Bergoglio's Deluge

by Thomas A. Droleskey

We are two weeks away from the forty-first anniversary of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that decriminalized the killing of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means up to and including the day of birth, "permitting" state legislatures to merely regulate the conditions under which killings took place in the later stages of a child's development in his mother womb while sanctioning unrestricted child genocide in the first three months of life inside the sanctuary of his mother's womb.

As has been noted before on this site,

The move for decriminalized baby-killing by surgical means started in earnest in the early-1960s as a result of the "Thalidomide babies," that is, those babies born with birth defects as a result of their mothers having taken the drug Thalidomide to help them with their morning sickness during pregnancy. It was, as Dr. Doris Graber pointed out in a very matter-of-fact way in her Mass Media and American Politics text, in 1963 that the phenomenon of the "Thalidomide babies" produced calls for "therapeutic" surgical abortions to be made "legal."

The anti-family movement, which started with efforts on the part of Masonically-controlled state legislatures to liberalize existing divorce laws in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, gained great impetus with Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League in 1919 and numerous organizations devoted to "eugenics" in the 1920s, some of which were successful in convincing state legislatures ton enact mandatory sterilization laws for criminals and the retarded (once again, thank you states' rights). That anti-family movement, which comes from the devil and is designed to lead souls to Hell for all eternity as social order is disrupted as a result of the breakup of the family, had been given its "wedge" issue as a result of the Thalidomide babies, giving its leaders a "cause" to try to open the legal floodgates to surgical abortion-on-demand to complement the chemical abortions being produced by the "pill" and other abortifacient contraceptives. Indeed, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists issued a statement in 1965, shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), that declared in a most positivistic manner that drugs that stopped the life of a child after fertilization but before implantation in a mother's womb were to be called "contraceptives" instead of "abortifacients."

As I have noted in many other articles on this site, Roe v. Wade did not "start" the genocide of the preborn in this country that has taken over fifty million innocent human lives since 1965. The move for the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing began at the state level (so much for demigod of states' rights) as pro-abortion leaders such as the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of the National Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL-Pro Choice), and Lawrence Lader and William Baird, among others used the existence of various "exceptions" in abortion legislation then on the books as the means of "liberalizing" "access" to baby-killing for all women in all circumstances. The move for decriminalized baby-killing under cover of law started at the state level, moving into the Federal court system only when pro-death advocates believed that it was propitious for them to challenge the laws of those states which prohibited or restricted "access" to baby-killing.

It is useful to review some of the history of decriminalizing surgical baby-killing under cover of civil law prior to Roe v. Wade. Those who contend that the "people" in the various states have the "right" to determine whether to permit or prohibit surgical baby-killing would have no problem with the pre-Roe legislation, nor would they be bothered by the fact that many states have "trigger laws" in effect to "protect" baby-killing in the event that Roe v. Wade is reversed at some point by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The State of Colorado was the first to "liberalize" its existing legislation, doing so in 1967:

The pre-Roe abortion statute was based upon § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code.  Under the statute, an abortion could be performed at any stage of pregnancy (defined as “the implantation of an embryo in the uterus”) when continuation of the pregnancy was likely to result in the death of the woman, “serious permanent impairment” of her physical or mental health, or the birth of a child with “grave and permanent physical deformity or mental retardation. An abortion could be performed within the first sixteen weeks of pregnancy (gestational age) when the pregnancy resulted from rape (statutory or forcible) or incest, and the local district attorney confirmed in writing that there was probable cause to believe that the alleged offense had occurred Pursuant to Roe v. Wade, the limitations on circumstances under which abortions could be performed and the requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals were declared unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Norton. Enforcement of the statute was not enjoined.

The pre-Roe statute has not been repealed, and would be enforceable if Roe v. Wade were overruled.  The broad exceptions in the statute, however, in particular the exception for mental health, would allow almost all abortions to be performed. (The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overturned.)

The State of California, then headed by Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan, followed suit in 1967, passing the Therapeutic Abortion Act, has long been a haven for baby-killing:

The pre-Roe abortion statutes were based upon § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code. The California Penal Code prohibited abortions not performed in compliance with the “Therapeutic Abortion Act” of 1967, and made a woman’s participation in her own abortion a criminal offense (subject to the same exception).  The Therapeutic Abortion Act authorized the performance of an abortion on a pregnant woman if the procedure was performed by a licensed physician and surgeon in an accredited hospital, and was unanimously approved in advance by a medical staff committee.  An abortion could not be approved unless the committee found that there was a “substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” or that “[t]he pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.”  An abortion could not be performed on grounds of rape or incest unless there was probable cause to believe that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.  No abortion could be approved after the twentieth week of pregnancy for any reason.

In a pre-Roe decision, the California Supreme Court declared substantial provisions of the Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional on state and federal due process grounds (vagueness).  Sections 274 and 275 of the Penal Code were repealed in 2000, the Therapeutic Abortion Act was repealed in 2002.  None of these statutes would be revived by a decision overruling Roe v. Wade. Abortions could be performed for any reason before viability, and for virtually any reason after viability.

Finally, regardless of Roe, any attempt to enact meaningful restrictions on abortion in California would be precluded by the California Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v Myers.  In Myers, the state supreme court struck down restrictions on public funding of abortion on state constitutional grounds (privacy).  In the course of its decision, the court stated that under the privacy guarantee of the state constitution,  “all women in this state–rich and poor alike–possess a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether or not to bear a child." (The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overturned.)

The State of Oregon, whose Masonically-controlled state legislature once compelled the attendance of all children of school age in state-run schools, effectively prohibiting parochial and other privately-run schools from operating (a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925), passed its own pro-death legislation in 1969:

The pre-Roe statutes were based on § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code.  The statutes allowed an abortion to be performed before the one hundred fiftieth day of pregnancy when (1) there was “substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy [would] greatly impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” (2) “the child would be born with serious physical or mental defect,” or (3) the pregnancy resulted from felonious intercourse.  After the one hundred fiftieth day, abortion was permitted only if “the life of the pregnant woman [was] in imminent danger.”

Pursuant to Roe, most of these statutes were declared unconstitutional in an unreported decision of a three-judge federal court, and were later repealed.  The pre-Roe statutes would not be revived by a decision overruling Roe v. Wade.  Abortions could be performed for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. (The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overturned.)

The State of New York passed legislation in 1970, albeit by one vote in the State Senate (cast by a Catholic, State Senator Edward Speno of East Meadow, Long Island, New York), to permit baby-killing through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy:

The pre-Roe statutes allowed abortion on demand through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.  After the twenty-fourth week, an abortion could be performed on a pregnant woman only if there was “a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve her life.  In a pre-Roe decision, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the law brought by a guardian ad litem for unborn children  The legality of abortion would not be affected by the overruling of Roe v. Wade.  The pre-Roe statutes, which have not been repealed, allow abortion on demand through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.  After the twenty-fourth week, however, abortions could be performed only to preserve the woman’s life.

Regardless of Roe, any attempt to prohibit abortion (at least before viability) in New York probably would be barred by language in the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Hope v. Perales, a challenge to the New York Prenatal Care Assistance Program.  In Hope, the court of appeals noted in passing that “it is undisputed by defendants that the fundamental right of reproductive choice, inherent in the due process liberty right guaranteed by our State Constitution, is at least as extensive as the Federal constitutional right [recognized in Roe v. Wade].” (The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overturned.)

What have most of the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America done over the course of the past forty-one years?

They have enabled one pro-abortion politician after another, mostly those who belong to the Democrat Party but also some who have belonged to its absolutely false opposite, the Republican Party. Indeed, there is no--as in not a single one--conciliar "bishop" in the past forty-one to forty-seven years who has stated clearly and unequivocally that no one who supports a single abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of law is "pro-life" or ought to be called pro-life. Anyone who supports a single exception to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment that prohibit the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life is simply less pro-abortion than those who support a greater degree of baby-killing under cover of law, including those who support the unrestricted killing of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs.

We have seen the absurd scenario develop wherein most of the conciliar "bishops" are in league with pro-abortion politicians because these politicians support Socialist public policies that are alleged to "help" the poor (but always wind up enslaving the poor as wards of the state and/or various social service agencies that work within the network of the Industrial Areas Foundation) while those conciliar "bishops" who say that they are "pro-life" and actually threaten to discipline Catholics who support abortion-on-demand never raise their once to remonstrate with those phony "pro-life" politicians who defy God's laws and decide arbitrarily to make "exceptions" to the absolute inviolability of innocent human life.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it abundantly clear that he takes the exact same approach as that of so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The false "pontiff" has ratified and confirmed the "vision" of the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin's "consistent ethic of life ("seamless garment), which is premised upon the belief that to be "pro-life" one must oppose the death penalty, which is simply part of the Natural Law, and support all manner of statist programs for the poor in addition to professing, although not insistently, support for the end of the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn. Bernardin's "seamless garment" was designed to provide a cover for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion Catholic politicians with impunity. All that mattered to Bernardin is what matters to Bergoglio now: support for every program designed by the adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" to "help" the poor by redistributing wealth and limiting the legitimate liberties of taxpayers in order to make everyone wards of the civil state.

Fully pro-abortion and partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion politicians of both major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America have taken note of Bergoglio's false gospel of false joy's call for an end to "income inequality" while acting as though any kind of true social order can be established, no less maintained, while the blood of the innocent preborn is being shed by chemical and surgical means under cover of the civil law:

WASHINGTON — Shortly before leaving the Capitol for the holiday recess, Senate Democrats gathered behind closed doors to lay out an agenda for 2014. When the majority leader, Harry Reid, exhorted colleagues to “deal with the issue of income inequality,” the talk took a spiritual turn.

You know,” declared Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent, who caucuses with Democrats, “we have a strong ally on our side in this issue — and that is the pope.”

That Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish, would invoke the pope to Mr. Reid, a Mormon, delighted Roman Catholics in the room. (“Bernie! You’re quoting my pope; this is good!” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois recalled thinking.) Beyond interfaith banter, the comment underscored a larger truth: From 4,500 miles away at the Vatican, Pope Francis, who has captivated the world with a message of economic justice and tolerance, has become a presence in Washington’s policy debate.

As lawmakers return to the capital this week and mark the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s declaration of a “war on poverty,” Democrats — including those Catholics whose politics have put them at odds with a conservative church hierarchy — are seizing on Francis’ words as a rare opportunity to use the pope’s moral force to advance issues like extending unemployment benefits and raising the minimum wage.

“He has given a number of us in the political ranks encouragement, and really a challenge, to step up and remember many of the values that brought us to public life,” Mr. Durbin said.

Francis’ denunciation of an “economy of exclusion” goes to the heart of the debate between the two parties over the role of government. Democrats like Mr. Durbin and President Obama — whose administration is facing off against Catholic nuns in the Supreme Court over birth control provisions in his health law — quote the pope in speeches, using his words to reinforce their positions. Republicans find themselves forced to justify votes to cut food stamps and unemployment benefits even as they try to counter the perception that they are indifferent to the poor.

But though the pope has caused unease among Republicans as they reconcile his critique of capitalism and “trickle-down theories” with their free-market views, some Catholic Republicans see opportunity in his words.

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who speaks of poverty in the context of his faith, has praised Francis for “breathing new life into the fight against poverty,” and is working on a Republican plan to address the issue. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and now a co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire,” said he would talk more about poverty on the program.

“I think every Republican should embrace the pope’s core critique that you do not want to live on a planet with billionaires and people who do not have any food,” Mr. Gingrich said. “I think the pope may, in fact, be starting a conversation at the exact moment the Republican Party itself needs to have that conversation.”

In many respects, Francis’ economic views are consistent with church doctrine and the views of previous popes, though John Paul II spoke more about the benefits of capitalism in the context of his anti-Communist views. But with his humble style and off-the-cuff remarks, Francis is seen as shifting the church’s emphasis and tone.

By playing down issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, the pope has also upended an order in Washington, where conservatives have long viewed the church as an ally.

Mr. Durbin, who attended Catholic schools but, as a senator, switched parishes to avoid being denied communion because of his support for abortion rights, no longer feels “beleaguered by the conservative leadership.” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat who served as an altar boy from grade school through college, described himself as feeling “liberated” after a recent speech to a university center on Catholic intellectual life brought nary a question about his support for abortion rights. He credited Francis for changing the tone.

“I felt such a relief,” Mr. Leahy said.

Pope Francis is, of course, a religious figure — not a political one — and faith has long mixed uneasily with politics in American public life. John F. Kennedy, the only Roman Catholic president, felt compelled as a candidate to pledge not to take cues from the pope. Today, with evangelical Christians a potent political force, especially among Republicans, talk of God during political campaigns is routine.

Catholics account for about 24 percent of voters; for national candidates, courting them is essential. Since 1972, just one presidential candidate, George W. Bush in 2000, has won the White House without winning the Catholic vote.

Francis has proved his own admonition that “a good Catholic meddles in politics.” His much-publicized comments on homosexuality — “Who am I to judge?” he said when asked about gay priests — provoked Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, to say Francis sounded “kind of liberal.” Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, who attended an all-girls Catholic high school in Baltimore, said on CNN that with his message of tolerance, “the pope is starting to sound like the nuns.”

Catholic lawmakers in both parties know Francis is not changing church doctrine, including opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. “I haven’t yet seen anything that departs from Catholic teaching,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, an economic conservative.

In November, Francis issued a 51,000-word apostolic exhortation entitled “Evangelii Gaudium” (“The Joy of the Gospel”), which decried “trickle-down theories” and the “dictatorship” of a free market that perpetuates inequality — views that some scholars attribute to his perspective as the first Latin American pope.

Mr. Obama approvingly quoted the exhortation in a speech on inequality, but Rush Limbaugh, the radio host, promptly accused Francis of spouting “pure Marxism,” setting Washington conservative policy circles abuzz.

“What Francis is saying goes to the soul of the party,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist, who is Catholic. “What does the party actually believe in? What is its purpose? Is it just to have unbridled capitalism without any moral core?”

Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee whose 2012 proposal for cuts in social programs drew criticism from Catholic bishops, has tried to answer that question. In a speech titled “Free Enterprise, Faith and the Common Good,” he argued that free enterprise and the Catholic principle of “subsidiarity” — handling matters through the least centralized authority — can address poverty better than big government.

As to Francis’ “trickle down” comment, Mr. Ryan told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last month: “The guy is from Argentina, they haven’t had real capitalism in Argentina.”

For Democrats, the pope’s apparent progressive leanings provide a fresh point of entry to reach Catholic voters, who often serve as a proxy for how middle-income Americans will cast their ballots. The Catholic vote is clearly contestable; in 2012, Mr. Obama won Catholics by a slim margin, 50 percent to 48 percent, over Mitt Romney.

Still, some Catholic lawmakers sound uneasy, wary of appropriating a religious leader as their own.

“I don’t talk about the pope that much,” said Senator Joe Donnelly, a freshman Democrat from Indiana and a graduate of Notre Dame. “He’s not there to promote the Republicans or promote the Democratic Party. He’s there simply to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and so the chips fall where they may when he does.”  (Popular Voice in the Capitol? It’s the Pope’s.)

Yes, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done more than the likes of Joseph Bernardin or John Dearden or Roger Mahony could have imagined possible in their own day. The currently reigning universal public face of apostasy has provided cover for fully pro-abortion members of the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" and their statist schemes of income redistribution while at the same time providing cover for phony "pro-life" careerist members of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" who have long sought a means to distance themselves from the supposedly divisive "moral issues" that have arisen in the United States of America solely because the the men responsible for its Declaration of Independence and Constitution had a founding hatred for Christ the King and thus believed that it was possible for men to know social order absent a due subordination to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church.

In other words, members of the competing organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America are free to discuss the "money, the money and the money" to the exclusion of everything else, certainly "divisive" issues such as the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn and "marriage" between persons of the same gender. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false gospel is indeed a gospel of "good news" for the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Andrew Mario Cuomo, Daniel Malloy, Martin O'Malley, John Kerry, Kirsten Gillebrand, Robert Menendez, Thomas Harkin, G. Edmund Brown, Jr., Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Patricia Murray, Bill de Blasio/Warren Wilhelm, the new Marxist Mayor of the City of New York, New York), Hillary Rodham Clinton and, among so many others, the man who appears to be at this every early juncture the leading Republican Party presidential hopeful, Christopher Christie. The farces that will be the 2014 and 2016 national elections will be characterized by almost no references to the "moral issues," a development that, to be sure, has been long in the making but has been enabled in no small measure in the past ten months now by the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Indeed, Bergoglio continues to demonstrate his utter disdain for instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner, believing that it is impossible to exhort those who are steeped in sin to reform their lives, which is why they must be shown his false concept of "mercy" in order to "bind their wounds" that can never be bound unless they have true contrition for their sins and make a full confession of them to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Bergoglio deliberately used what he called a "complex situation" to explain the "delicacy" required to deal with the "new realities" facing Catholics today without revealing that the "complex situation" he cited involved an "engagement" of one woman, a mother, to another woman.

Here is what the Blasphemer Bergoglio said in a give-and-take with superiors of conciliar religious communities as recorded in La Civiltà Cattolica, which published his interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J., four months ago now (see Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part one, Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part two and Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part three), that was published by the same lay Jesuit Spadoro on Monday, January 6, 2014, the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

The pillars of education according to the Pope are: “convey understanding, convey ways of doing things, convey values. Faith is conveyed through these. The educator should be up to being a person who educates, he or she should consider how to proclaim Jesus Christ to a generation that is changing.” He insisted, therefore: “Education today is a key, key, key mission!” And he recalled some of his experiences in Buenos Aires regarding the preparation necessary to welcome children in an educational context, little boys and girls, young adults who live in complex situations, especially family ones: “I remember the case of a very sad little girl who finally confided to her teacher the reason for her state of mind: ‘my mother’s fiancée doesn’t like me.’ The percentage of children studying in schools who have separated parents is very high. The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand. How can we proclaim Christ to these boys and girls? How can we proclaim Christ to a generation that is changing? We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them. (Bergoglio: Euthanize the World With False Charity.)

A post found at Bergoglian Milestones makes it very clear that the false "pontiff's" story involved two women who were "engaged" to be married.

Although Bergoglio did not explicitly endorse the "marriage," he chose to relate this story for a very specific purpose: namely, to demonstrate for the umpteenth time that any firm proclamation of the Catholic Faith to others will "scare" someone, especially a child, he believes, away for the rest of his life. This is why he seeks to make "complex" that which is simple.

As Pope Leo XIII noted in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, Catholic truth has the inherent power to drive away error:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

One such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of his lifelong professional and proselytizing in behalf of one heresy after another, heresies that he has professed, manifested and propagated in the past nearly ten months of his masquerade as "Pope Francis," must be convinced by Catholic truth is something that cannot be professed openly and unflinchingly as to do this, he believes, is to run the risk of "alienating" those upon whom "the Lord" wants to bestow mercy.

Among the many other things that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not understand is the simple fact is that under the Social Reign of Christ the King Holy Mother Church would petition the competent authorities in the civil state to remove a child from a situation that imperils his eternal salvation and his temporal well-being so that he could be placed in the custodial care of his Godparents or one of her own institutions of mercy if there was no hope for any other remedy, such as the conversion of the parties whose actions pose a threat to a child's eternal welfare, to be used and/or if all other remedies had been attempted without avail. No true Catholic priest, no less a man who claims to be a bishop, would lead a child to believe, if only by silence, that a situation of perversity was normal or that he might find a way to be "accepted" by a parent's partner in a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio simply lacks the Catholic Faith.

Indeed, as has been demonstrated constantly on this site, the Blasphemer Bergoglio believes that the only "sinners" around today are traditionally-minded Catholics, disparaging them by the use of slogans such as "Pharisees" and "Pelagians" to demonstrate the depth of his disdain and disgust for such "narrrow-minded" people who want a Church that is "closed in on itself" and want a Faith that is "certain" and not open to the "movements of the Spirit" and the "surprises of God." This is why he has authorized his campaign of repression against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and it is why he is seeking to dismantle Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, which was a veritable Trojan Horse from the time of its issuance on July 7, 2007 (see Mister Potter's Big Cigar), little by little, including suspending the staging of the 2013 version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition on First Saturdays at the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline Hill in Rome itself:

"Beginning today [yesterday], first Saturday of the year, a 14-year-old custom has been interrupted: the celebration of the Holy Mass in the Ancient Rite every first Saturday of the month in honor of the Virgin, in the Cesi Chapel of the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major [Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome].

"The person responsible for the suspension is the Archpriest of the Basilica, Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló."

The information above is from Chiesa e post concilio and, though we cannot verify the responsibility of the Cardinal -- which can, in any way, be presumed -- we have been able to confirm independently that, for the first time in 14 years, the First Saturday Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore was not celebrated yesterday. Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, a Spaniard, was Apostolic Nuncio in Argentina from 2000 to 2003 and is considered a close friend of the Pope since his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

A community of the Franciscans of the Immaculate have aided in the service of the Liberian Basilica in the past few years, but this is an independent matter, as these First Saturday Masses were celebrated before they arrived there and until the first Saturday of December 2013. [Image: First Saturday Traditional Latin Mass celebrated in the Cappella Cesi in 2010.] (Bergoglian Milestones.)

As noted five days ago before the hiatus necessitated by a change of internet providers began, Bergoglio's agenda for 2014 is revolution, nothing else, nothing else at all.  He hates everything to do with the Faith of our Fathers, including even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that seeks to synthesize the 1961/1962 Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII revisions with some elements of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that as promulgated on April 3, 1969, and went into effect on Sunday, November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has unleashed a deluge of steady offenses against the Catholic Faith, not one of which has ever been advanced by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. This is not a matter of "diabolical disorientation." This is matter of heresy.

Indeed, it is very sad that some in the "resist while recognize" camp want to use the same kind of slogans against those who adhere to the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church that anyone who defects from even one article of the Catholic Faith defects from It in Its entirety and cannot hold ecclesiastical office in Holy Mother Church legitimately that their "pope" uses against them. Slogans and emotionalism rather than sound reasoning are always the last resort of those who are afraid to admit that they are wrong, those who wind up despoiling the perfectly pure integrity of Holy Mother Church, she who can never be touched by the slightest taint of error, just as much as Bergoglio does.

Tragic is the only word that can be used to describe those who can contend that a man whose written words as "Pope Francis" promote the heresy that the Mosaic Covenant was never superseded and whose spoken words have blasphemed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother while at the same time emboldening every Jacobin element in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and enabling pro-aborts and pro-perverts in civil governments around the world.

What more can be said about a man whose latest Angelus address, given on Sunday, January 5, 2013, the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, repeated his oft-stated blasphemy that Our Lord does not "proselytize," only "loves"?

Departing from his prepared remarks, the Pope appealed “sincerely” and “respectfully” to those who “feel far from God and from the Church” and to “those who are fearful and indifferent: the Lord is calling you too.” The Lord is calling you to be a part of His people and He does it with great respect and love.”

“The Lord does not proselytize; He gives love,” reaffirmed the Pope. “And this love seeks you and waits for you, you who at this moment do not believe or are far away. And this is the love of God.”

Pope Francis prayed that “all the Church” may be steeped in “the joy of evangelizing” invoking the aid of the Virgin Mary so that “we can all be disciple-missionaries, small stars that reflect His light.” (Antipope's Angelus: “Jesus is the Epiphany”, the Lord does not proselytize but loves.)

Although this is not a new blasphemy for the Blasphemer Bergoglio, it is always important for those who might be distracted by Bergoglio's verbiage to remember these words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that He spoke to the Eleven just before He Ascended to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday, forty days after his Resurrection on Easter Sunday:

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 16-20.)

Faithful to this Divine command, the Apostles spread out into the far corners of the known world, each of them save for Saint John the Evangelist suffering martyrdom at the hands of unbelievers, starting with the Jews, and the civil authorities who made themselves out to be "gods" or those who had been chosen by them to propagate and maintain a "religion" that was synonymous with their governance. The entirety of Europe had been Catholicized by the latter part of the First Millennium into the beginning of the Second Millennium, albeit that a number of Christians in the Balkans apostatized in the Eleventh Century rather than to die for the Faith at the hands of the Mohammedans and that much of Eastern Christendom was lost to the heresies of Photius and into the schismatic Orthodox Church.

The spread of the Faith into the Americas, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio's own Argentina, began with the explorations and discoveries of Christopher Columbus and was solidified by the miraculous image left by Our Lady upon Juan Diego's tilma atop Tepeyac Hill outside of Mexico City on December 12, 1531, that was seen for the first time when Fray Juan Zumarraga, then the Apostolic Administration of Mexico and soon to become its first Bishop, saw it as Juan Diego handed him the equally miraculous cluster of Castilian roses that he, Zumarraga, had demanded to authenticate the story that Juan Diego had told him. Over nine million indigenous people in the Americas, almost person for person the number of Catholics lost in Europe as a result of the Protestant Revolution, converted to the Faith thereafter, leaving the very pagan ways that the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio have helped to revive in the name of a supposed "inculturation of the Gospel." The Immemorial Mass of Tradition at which these converted Indians worshiped was no impediment to the sanctification of souls, that is, unless one wants to contend that Saint Rose of Lima and Blessed Martin de Porres, whose feast was commemorated on Sunday, November 3, 2013, and Blessed John Masias, among millions of others, become holy in spite of it.

Pope Leo XIII summarized the spread of Christendom in his great encyclical letter on the Christian Constitution of States, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, explaining also that the Protestant Revolution and the Judeo-Masonic "Enlightenment," each of which helps to "inform" and "direct" the precepts and implementation of the conciliar revolutionary agenda, instituted a new order of things that was harmful, not beneficial, to men, both individually in their own lives and collectively in civil society:

21. There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is -- beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.

22. A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay."

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1883.)

Conciliar revolutionaries such a Jorge Mario Bergoglio have helped to return Catholics to a savage condition with false worship as they welcomed the Mohammedan conquest of Europe as a result of the de-population of the descendants of the Catholics of the Middle Ages by means of sterilization, the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, "euthanasia" and the medical industry's manufactured myth of "brain death" so as to engage in the harvesting of bodily members of living human beings for purposes of profit-making "organ donation." Even the excesses of unbridled capitalism that Bergoglio has criticized to the delight of members of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" in civil governments around the world are but the logical result of the savagery that must exist in a world where the Social Reign of Christ the King does not prevail and here men and their nations do not give due honor to the Mother of God herself.

Bergoglio's deluge against the Catholic Faith will continue until God Himself decides to put a stop to it as a result of the fruit of the Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In the meantime, of course, we must continue to thank the good God for choosing from all eternity to place us here in the midst of this time of apostasy and betrayal, this time when believing Catholics have been set against each other by the machinations of veritable figures of Antichrist who want "conservatives" and "traditionalists" to keep attacking each other while their operation of error will continue unchecked and unchallenged.

This is a time of chastisement, and there is no escaping a chastisement from God.

We must pray more Rosaries in this year of 2014.

We must make better use of the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

If at all possible, we must spend more time before the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in mental prayer.

We must beg Our Lady to continue to send us the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross to remain faithful to the truth no matter what human pressure is placed upon us to "compromise" in the name of "fellowship" and/or "family peace" so that we will not be swept away from Bergoglio's Deluge of apostasy, heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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