If I were Roman Catholic...

No, I am not becoming Roman Catholic.  I’m a traditional Anglican until I die even if that means starting an Anglican parish in my house.

But I do share a lot with traditional Roman Catholics.  And my heart is with them as the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is being suppressed by LibPope Francis and his . . . minions. 

Knowledgable readers might think I’m exaggerating by saying the TLM is suppressed.  Fair enough.  Let’s look at the Archdiocese of Chicago under Cardinal Blase Cupich (SPIT).  For the sake of “the unity of the church” deplorable trads cannot have their Latin mass on the first Sundays of months, nor during Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday and Pentecost Sunday.  And among other restrictions is the required permission of the bishop.  Yeah, I’m sure Francis fanboy Cupich will be generous in giving permission for Latin masses.  In any case, during the holiest times of the year, traditional Roman Catholics cannot have their Latin Mass in Cupich’s Archdiocese

This from a Cardinal and diocese replete with enormities, such as this service that began with a “Happy Kwanzaa.”

Yes, not all dioceses are not quite that bad.  But increased restrictions on the TLM are the norm as directed by Francis.

If I were a Roman Catholic I would not submit to having decent traditional liturgy taken away from me.  I will not do that as an Anglican either.  If that means going it alone for a brief time, so be it, but I would hope to find clergy and people with the gumption to rebel against rot in the church.  People like this:

On April 12, 1977, Parisian traditionalists got sick of worshipping in the community hall the petty New Church bureaucrats relegated to them for the celebration of their banned Mass. So they did what any decent, God-fearing Catholics should – they processed into the church of St. Nicholas with priests, occupied it, and stayed there. Every living Trad should know by heart the exchange that occurred between the parish clergyman of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet and one of the occupying priests.

‘By what right do you come here?’ asked one of the parish clergy.

‘We come,’ replied Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget… ‘In Nomine Domini.’[1]

When the police were called by the conciliar priests to expel the invaders, the police showed that they knew more about liturgy than the Congregation for Divine Worship does today. The police did nothing because, as they told the Novus Ordo priests about the Trads: “They’re saying Mass and praying, that’s what a church is for!”

They also displayed that they were inhabiting a more Catholic, and less officious France, when a group of progressive clergy went to a police precinct to complain about the takeover. Requesting to speak with the officer in charge they were told he was unavailable, as he was attending Latin Mass at St. Nicholas.

Yes, I do think it is time for rebellion from faithful Roman Catholics.  For the LibPope and most of their leaders have rebelled against their own history and patrimony.  Francis and his tools are trying to tear the church from the Faith handed down to them.

Those who think I’m overwrought and overstating the situation should remind themselves that lex orandi, lex credendi.  Liturgy and faith cannot be separated.  A crap Novus Ordo liturgy leads to watered down crap belief and visa versa.  Defending and insisting on traditional liturgy is defending and insisting on the Faith.

Those faithful Roman Catholics who are so doing have my respect and prayers.

Watch Checks That Told More Than the Time

Few acts are more mundane that checking one’s watch.  I used to do that a lot.  Now I check my phone.  My, how technology advances.  But before I get distracted by my phone again, my point is that people checking their watches is hardly the stuff of history.  

Or is it?

No, I cannot think of a time when someone checking their watch changed the course of history . . . yet.  But I can think of watch checks that revealed a lot about history before it was history.

 

October 15^th, 1992

During the Second Presidential Debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, President George H. W. Bush checked his watch at the beginning of a question of how the recession affected him.  That told more about him and about his re-election campaign than about what time it was, namely:

1. His disinterest in debating and campaigning, that in contrast with Bill Clinton, who clearly enjoyed it.  The mercurial Ross Perot also enjoyed barnstorming on a good day.  Bush wanted it to be over with. He admitted as much:

Bush later suggested that his gesture may, in fact, have revealed something about his discomfort with the debate. "Was I glad when the damn thing was over?" he said to PBS Newshour anchor Jim Lehrer. "Yeah."

It would be very much over soon.  Bush’s disinterest while Clinton oozed empathy assisted in that.

2. His sense of superiority and overconfidence.  He was a Bush after all.  He was better than that blowhard Perot and that young playboy Governor of Arkansas, of all states.  

It was not just the President who felt that way.  His campaign was hampered by overconfidence that surely he would not lose to Bill Clinton of all people.  Heck, the only reason Clinton got the Democrat nomination was because bigger names did not want to run against Bush.  Adding to the misplaced confidence was that Republicans had won the last three presidential elections and four of the last five.

So it wasn’t just Bush who was ready to get the campaign done with and won.  And it wasn’t just this then Republican Precinct Chairman who did not see the result coming.

 

March 30/31^st, 2013

Elected earlier that month, Pope Francis was in the Vatican presiding over his first Easter Vigil as Pope.  For those unfamiliar with Easter Vigils, they are not services to be done with in less than an hour so one can rush home or to the pub.  The Easter Vigil on Easter Eve is the most solemn occasion of the church year for many traditional Christians.  At their best, they are evocative, glorious, and definitely not rushed.  One of the most memorable services I’ve ever attended was an Easter Vigil at St. Matthias Anglican Dallas in 2005; it lasted well over two hours, and I would not have it a minute shorter.

But Pope Francis apparently did not feel that way about his first Easter Vigil as Pope.  Bishop of Rome only for days, he had already acted to shorten the service.  But it wasn’t short enough apparently.  During the service, he checked his watch, just as he checked his watch during his installation service on March 19^th.

Twenty years older and somewhat wiser, I knew immediately there was something profoundly wrong with Francis long before many whom I respect caught on.

Why? Unless one is hinting to an overly loquacious preacher to wind his sermon up, a priest just does not look at his watch during a service.  It’s not in the rubrics; it doesn’t have to be.  It sends the wrong message to the congregation and to God as well.  For a pope to check his watch during one of the more solemn services of the year . . . .  It was unthinkable . . . before Francis.

Thus in the first month of his pontificate, those with eyes to see could already see Francis was a man of impious priorities who had little respect for the liturgy, for the need of solemn and traditional celebrations of even the Resurrection of our Lord.

The slow motion disaster of the pontificate of Francis should not have afterward surprised anyone, particularly his attempted vandalism of the Lord’s Prayer and his attacks on the traditional Latin Mass.  Early on, his watch check foretold his attacks on catholic worship.

 

Sunday August 29^th, 2021

Joe Biden stands at Dover Air Force Base to receive the bodies of 13 service people killed in the Kabul bombing, an attack enabled by the shambles of his withdrawal from Afghanistan.  As he ends a salute, he quickly checks his watch.  It was so quick that perhaps he caught himself, realizing how wrong that was.  But he checked his watch nonetheless.  (And some reports have him checking his watch additional times during the ceremony.)

At this point, it is unclear just what this watch check tells.  Perhaps it tells that Biden’s cognitive decline is worse than most think.  One system of dementia is socially inappropriate behavior.  But I am not his doctor, and it would be wrong for me to presume that is what is happening.  

Perhaps he did not want to be there at Dover AFB and thought he had better things to do.  He surely wants to move on from his Afghanistan disaster.  Perhaps he was so detached from reality, he did not realize the solemnity of his role.  

It is hard to think that his watch check revealed shear callousness toward the fallen soldiers and their families.  But he has already greatly endangered Americans and allied Afghans.  How much of that disaster is from incompetence and how much from callousness, we do not know. 

In any case, what Biden’s watch check this past Sunday reveals is not good.

----

So the trivial act of checking one’s watch revealed much about these three men and their times, although exactly what was revealed in Biden’s case is not yet clear.  Did the checks also have consequences?

In the elder Bush’s case, probably not.  Yes, it was part of his lackluster debate in his lackluster campaign.  But it was the campaign and the recession and perhaps Ross Perot that brought about his defeat, not a watch check.

In Pope Francis’ case, it had virtually no consequences whatsoever before men.  Just about everyone was too eager to think hopefully about the new Pope.  The consequences before God are another matter best left to Him.

I doubt it will have lasting consequences for Biden either.  But I see similarities with Bush’s watch check in that it reveals traits that will have political consequences.  Bush’s disdain for actual campaigning, partly revealed by his watch check, assisted his defeat.  Whatever the mix of incompetence and darkness revealed by Biden’s watch check, that mix may and should lead to the downfall of his presidency as well.

There is a significant difference with Biden’s watch check.  Bush’s check, though revealing undesirable traits, was not awful or disgusting.   Biden’s watch check is disgusting and adding to widespread disgust with him – as it should.

Corbyn Still One of the Comrades of Evo Morales

I am among those thankful that the Leftist supposed President of Bolivia Evo Morales resigned under pressure after a fraudulent re-election. But look who is not thankful: the dictators of Cuba and Venezuela . . . and Jeremy Corbyn.

The Glorious Leader of the Labour Party tweeted:

To see [Evo Morales] who, along with a powerful movement, has brought so much social progress forced from office by the military is appalling. I condemn this coup against the Bolivian people and stand with them for democracy, social justice and independence. #ElMundoConEvo

Never mind Morales’ human rights abuses or his election stealing.

By the way, I wonder what Pope Francis thinks of Morales’ resignation.  Will the LibPope miss him?  After all they’ve met at least six times, including as recently as last year when Francis surely knew the nature of the Morales regime.  And remember Morales gave Francis that lovely Communist cross. So maybe Francis will invite his buddy to move into the Vatican where he will be right at home with any number of Leftist abusers.

Pachamama Returns: Is Francis Committing Idolatry? UPDATED

I will soon be going to [TRIGGER WARNING!! AVERT YOUR EYES ALL YE SNOWFLAKES!!] a gun show.  So I am posting in haste.  I do not like to do so but the controversy about the Pachamama statues at the Vatican’s Amazon Synod has become so significant that I am compelled to comment.

To be brief, Pope Francis has noted that “the Pachamama statues” have been retrieved.  Yes, that is what he has now called them, and that in itself is significant. He thereby acknowledges that the statues are idols that have been brought into the Synod even though he claims there were “no idolatrous intentions.”

That is just begging for satire, but continuing…

This situation could become much worse tomorrow.  For, even after acknowledging that they are “Pachamama statues,” Francis said that they may be included in the Synod’s closing mass:

The Commander of the Carabinieri [Italian police] wished to inform us of the retrieval before the news becomes public. At the moment the news is confidential, and the statues are being kept in the office of the Commander of the Italian Carabinieri.

The leadership of the Carabinieri will be very happy to follow any indication given on the method of making the news public, and regarding the other initiatives desired in its regard, for example, the commander said, “the display of the statues at the closing Mass of the Synod.” We’ll see.

I delegate the Secretary of State to respond to this.

This is good news, thank you.

Needless to say, if said display occurs, it would be a grievous and idolatrous provocation.  

Already, Fr. John Hunwicke is asking if Francis has committed “a formal act of Apostasy” under the canons:

If the statue venerated in the VGE was not of Pachamama, but PF erroneously believed that it was, would his act of veneration of this statue (if he did make such an act) still be a formal act of Apostasy, on the grounds that the Roman Pontiff intended to commit an act of idolatry?

I think the question answers itself although canon law may complicate the matter.  But, yes, this is a grave matter already.

I will continue to keep an eye on this matter and to pray for faithful orthodox Catholics, who surely must be distressed by this.

---

UPDATE: There are numerous reports that the Pachamama idols were not seen at the closing Mass of the Synod. 

Francis Continues to Stack the College of Cardinals

Some may think the above headline to be too strong.  They would be mistaken.  Francis’s latest appointments to the College of Cardinals “are, without a doubt, the most liberal group of Cardinal-Electors ever assembled.”

One even wrote a foreword for the infamous Liberal Jesuit James Martin.  But I will allow others to go over the sordid appointments in detail.

The big picture is that the College of Cardinals under Francis is getting more and more stacked with LibChurchers.  So much so that I think we are already past the point where we will have another robustly orthodox Pope in our lifetimes. Yes, the Lord can certainly do miracles concerning his church.  But more often when a jurisdiction willfully descends into apostasy, he spews them out of his mouth. (Rev. 3:16)   No, I do not think the Church of Rome is exempt from that.

I confess that under Benedict I considered the possibility to crossing the Tiber.  Had I made that crossing, I would surely be considering repentance now. Maybe my ecclesiology needs an adjustment, but I cannot conscientiously be in communion with a Francis or the future LibPopes his stacked College of Cardinals will likely produce.

Vigano: Francis Lied

It is getting harder to escape that Pope Francis is a liar.  To be specific, he has lied about his knowledge of Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick’s sexual predations.

The Pope has said he knew nothing, nothing:

“I knew nothing, obviously, of McCarrick,” the pope says in the new interview. “Nothing, nothing. I said several times that I didn’t know, that I had no idea. You know that I didn’t know anything about McCarrick; otherwise, I would not have stayed quiet.”

Archbishop Vigano has been quick to call that out as a lie.  For he himself told Francis about McCarrick after Francis had asked:

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. 

One Peter Five is on top of this, including some *creative* editing by the Vatican of Francis’, well, lie.

Pope Francis Withheld Benedict’s Observations from Sexual Abuse Summit

Yes, I got slack in keeping up with Papist news.  But when I finally read about this yesterday, I was floored.

I’ve mentioned Pope Emeritus Benedict’s essay on the causes of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.  It turns out he wrote it with the intention that it be distributed to the participants of the sexual abuse summit.  But instead Francis sat on it and did not distribute it!

Now some think it inappropriate for Benedict to say much of anything anymore as that undercuts the current Bishop of Rome.  (I disagree.)  Perhaps, Francis, too, just wants Benedict to be quiet now. And/or perhaps Francis did not appreciate Benedict rightly implicating liberalism and a weakening of ethics as among the causes of abuses.

Whatever Francis’ reasons, Benedict and his essay merited a hearing. What a petty pope Francis is to attempt to muffle Benedict.

About “Getting Angry at Jesus”

There are a number of faithful who are not happy, angry even, that the current Pontiff said the following: “"Even getting angry at Jesus can be a kind of prayer. Jesus likes seeing the truth of our heart. Don't make pretense in front of Jesus."

At this point, I advise readers to sit down.  Although I have not read his whole statement, I at least in part – are you sitting down? – agree with Pope Francis on this.

Yes, I am actually agreeing with Francis on something.

Early in my Bible reading, I noticed the honesty of the Psalms. And I noticed that part of that honesty is that frustration with God was openly expressed to God Himself.

As a teenage Christian with teenage frustrations, I found this comforting.  It showed me that God could handle and even accept my frustration and anger with Him. And so if I were unhappy about something in my life and unhappy with what I perceived to be the slowness of God’s help, I would be very honest with God about that in prayer.

Now I knew it would be better not to be angry with God. But the Psalms showed me that if one is frustrated with the Lord, it is good to be honest with Him about that.  And, as in the Psalms, my anger was never “If you don’t help me, I will stop going to church” or any foot stamping like that, at least not that I can recall.  I remained very much committed to the Lord even when I wasn’t especially happy with him.

Hopefully, as one matures, anger with God becomes more rare. I know that the experience of seeing God use bad things in my life for good over and over again has pretty much cured me of anger towards him.  I cannot remember the last time I’ve been angry with God.  It’s probably been decades.  (And I do have a temper so that’s saying something.)

Nonetheless, as angry as I get with the current Bishop of Rome, I agree that being honest to God about any anger towards Him is an acceptable prayer.  I know God graciously responded to such prayer in my younger days.

Don’t be too angry with me.

BREAKING: Pope Francis Appoints Yet Another Libchurcher as Archbishop of DC

Pope Francis continues to stack the episcopate.  This time D. C. gets yet another Libchurch Archbishop, Wilton Gregory.

Gregory is a protégé of Cardinal Bernardin, who ran cover for pro-abortion Democrats with his “seamless garment” crapola. Later, Gregory worked closely with Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.  Accordingly, Gregory’s record is more liberal than thou. Debra Heine spells out some of the sordid details well.

With this appointment, Pope Francis demonstrates he has no shame. He is going to stack the episcopate with corrupt Libchurchers like himself come Hell or high water.

To their credit, some conservative churchpeople opposed this appointment:

Catholic Laity for Orthodox Bishops and Reform (Catholic Laity) has grave reservations about the appointment of Archbishop Wilton Gregory as Archbishop of Washington:

We urge the Holy See to seek out a worthy candidate who is without ties to Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Mr. Theodore McCarrick, or Donald Cardinal Wuerl.  Archbishop Gregory was a protégé of Cardinal Bernardin in Chicago, where he first became an auxiliary bishop.  Cardinal Bernardin left a legacy of dilution of Catholic teaching and subversion of the fight to protect unborn babies and their mothers. 

In 2004, then-Bishop Gregory, as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, collaborated with then-Cardinal McCarrick in deceiving the Bishops of the United States about  the contents of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  The letter said that politicians who support legal abortion should not be admitted to Holy Communion, but they did not reveal that to the other Bishops.  The Democrat candidate for President that year was a Catholic, John Kerry, who supported abortion.

Yes, faithfulness to the Democrat Party is far more important than faithfulness.

As for other Roman Catholic laity, shame on them if they do not cut off funds to that corrupt diocese immediately.  It is spineless laity that enable corrupt clerics.

MORE:  More on Wilton Gregory from George Neumayr and from Steve Skojec.  Francis sure does stack the Roman episcopate and the College of Cardinals with some real winners.

A Reality Check on the McCarrick Laicization

The big Roman Catholic news over the weekend was the laicization of now former Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.  Yes, it is very rare that a Cardinal is reduced to lay status. Yes, this is actually good news, for a change, from the Vatican.

But a reality check is in order, and it is well delivered by Steve Skojec.*  McCarrick is 88 and very damaged goods well before this verdict by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  Although very useful in getting Pope Francis elected, he is no longer useful to the Vatican.  So he can be dispensed with.  

Other LibChurchers who have enabled the abuse of children and of the Faith, such as Cardinal Cupich and Pope Francis himself, remain firmly in power.

Yes, I include Pope Francis.  He knew about McCarrick and yet lessened Benedict’s restrictions and increased Cardinal Ted’s power after the Cardinal helped get Francis elected.  

Yes, “the smoke of Satan” is putting it nicely.

------

* There is one thing in the article with which I respectfully but strongly disagree.  And I think I should say so.

I do not think statue of limitation laws should be eliminated for child abuse and other forms of sexual abuse.  False accusations are particularly a problem in this area and often are very difficult to combat.  Accusations long after the fact are that much more prone to be false.

As upsetting as it may be that McCarrick and the like are free men and will remain so, it is worse for anyone to endure a trial or imprisonment for something decades ago that did not actually happen.

I realize my viewpoint is getting less and less popular.  And with all the child abuse scandals, I completely understand that.

Roman Catholic “Bishop” Attacks Covington Students … for Wearing MAGA Hats

One would think after videos have clearly shown that the Covington High School students were the victims of aggressive bigotry, not the perpetrators, that LibChurchers would engage in the penitential discipline of apology and then shutting the **** up. And one would think Roman Catholic hierarchy would come to those students’ defense and surely not heap more smears on them.

But not so with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lexington, John Stowe.

Instead, in an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader for all to see, he wrote, “I am ashamed that the actions of Kentucky Catholic high school students have become a contradiction of the very reverence for human life that the march is supposed to manifest.” And he is particularly upset that they . . . wore MAGA hats.

That is not satire.  He took the students to task for wearing MAGA hats to a political demonstration.  It appears merely wearing support for Trump and for “making America great again” even in a political demonstration is now a mortal sin in the Church of Rome.

I will let you read this and the rest of his smear for yourself if you wish.  I refuse to dignify it further.

And, again, these are pro-life Catholic High School students he is smearing.  Hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church victimized youth enough already?

But this is the sort of LibChurch leadership that is typical under Pope Francis.  

Perfect. Anglican Communion Ambassador to Rome is a Resurrection Denier.

Archbishop Cranmer is among those provoked that an open Resurrection denier has been appointed Interim Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, which is effectively the embassy of the Anglican Communion to The Vatican. Hence its Director is in effect the Ambassador of the Anglican Communion to The Vatican.

The said Resurrection denier is the Very Rev’d Dr John Shepherd, formerly Dean of St George’s Cathedral, Perth, and Chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford from 1980 to 1988.  For Easter, he has said the following and more:

The Resurrection of Jesus ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality. It is important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the Resurrection was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original earthly body.
…
Jesus’ early followers felt His presence after His death as strongly as if it were a physical presence and incorporated this sense of a resurrection experience into their gospel accounts. But they’re not historical records as we understand them. 

There’s video, too:

But Happy Easter anyway!

One wonders if he would have been appointed if he were an open “Climate Change Denier.”  Heck, we wonder no such thing.  We know what would have happened.

But personally I am only mildly provoked by this appointment.  It is old hat really.  And, frankly, the Romans under Pope Franco deserve an insulting appointment like this.  The Vatican has a LibPope who enables and promotes abusing and abuse-enabling LibChurchers.  Really, The Vatican deserves worse than John Shepherd.  I hope Gene Robinson and Peter Ball were given due consideration.

This appointment is also appropriate due to the history of openly apostate bishops in the Anglican Communion, none of whom have been defrocked for fifty years and more if my memory is correct.  John Shelby Spong, David Jenkins, Shepherd, and no telling how many other allegedly Anglican bishops and clergy have openly denied and even mocked the physical resurrection of Christ.  How many have been defrocked? Hmmm?

That has provoked me for decades and still does. But with that history in mind, John Shepherd is a very appropriate appointment indeed.  Canterbury and Rome deserve no less.

Francis and Cupich Transcend Satire

With my warped sense of humor, I should have noticed this earlier, but Weird Dave of Ace of Spades, being weird, has noticed it. (There’s handy screenshots at the link.  Scroll down to “Satire is dead.”)

Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich have transcended satire . . . or killed it.

First, on August 16^th, the Babylon Bee posted “Pope Says He Will Address Sex Abuse Scandal Once He’s Finished Talking About Climate Change.”  It began:

In his first public statement on the horrifying, devastating report on sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis stated he would address the controversy in detail once he’s done talking about climate change for a few more weeks.

The head of the Roman Catholic Church claimed he is deeply concerned with the tragic report, but is “just too swamped” with work fighting climate change, criticizing capitalism, and advocating for other issues of social justice to talk about the repulsive report at the moment.

Now that is satire, just to be clear. . . . Or it was satire.

For ten days later, after the Vigano statement, Cardinal Cupich made this statement as I’ve noted:

The pope knows we have a bigger agenda. We have to speak about the environment, about the poor, we have to reach out to people who are marginalized in society. We cannot be distracted at this moment,” Cupich said.

Elsewhere, Cupich was quoted, “The Pope has a bigger agenda. … He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on with the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”

That is not satire. . . .  Really.  I’m dead serious.  It is not satire.

Beyond that, I’ve got nothing.  How can satire survive that?

Perhaps we need a new feast day?  The Feast of the Translation of Holy Satire?

Cardinal Cupich Doesn’t Like You Distracting Bigots

Cardinal Blase Cupich is not happy with you bigots who think Pope Francis should resign or, at the very least, think Francis’ promotion of apostate predators and wolves should be thoroughly investigated.

“The pope knows we have a bigger agenda. We have to speak about the environment, about the poor, we have to reach out to people who are marginalized in society. We cannot be distracted at this moment,” Cupich said.

Yes, the Gospel, the purity of the church, and protecting the young are such annoying distractions from lib/left political activism.  And Vigano’s testimony is a really bad distraction:

Cupich described the contents of Archbishop Carlos Maria Viganò’s 11-page testimony, published Aug. 25, as a “rabbit hole” that he does not think the Church should be going down.

Yes, the church should ignore Pope Francis’ rehabilitation of Uncle Ted McCarrick and the appointment of Uncle Ted’s libchurch allies as Cardinals.  Nothing to see here!

And Cupich knows the real reason I and others dislike Francis:

“Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino,” said Cupich. Pope Francis was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to parents of Italian descent.

But don’t let that detail keep you from playing the race card, Cardinal.

Now there is a reason I mock Cupich’s statements other than that there are such easy targets.  Backed by the predatory Uncle Ted, this is the sort of libchurcher with which Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals. Therefore, if we are to have a robustly orthodox Pope in our lifetimes, it is not enough that Francis resign. The likes of Cupich, Wuerl etc. must be shown the door as well. 

But I have serious doubts that even Francis will resign.  I might get to that another time.

Abusing and Covering-Up Libchurchers Elected Pope Francis and Were Rewarded

Yes, I have been slow to respond here to the explosive statement of ex-Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Vigano for a number of boring personal reasons and for a not so personal reason – that statement was so candid and so from the inside that I doubted at first that it was authentic.  But by now it is obvious it is authentic.  And it is a must read.

Francis responded to the statement yesterday if it can be called a response:

“I will respond to your question,” says the pope in a video of the plane presser translated by LifeSiteNews. “But I would prefer that we first speak about the trip, and then other topics[.] … This morning I read that statement. I read it, and I will say sincerely that I must tell you all this – you [CBS] and all of you who are interested: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment.I am not going to say a word about this.I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions.”

And overnight, Vigano’s statement received important confirmation:

Meanwhile, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) obtained a brief statement from Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counselor of the nunciature in Washington, whose job it was to inform Cardinal McCarrick of the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict XVI. Lantheaume, who declined to give an interview, merely confirmed the veracity of Viganò’s report.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” said Lantheaume, in a written response to CNA.

A number of traditionalist catholic sites are covering this closely.  (The twitter of Rorate Caeli is particularly impressive.)  And I do not want to duplicate their efforts. So I will try to restrain myself as this unfolds to pointing out some aspects that may be below readers’ radars or are in some other way value-added. 

First, it must be noted that there is an ugly pattern here as pointed out by Damian Thompson:

This is becoming clearer in my mind.
Danneels: complicit in sex abuse, campaigned for Bergoglio.
McCarrick: sex abuser, campaigned for Bergoglio.
Bergoglio becomes pope. Both men – mirabile dictu – are rehabilitated.
THIS STINKS.

— Damian Thompson (@holysmoke) August 26, 2018

In other words, key libchurchers who abused/enabled abuse/covered up abuse backed Bergoglio for Pope and, behold!, were rehabilitated after the election of Francis.  Not only that but, as Vigano’s statement states, they become influential in the appointment of other libchurchers, some/most of whom are also tied to abuse.  I hope no reader is so naïve as to consider all this a coincidence.

Uncle Ted McCarrick himself has been quite open about throwing his influence behind the election of Bergoglio.  And, lo and behold, his record of abuse, very well known in the Vatican, and the restriction of him by Pope Benedict was then [Anglican Understatement Alert] overlooked.

This mafia-like pattern is one reason it would not be enough for Francis to resign.  The libchurchers who conspired to elect a Pope who would favor them and sweep their sexual abuse and cover ups under the rug must be done away with as well.

But I will likely say more about that another time.

We Want Not Words, But Wuerl! UPDATED

It took a while, but Pope Francis has issued a letter “to the people of God” concerning the abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church.  I’ve read it, but not closely enough to parse it.

I have good reason for my negligence. Unless Pope Francis repents of being a libchurcher and pledges to remove libchurchers from positions of power, his words are close to pointless.  For, as I and others have pointed out, it is the dominance of libchurchers in key areas of the Church of Rome that has enabled its widespread sexual predation.

If Pope Francis’ concern is worth anything, he will give us not mere words, but Wuerl.  He will accept the resignation of Cardinal Wuerl.

What? Wuerl resigned?  Yes, back in 2015 when he turned 75.  Pope Francis could accept that pro forma resignation (as he has oh-so quickly when certain orthodox prelates reached resignation age).  And it would be a perfect resignation to accept. For not only has Wuerl presided over abuse and likely helped cover up the predations of his friend Uncle Ted Cardinal McCarrick, he is practically a prototype of a libchurch abuse-enabling bishop: 

He has suspended and intimidated conservative priests, and has even blocked conservative bishops from offering sacraments in his archdiocese, while doing almost nothing to combat the numerous shenanigans administered by Jesuits at Georgetown University. 

Of course, far far more needs to be done than accepting one resignation. Far far more libchurchers must have their church careers ended for the Roman Catholic Church to recover from their wolfish predations.  Nonetheless, more words mean little at this point.  Don’t give the faithful more of your words, Francis.  You talk too much anyway.  Bring us the mitre of Cardinal Wuerl.  Not words, but Wuerl!

Yes, Your Holiness, we know you don’t like capital punishment.  So the head need not be attached to said mitre.  At least it doesn’t have to be.

----

MORE:
Here’s a taste of Wuerl in action if you can stomach it: hard on orthodox priests, easy on predator priests.

With the WARNING that it’s difficult reading, here’s more details on how easy he was on predator priests.

He. Must. Go.

 ----

UPDATE:

And maybe he will soon.

The Washington Post confidently declares that it is "unlikely" Wuerl will resign soon. I'm hearing something different. A source close to Wuerl reported to me that he is telling people around him that he is resigning.

— George Neumayr (@george_neumayr) August 21, 2018

 

One of Pope Francis’ Friends Lets the Truth Slip Out

With the current abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, it may be easy for some to miss its even bigger problem – the lack of faithfulness to traditional catholicity.  And as I noted in my last post, that lack of faithfulness has led to other problems, including endemic sexual abuse.  These problems have all been made worse by the lack of faithfulness of the current Bishop of Rome.

A fervent friend of Francis, Fr. Thomas Rosica has let slip the extent of that lack of faithfulness: 

Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.

When a furor promptly and rightly broke out, the remarks were revised.  But, too late, alert people remembered. 

There is a book out about Francis called The Dictator Pope.  Some may find its premise overwrought and even I hesitate to call Francis a dictator (although I can call him a lot of things).  But if the Church of Rome “is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture,” and Francis has acted in that manner in changing the catechism on capital punishment among other matters, that is a bit dictatorial, no?

Fr. John Hunwicke notes what a grave situation the Church of Rome is therefore now in.  I will let him conclude.

Bergoglianism has been encapsulated in an even more extreme form than this by the cynically blasphemous observation of the jesuit "General" that the Lord's Words were not captured on camera, and by Fr Rosica's boastfully candid admission that the Church is now entirely at the mercy of a pope to whom neither Scripture nor Tradition are prescriptive. Such exponents appear to offer a model of Christian teaching ministry unknown even to the heretics of earlier ages. Here we have not a heresy, but the supraheresy. Earlier heresiarchs may have monkeyed around with, and perverted the sense of, both Scripture and Tradition, but, I think, never before have we had the diabolical claim that a major heretical teacher is quite simply free from any control whatsoever within the Word of God whether written or orally transmitted. When I use the term 'diabolical', I mean it in the fullest possible sense. The fingerprints all over these preposterous claims are unmistakeable.

Understanding the Rot in the Roman Catholic Church

Like most of you, I am sickened by what a Pennsylvania grand jury has exposed about abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church.  But what most do not understand is the abuse is largely the fruit of a corrupt and liberal hierarchy.   Yes, there are outwardly conservative clerics who were involved in the abuse and/or cover-ups. But the abuse would not have gotten to be endemic without it being enabled by libchurchers.

Peter Kwasniewski is one of the few who gets it and is not shy about saying so:

The ring of criminal Nancy Boys is the same ring that has been sedulously working for decades to undermine the integrity of the doctrinal, moral, sacramental, liturgical Church. These men – McCarrick, McElroy, Wuerl, O’Malley, Mahony, Cupich, Tobin, Farrell, Lynch, Weakland, Paglia, Maradiaga, their lovable mouthpiece James Martin, Thomas Rosica, and far too many others, including ones who have passed on to their eternal fate, such as Lyons, Boland, Brom – are the same ones who have destabilized and adulterated catechesis, theology, liturgy, and most obviously the Church’s commitment to the unchanging moral law, as we saw in the Amoris Laetitia debacle and all that surrounded and succeeded it….

These are not just men of bad moral character; they are apostates, and they are trying to remake the Church in the image of their own apostasy. The Church has been smashed up in front of our eyes in slow motion for decades and few can even begin to admit that we are now faced with a Church in actual smithereens. The Nancy Boys have conducted their campaign of demolition with a kind of imperial sway. It is not this or that aspect of the Church that is corrupt; the rot is now everywhere. It is a rot on which the McCarrick Ring still sups, like maggots feasting on a corpse. For this reason, to hear well meaning people say Bergoglio must impanel some investigative body to set things right is Alice in Wonderland lunacy. It’s like putting Himmler in charge of Nuremberg….

It is a package deal. This, above all, is what people need to see. The moral depravity, the doctrinal heresy, the liturgical devastation – all of it goes together.

Like I said, he is not shy, but he is right. The abuse and libchurch apostasy go hand in hand, so to speak.  Take Boston, Cardinal Law (spit), and Paul Shanley for example.  Before Shanley’s predations on boys became public knowledge, he was well known as a radical “street preacher” who opposed church teaching on homosexuality.  He even spoke in defense of pedophilia at a NAMBLA conference in 1979. So, even apart from his abuse, why did it take decades after that for him to be defrocked?

Damnable lib bishops, that’s why.  From a 2002 New York Times article: 

Bishop McCormack, who served as a top aide to Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston before his appointment to Manchester, oversaw the transfer of several priests from parish to parish even after evidence of sexual misconduct grew with multiple accusations made against them.

One of those he helped to transfer around the country was the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, who has been accused of the sexual abuse of more than 20 young boys and who publicly defended pedophilia at a 1979 meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

The rot goes all the way to Vatican. Rod Dreher reveals how Uncle Ted McCarrick became a Cardinal:

Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops. It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harrasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment. To refuse the archbishop’s bedtime entreaties would be to risk your future as a priest, I was told.

Rome was informed by these laymen — whose number included professionally distinguished Catholics in a position to understand the kind of harm this would cause –that McCarrick was sexually exploiting these seminarians, but it did no good. McCarrick received his appointment to the Washington archdiocese in 2000.

That’s some of the “smoke of Satan” in the Vatican Benedict warned about.

Roman Catholics in the pews, like the mainstream Protestant counterparts, have put up with these libchurchers for too long. Kwasniewski again:

We need the apostates identified, denounced, and removed. We need a reaffirmation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. To clean up this mess, we have to clean up more than the scandal of homosexuality, with all of its attendant horrors. We have to denounce and reject the apostasy that powerful and influential homosexuals and their friends have insinuated into the Church over decades. 

Although I applaud and pray for those orthodox who are committed to reforming the Roman Catholic Church, I do not share Kwasniewski’s optimism that it can be done.  For one thing, Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with the likes of Blase Cupich and worse.  So I fear Benedict may be the last robustly orthodox pope.  Further, reform would require an orthodox pope with the will power and energy to clean up the Vatican and the College of Cardinals.  Not even Benedict had that nor has any pope since Vatican II.

That’s the thing about libchurchers. If you don’t put them in their place early, they end up taking over the place . . . with damnable consequences.

The rot in the Roman Catholic Church has implications of great import for Anglicans.  But I will get to that another time.

Did Pope Francis Really Change Church Teaching?

I promised to comment further on the change in the Roman Catholic Catechism on the subject of capital punishment now that the official Latin text is out. So I guess I should keep my promise.  But I do not have much more to add except to say that it is not as certain as I first thought that Pope Francis has changed official R. C. Church teaching, although I remain appalled at his arbitrary tinkering with the Catechism to turn part of it into an act of political lobbying. 

However, to avoid further ranting and to focus on the presenting question – it is unclear whether official Roman Catholic teaching has changed.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, there is a lot of debate among Roman Catholics whether church teaching has changed, which is a good sign.  Second, as Fr John Hunwicke has noted, the letter that accompanied the Catechism change is hedged and “not how the Catholic Church talks about grave moral offenses.”

My best guess is that whether the Catechism change really is a change in official R. C. Church teaching depends on what future popes do with it.

Please do not mistake that for optimism. Given how Francis is stacking the College of Cardinals, I do not expect another robustly orthodox pope in my lifetime at least.  But if this bit of pessimism and my earlier posts on the capital punishment change prove alarmist and mistaken, I will be most glad to be proven wrong.

More on Pope Francis Changing Catechism on Capital Punishment: “This. Is. Big.”

Yesterday I concluded that the arbitrary change in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Catechism on capital punishment “could be the beginning of something awful.”

Rod Dreher gets this and spells out why very well.  I highly recommend reading his whole post.  He quotes Edward Feser at length in reviewing the teaching of scripture and the Fathers on capital punishment, which teaches that it is a legitimate tool of the state even if it should be used with great restraint.

Feser, anticipating that Pope Francis might change this longstanding church teaching on capital punishment, then wrote that doing so would be “effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error.”

Dreher rightly asserts that this is exactly what Francis did and continues:

It seems to me that the Pope has crossed a bright line. He is denying, for the first time in nearly two millennia of Catholic teaching, and in direct contradiction to the Fathers of the Church, that the state has the right to impose capital punishment. That’s a meaningful difference from saying that the state has that right, but shouldn’t use it.

Even if you disfavor the death penalty, understand what this means: this Pope has claimed forthrightly that the Catholic Church taught error, but now, at long last, he has set the Church straight. From a traditional point of view, though, this means that the Pope is teaching error.

This. Is. Big.

Indeed it is.  And to clarify further, this is not just Pope Francis giving his opinion on capital punishment.  Hey, he’s a Libpope who likes to shoot off his mouth.  His stating his opposition to the death penalty is predictable.

He has gone far beyond expressing his opinion.  He has taken his opinion, which is contradicted by scripture, the Fathers, and many faithful today, and enshrined that opinion in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and that without the backing of a church council. (In fact, several have made that case that Vatican I forbids what Francis just did.)  Regardless of whether the subject is capital punishment, changing official church doctrine like this crosses “a bright line” that even Francis has not crossed before.

Both the tyrannical act and its implications are greatly alarming. Having pulled this doctrinal coup, does anyone think Francis will stop with only capital punishment? I fear for the damage he may do to the church in his remaining years.

This. Indeed. Is. Big.