concordat. Yes, such is the stuff of conciliar "heroic sanctity."
However, these “stellar” conciliar credentials mean nothing to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who told a few pilgrims in 2014 that it was his “duty” to “canonize” Wojtyla/John Paul II because was so “popular” as “Saint John Paul II” put too many “conservatives” in place, including Ratzinger/Benedict, and issued such apostolic exhortations as Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, that Bergoglio believed were “merciless” affronts to civilly and divorced and “remarried” Catholics as Wojtyla/John Paul II reminded people living in adulterous situations that that they had to remain celibate if they could not separate without harm to their children. Never mind the fact that Familiaris Consortio was heretical as it contained within its text conciliarism’s overthrow of the ends of marriage and the use of the marital privilege in ways that thwarted the begetting of children as part of routine rather than in the extraordinary situations spoken of by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951. No, that is not good enough for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who used Amoris Laetitia as the specific means to endorse the overturning of the traditional Catholic teaching about the inability of excommunicated persons to receive Holy Communion that had been upheld, albeit by the use of conciliarspeak, by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II (and his collaborator, Wanda Poltawska) in Familiaris Consortio thirty-five years before.
“Pope Francis” wants to end the adulation of “Saint John Paul II” who, obviously, was never a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter (and the last of the current line of antipopes to have been a true bishop, having been consecrated just six days before the death of Pope Pius XII) and thus would never be under any consideration for canonization by the Catholic Church as he, fooling so many of us for much longer than should have been the case, was not a “defender of the Faith” but a Modernist to the core of his being. The Catholic Church can never beatify or canonize a heretic. Period.
Bergoglio, though, was placed in a corner by the “beatification” of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on Sunday, May 1, 2011, which is why, he, Bergoglio, made sure to “canonize” the Modernist, Sillonist and Rosicrucian named Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the same day in 2014 to provide a little something for everyone within the conciliar structures—a “progressive” for his fellow “progressives” and a supposed “conservative” for the likes of Ratzinger/Benedict and those who pine for the “return” from Elba of their vaunted “restorer of tradition” who is a fabled Modernist by way of the New Theology in his own right.
To prove my point about how Jorge Mario Bergoglio felt compelled to “canonize” a man whose version of Modernism was too regressive for his revolutionary tastes, contrast Bergoglio’s praise of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII with his tepid review of Karol Josef Wojtyla’s “pontificate” at the “homily” for “canonization” liturgy on April 27, 2014:
This is also the image of the Church which the Second Vatican Council set before us. John XXIII and John Paul II cooperated with the Holy Spirit in renewing and updating the Church in keeping with her pristine features, those features which the saints have given her throughout the centuries. Let us not forget that it is the saints who give direction and growth to the Church. In convening the Council, John XXIII showed an exquisite openness to the Holy Spirit. He let himself be led and he was for the Church a pastor, a servant-leader, led by the Spirit. This was his great service to the Church; he was the pope of openness to the Spirit.
In his own service to the People of God, John Paul II was the pope of the family. He himself once said that he wanted to be remembered as the pope of the family. I am particularly happy to point this out as we are in the process of journeying with families towards the Synod on the family. It is surely a journey which, from his place in heaven, he guides and sustains.
May these two new saints and shepherds of God’s people intercede for the Church, so that during this two-year journey toward the Synod she may be open to the Holy Spirit in pastoral service to the family. May both of them teach us not to be scandalized by the wounds of Christ and to enter ever more deeply into the mystery of divine mercy, which always hopes and forgives because it always loves. (‘Modernists of 20th century’ witness, teach of God’s mercy.)
As noted above, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was led by false spirits throughout his long career of priestly and episcopal apostasy, a man who gave aid and comfort to The Sillon after it had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and whose desire to appease Socialists and Communists has been documented numerous times, especially by Franco Bellgrandi in Nikita Roncalli. Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII desired there to be rupture with the “past” of the Catholic Church. It is impossible for the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, to have directed any kind of rupture, which would have meant that He is capable of guiding Holy Mother Church one way for over nineteen hundred years before consigning the entirety of that period of time to the dust bin of history.
Also as noted above, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was no “pope of the family.” He did much to undermine the integrity of the family by promoting the revolutionary precepts of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, which inverted the ends of marriage and wound up serving as the springboard from which would come the form of “Catholic contraception” that became known as “natural family planning” (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change). Wojtyla/John Paul II’s general audience addresses on matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments served as the foundation for what has become the cottage industry known as the “Theology of the Body“, which is nothing other than a sewer of unimaginable indecency and filth. Some “pope of the family.”
As “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano was “consecrated” by Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 26, 1992, and is close to Ratzinger/Benedict, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wanted to kill two birds with one stone by having the McCarrick Report published with a completely justifiable and even necessary account of the Polish “pope’s” role in indemnifying McCarrick and refusing to act on the direct evidence given to him while at the same time hoping to knock his much adored predecessor in the chair of conciliar apostasy off a perch that believing Catholics know should never have had in the first place. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to analogize how one Roman Caesar would build up his own cult while seeking, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to tear down the cult of a predecessor, something that was quite common in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (de-Stalinization under Nikita Khrushchev starting in 1956) and in the “People’s” Republic of [Red] China (demythologizing Mao Zedong and abandonment of Mao’s disastrous economic policies under Deng Xiaoping).
It must have pleased Jorge Mario Bergoglio no end, therefore, that The New York Times ran with the opportunity sling well-deserved mud on the “conservative” conciliarist from Poland as this is exactly what he, Bergoglio, hoped to accomplish with the McCarrick Report:
At the funeral of Pope John Paul II at St. Peter’s Square, banners rose from the sea of mourners reading “Santo Subito,” or “Saint at Once.” He was a giant of the church in the 20th century, spanning the globe, inspiring generations of believers with his youthful magnetism, then aged infirmity, and, as the Polish pope, he helped bring down Communism over his more than 26-year reign.
Days after his death in 2005, cardinals eager to uphold his conservative policies had already begun discussing putting him on a fast track to sainthood while devotees in Rome and beyond clamored for his immediate canonization, drowning out notes of caution from survivors of sexual abuse and historians that John Paul had persistently turned a blind eye to the crimes in his church.
Now, after more than a decade of doubts, his reputation has fallen under its darkest cloud yet, after the very Vatican that rushed to canonize him released an extraordinary report this week that laid at the saint’s feet the blame for the advancement of the disgraced former prelate Theodore E. McCarrick.
The investigation, commissioned by Pope Francis, who canonized John Paul in 2014, revealed how John Paul chose not to believe longstanding accusations of sexual abuse against Mr. McCarrick, including pedophilia, allowing him to climb the hierarchy’s ladder.
The findings detailed decades of bureaucratic obfuscation and lack of accountability by a host of top prelates and threatened to sully the white robes of three popes. But most of all, critics say, it provides searing proof that the church moved with reckless speed to canonize John Paul and now it is caught in its own wreckage . . . .
Citing John Paul’s “calamitous, callous decision-making,” which it said put children around the world at risk, an editorial Friday in the National Catholic Reporter urged American bishops meeting next week for their annual conference to “discuss requesting that the Vatican formally suppress John Paul’s cult,” or cease celebrating him. “Abuse victims deserve no less.”
That is a tremendous irony for a pope who turned the church into an efficient canonization factory. John Paul knocked down the criteria for beatification from two miracles to one, and did the same for canonization. In 1983, he reduced the amount of time required between a person’s death and the start of their canonization process to five years from 50.
He produced more than 480 saints, and put enough into the pipeline that Benedict XVI was able to canonize scores more. Pope Francis has followed suit, but has chosen to canonize people closer to his more pastoral, and less doctrinaire, vision of the church, such as Pope Paul VI and the martyred Salvadoran Archbishop Óscar Romero.
All three of the popes embraced the canonization process as a tool to fortify the faithful with the notion that saints are still among us, but also as mission statements for who merits emulation. Given the ideological divisions in the church, that approach puts a premium on speed.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former official in the Secretariat of State who became the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, in part prompted the report by publishing a remarkable letter in 2018 that accused Pope Francis of having covered up Mr. McCarrick’s abuse.
To shield John Paul II, who was actually in power at the time of Mr. McCarrick’s promotions, Archbishop Viganò argued that the ailing pontiff was too sick with Parkinson’s in 2000 to be held accountable.
But the Vatican investigation, which Archbishop Viganò said did not interview him, says that John Paul was of sound mind when he personally made the decision to reject the accusations and appoint Mr. McCarrick.
“The record unequivocally shows that Pope John Paul II made the decision personally,” the report says, and quotes the testimony of the former prefect of the papal household, James Harvey, saying John Paul was “fully capable to make all of his own decisions in 2000.”
The more frequent defense of John Paul, expressed also in the report, is that his experience facing Communism in Poland led him to believe that false accusations against priests and bishops were a political weapon against the faith.
But the reports give a rare glimpse at other, less noble, factors that led the pope to believe Mr. McCarrick, namely that the Vatican operated like an old boys network where bishops always got the benefit of the doubt. (McCarrick Report Casts John Paul II in Harsh Light.)
Perhaps even more importantly, the National Catholic Reporter, which has long championed the Montinian agenda to such an extent that it was the principal source of American-based opposition to the “conservatism” of “Saint Paul II” and of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI before embracing one of “their own” upon Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s ascension to the conciliar seat of apostasy on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, called upon the United States conciliar “bishops” to suppress the cult of a man who did much to destroy the sensus Catholicus but not enough to the liking of the National Catholic Reporter’s editorial board, which is delighting in the opportunity to be Bergoglio’s “bad cop” in this regard:
In many, many ways, Pope John Paul II was an admirable man. The last decades of the 20th century were enriched immeasurably by his deft use of papal statecraft in raising up the voices of oppressed peoples across Eastern Europe, in his various efforts toward inter-religious dialogue, and by his personal witness to the dignity of aging.
But as the Vatican's unprecedented report on the career of disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick reveals in shocking detail, the first decade of the 21st century will forever be marred by John Paul's calamitous, callous decision-making.
It is time for a difficult reckoning. This man, proclaimed a Catholic saint by Pope Francis in 2014, willfully put at risk children and young adults in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and across the world. In doing so, he also undermined the global church's witness, shattered its credibility as an institution, and set a deplorable example for bishops in ignoring the accounts of abuse victims.
As with every saint, John Paul has a vibrant cult — people across the world who celebrate his memory by encouraging devotion to him, placing his name on churches and schools, and hosting processions and parades on his liturgical feast.
Given what we know now about the long-lasting repercussions of John Paul's decision-making, the U.S. bishops, meeting next week for their annual conference, should seriously consider whether American Catholics can continue such practices. They should also discuss requesting that the Vatican formally suppress John Paul's cult. Abuse victims deserve no less.
As the Vatican's devastating report shows clearly, the late pope's decision to appoint McCarrick as Washington's archbishop in 2000 came despite severe warnings from his highest-level advisors on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Oct. 28, 1999, letter from New York Cardinal John O'Connor, which has been revealed for the first time, could hardly have been more ominous. McCarrick, O'Connor warned, had been the subject of anonymous allegations and was known to invite seminarians to sleep in the same bed with him.
About the possibility of promoting McCarrick beyond his then-role as the Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, O'Connor wrote: "I regret that I would have to recommend very strongly against such promotion."
O'Connor, who sent the letter on Oct. 28, 1999, as he was suffering from brain cancer that would lead to his death only seven months later, also said he had "grave fears" about the possibility of the promotion and the "grave scandal" it could cause the church.
Read it again. This wasn't a simple blinking red light. It was an all-alerts, final-act bulletin from one of the global church's most senior figures.
Despite that, and despite O'Connor's concerns being subsequently echoed by the Vatican's ambassador to the U.S., and the prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops, John Paul would trust McCarrick's denials about his behavior and make the appointment anyway.
What's more, to do so the pope had to personally take it under his wing — unusually instructing the Vatican's Secretary of State to tell the bishops' congregation to add McCarrick's name to the list of priests being considered for the job, and then having the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith waive the standard check for McCarrick's adherence to Catholic doctrine.
This is all the more devastating if you consider that the decision came during the same period that the Vatican was made aware of allegations of abuse by Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the once-powerful Legionaries of Christ, whose victims number at least in the dozens and possibly the hundreds.
Journalists Jason Berry and Gerald Renner first exposed Maciel's abuse of seminarians in 1997. In 1998, eight ex-Legionaries brought their case against Maciel to the doctrinal congregation.
John Paul would continue to praise the man publicly for the rest of his papacy. Maciel was not publicly punished until 2006, after John Paul's death, when Pope Benedict XVI ordered the priest to a life of penance.
There is no way anymore to escape the truth. John Paul, in many ways an admirable man, was willfully blind to the abuse of children and young people.
Suppressing the late pontiff's cult would not mean telling people they need to throw away their relics or their medals — people could still practice private devotion to him. But for abuse victims, their advocates and many others, John Paul's memory is no longer a blessing. It should not be celebrated in public. (The Memory of John Paul II is No Longer a Blessing: United States “bishops” should suppress the Cult of John Paul II.)
Well, I can do the revolutionaries at the National Catholic Reporter (which we used to call the National Catholic Distorter when I was at Holy Apostles Seminary): The entire kit and kaboodle of the counterfeit church of conciliarism must be suppressed and its memory consigned to the dustbin of history. Everything associated with this false religious sect has ruined the life of the Catholic faithful who are as of yet attached to the conciliar structures and has accustomed them to ceaseless change, unpredictability, instability and constant scandal that has driven many into the arms of waiting Protestant sects and many more into rank unbelief with lives that are worse the pagans of yore and compete with some of the most notorious barbarians in human history for their worship of sense pleasure and a contempt for all things sacred. This day will come in God’s good time with the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at which point entities such as The National Catholic Reporter will no longer exist.
This having been noted, though, the National Catholic Reporter’s editorial did highlight Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s role in indemnifying the late, corrupt, skillful emotional manipulator and an engine of raising large sums of cash that he dolled out to conciliar officials in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River with great liberality, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Cash and Carry. The role of Stanislaus “Cardinal” Dzwisiz, whom I had met in the “papal” chapel prior to a “papal” staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination when he tapped me on the shoulder, asked if I spoke English and then invited me to serve as the “pope’s lector” on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, is very critical to understand as he received loads and loads of money from the decadent, venal from Degollado and from many others as well.
The news story, doubled-indented just above, from ten years ago is followed by a brief commentary that appear in Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity on April 30, 2010:
The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel's career before 2001 -- the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.
According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. "That's a pretty big resource," explains one priest, who said the Legion's work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. "Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution."
The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries' lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel's way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors' board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.
"Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz," said the priest. "Two weeks later Pironio signed it."
Dziwisz was John Paul's closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz's support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope's private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. "Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops," Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.
"When the guests came in (there were never more than 50)," Dziwisz wrote, "they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. ... For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful."
One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. "We arranged things like that," he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope's ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz's book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.
"This happened all the time with Dziwisz," said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.
Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries "would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household."
Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: "You're saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it's good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita -- 'We're making an offering for your works of charity.' That's the way it's done. In fact you don't know where the money's going." He paused. "It's an elegant way of giving a bribe."
Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. "I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel."
What's a bribe?
In terms of legal reality, does "an elegant way of giving a bribe" add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.
Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.
Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome "would qualify as a pious cause," explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.
"That's how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official's personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported."
Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.
"Maciel wanted to buy power," said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family's opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. "It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they're lying and they know that you know," he said. "They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it's given." (Money paved way for Maciel's influence in the Vatican. By the way, I had no money to get myself into the “papal” chapel. It was Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls who made the recommendation after I met with him the Sala Stampa della Santa Sede on Tuesday, May 25, 1993.)
The Legionaries of Cash and Cover-Up certainly knew how to get their way in the conciliar Vatican. How anyone can justify the "canonization" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after knowing the extent of the protection he afforded to corrupt "bishops" and priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures is a mystery, I suppose, that will be revealed only on the Last Day. One of the standards by which a person is judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment is how well he fulfilled the duties of his state-in-life, and the state-in-life of one who believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ is to protect the integrity of the Faith (something, of course, that Wojtyla did not do as he promoted one conciliar apostasy after another) and to safeguard the souls of those entrusted to his care. He appointed and protected veritable wolves who used deceit and duplicity as amoral tools to justify their sins against the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Commandments.
Stanislaus “Cardinal” Dziwisz is now getting some well-deserved attention in the Polish press as it has been revealed that he refused to take against clerical predators who served under him as the “Archbishop” of Krakow, Poland, from August 27, 2005, to December 8, 2016:
Polish commercial TVN24 has broadcast a long film report on Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz. The Cardinal was for many years Pope John Paul II’s most trusted associate in the Vatican. The film entitled “Don Stanislao, The second face of Cardinal Dziwisz“ alleges that the Cardinal has for decades refused to take action against cases of sex abuse of minors in the Catholic Church. He is accused in the film of protecting his friends in Poland and of protecting others abroad for money. The money was used to fund projects close such as schools, churches and monuments (two of them of JPII and the Cardinal).
The film alleges that the Cardinal had full knowledge of child sex abuse offences alleged against Maciel Degollado, the founder of the “Legions of Christ” order. Reports say about around 200 victims of abuse.
For many years, victims of the rev. Degollado complained to the Holy See but the Vatican did not react. According to reports, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Dean of Cardinal Collegium in the years 2002-2005, who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, tried to intervene.
“Two people mostly involved in covering up this case [of the rev. Degollado] were rev. Dziwisz and Cardinal [Angelo] Sodano, Vatican’s Secretary of State in John Paul II time,” Jason Berry, an American journalist, the author of books about “Legion of Christ” told TVN24. He added that other charges are also formulated against Cardinal Dziwisz. Degollado is reported to have given Cardinal Dziwisz large sums of money in exchange for access granted to influential people to private Papa masses at the Vatican.
“During the final years of John Paul II’s life, Cardinals Dziwisz and Sodano had been receiving large amounts of money from the Legion of Christ. Dziwisz had been receiving up to USD 50,000 for allowing rich donors of the order to papal masses in the private chapel of Apostolic Palace,” Mr Berry said, adding that one of the Legion’s members called it “elegant way to give a bribe.”
In an interview with TVN24 in October, Cardinal Dziwisz denied the allegations and said that he had never received any money and claimed that for years he was not aware of the “double life” of rev. Degollado.
The Cadinal is also accused of being instrumental in promoting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was later disgraced for his role in the child sex abuse scandal in the church in the USA. It is alleged that McCarrick had been generous with donations to the Vatican and that this was one of the reasons why he was “protected”.
In his time as Cardinal in Kraków, Cardinal Dziwisz is accused of failing to react to allegations of sex abuse that were brought to his attention. The Cardinal failed to report the matters to the Vatican and did not suspend the individuals involved. Allegedly because at least some of them were his friends.
The author of the film on several occasions attempted to persuade the Cardinal to grant him an interview so he could put questions concerning the allegations. He was not successful in soliciting an interview. But the Cardinal was questioned by a TVN24 interviewer about some of the allegations on another occasion and answered that either the cases mentioned were not under his jurisdiction in the church or that he was not aware of them.
On Monday, the day of the TVN24 broadcast, Cardinal Dziwisz issued a statement in which he calls for an independent commission of enquiry to investigate the issues raised in the film.
“I care about transparency in explaining those issues. It is not about whitewashing or hiding potential negligence, but a reliable presentation of facts. The good of the victims is the most important value. Children and youth cannot be harmed anymore by the Church, which occurred in the past. I am ready for the full cooperation with an independent commission, which will explain those issues,” he wrote in a statement issued on Monday evening.
Pressure on the Polish Catholic Church grows
Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, the head of the Polish Episcopal Conference, expressed his hope that all the accusations of negligence against Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, presented in the reportage will be investigated by the proper commission of the Holy See.
“In reference to yesterday's film of TVN24 ‘Don Stanislao, The second face of Cardinal Dziwisz’ in which Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz is accused of negligence in explaining the cases of sexual abuse by the clergy, I express the hope that all the uncertainties presented in the film will be explained by the proper committee of the Holy See. At the same time I want to emphasise that the Church in Poland is grateful to Cardinal (Dziwisz) for his long service for Saint John Paul II.” the statement reads.
The Episcopate’s statement is internally contradictory. It promises investigation but it thanks Cardinal Dziwisz for the way he served the Pope. The problem here is that many of the allegations concern the period in which Cardinal Dziwisz served the Polish Pontiff in the Vatican.
These allegations follow the recent action taken by the Vatican against another Polish cleric , Archbishop Gulbinowicz, for his role in sex abuse of minors. It is not unlikely that Cardinal Dziwisz may soon be the object of action by the Vatican, as child abuse of minors has become a major problem for the Church.
In Poland anything that impacts negatively on the image of revered Pope John Paul II will cause problems for the Church. Many, some of them within the Church itself, argue that the Polish Catholic Church has failed to deal with its own problems such as sex abuse of minors, priests violating celibacy, clerics living a lavish lifestyle and priests who used to be informers of the communist secret police. Too many of these problems seem to have been swept under the carpet in an attempt to contain embarrassment for the Church.
Although, as Mrs. Randy Engel documented so thoroughly in The Rite Sodomy fourteen years ago, the problem of clerical abuse and its being covered-up long antedated the rise of the conciliar church of conciliarism, the problem since the days of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI has one of scandalous proportions. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, cares nothing about scandalous behavior and is a complete hypocrite and fraud for criticizing others for what he continues do to by giving “most favored predator” status to those in the conciliar Vatican, who enjoy his favor. Nevertheless, though, he is enjoying the fruits of his hypocrisy by having fun at seeing three objects of his derision and contempt—Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Carlo Maria Vigano and Stanislaus Dziwsz—get muddied up deservedly while he himself gets away with a whitewash.
Nevertheless, however, we must never lose sight of two facts.
First, to the extent that scandals have plagued Holy Mother Church throughout her history, we must remember that such scandals are not the fault of the Catholic Church but of individual human beings who must answer to Christ the King, Our Divine Judge, at the moment of the Particular Judgment. It is one of the lamest excuses used by those who want to abandon the Holy Faith to call the Catholic Church corrupt, although the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a corrupt entity in its entirety, because of the scandalous behavior of her children, including her clergy.
Pope Pius XII, writing in Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, explained this in the simplest and most direct way possible:
66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,  she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943.)
If we are honest with ourselves, of course, at least some of us must plead guilty to being bad witnesses in behalf of the Holy Faith by means of our words and such things as impatience, haughtiness, arrogance, anger, pride, immodesty of dress or indecency of speech, making it important for us to pray for those who might have used our own bad example as a means to either quit practicing the Faith or to reaffirmed in some false religion on the pretext of “I am being than those Catholics.” The clerical scandals that were indemnified by true bishops and Vatican officials before the rise to power of the crapulous Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII despite their being warned by the likes of Father Gerald Fitzgerald (see the appendix below) were not imputable to the Catholic Church herself and it is thus inexcusable that anyone can say that this was the case.
Second, the scandals that have erupted within the counterfeit church of conciliarism are imputable to this false religious sect as the recruitment, retention, promotion and protection of sodomites is at the core of much of the conciliar zeitgeist and one of the leading reasons why almost ever reference to sin and to a God who judges us were eliminated by Consilium, on which served a self-identified homosexual, Father Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B., during the concocting of the synthetic liturgy that is nothing other than the abomination of desolation from which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour told us in the Gospel passage read at the Mass of the Last Sunday after Pentecost to flee. The counterfeit church of conciliarism rewards the effeminate and eschews anything resembling a strong masculine defense of a Faith that most of its leading officials either reject or can be understood differently at different times because of the allegedly “changed” circumstances in which sinful men, who are always in need of reforming their lives and being called to correction when necessary, live in a “modern” age. In other words, dogmatic evolutionism.
However, far more important that the scandalous behavior of clerical predators and their conciliar indemnifiers and enforces are the conciliar church’s doctrinal defections that offend God and cause many who remain within the structures of this false religious sect to become so identified with the world and its false currents that they come to see any hint of the Catholic “past” as a threat to their liberty when the truth of the matter is that conciliarism has “liberated” them to have an easier path to eternal perdition.
It was in the paragraph in Mystici Corporis Christi before the one quoted above that Pope Pius XII wrote about an “imaginary church” that is based solely on the precept of a false charity that eschews doctrinal certainties:
65. For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption  -- was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the "kingdom of the Son of his predilection;"  but it was to be a real kingdom, in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of their intellect and will,  and humbly and obediently model themselves on Him, Who for our sake "was made obedient unto death."  There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other -- as do the body and soul in man -- and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"  but also clearly commanded: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you";  and again: "He that heareth you heareth me."  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943.)
Pope Pius XII described the beliefs of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to a fair-thee-well, and it is this for this reason that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as little as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as were his predecessors. The problem we face is not with this or that false “pope.” The problem we face is false church headed by men who have defected from the Faith on numerous points, and if one defects from the Faith on even one point one is a heretic and can no longer be considered a Catholic:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
No, “partial credit” does not cut it to retain one's membership in good standing within the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.
Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way." (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)
Pope Pius XI, writing in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, also rejected any notion of a distinction between "fundamental" and allegedly "non-fundamental" doctrines of the Catholic Faith:
Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
“Pope Francis” is not the “pope” as it is impossible for a Catholic to adhere to his teaching without defecting from the Catholic Faith as he did in his youth in Argentina.
The real scandal facing Catholics now is a false church with its false doctrines, false bishops, false bishops, false rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, false liturgical rites, and false pastoral practices. While it is not easy to admit that this is the case, I think it is far easier to see the truth contained in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection on the life of Pope Saint Clement and then be willing to suffer whatever consequences for coming to recognize and admit publicly that the conciliar robber barons hath no authority to speak in the name of a church to which they have expelled themselves, the Catholic Church, and that the See of Saint Peter continues to be usurped by heretics who are enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.
We turn to Our Lady with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pledging to to renew our consecration Our Lady's Immaculate Heart and to remember to as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
We can must make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by enslaving ourselves to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, giving unto whatever merit we earn each day so that she can dispose of that merit however she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of souls in the Church Suffering in Purgatory, especially in this remaining days of November, and here in the Church Militant on earth.
The final victory belongs to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. We must consider it a privilege that we are alive in these times to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
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 Andrew the Apostle, 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 John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint Chrysogonus, pray for us.