Tom Brady doesn't get it...why we stand for the National Anthem

Father George Rutler on taking a knee during the National Anthem here.

"As a former NFL player, I am one American who will have nothing to do with any NFL Team that cannot find the corporate courage to stand for the millions of courageous past great Americans whose sacrifice gave meaning to our flag and national anthem and to the millions upon millions who still dream to come to its free shores."

Burgess Owens

From Cornell Law School: Standing for the National Anthem, here.

Turns out Tom Brady has deflated balls after all....

Tom Brady, enamored with his own celebrity, and completely ignorant of the extent of his intellectual paucity, has referred to President Donald Trump as "divisive" for asserting that NFL Football players should observe respect and proper protocol toward the United States Flag and the National Anthem.  See here.

Of course, President Trump is correct:


"Proper protocol for Star-Spangled Banner is found in a separate code under Title 36 of Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies,and Organizations, and listed under Chapter 3, Section 301 on the National Anthem:xx During a rendition of the National Anthem, when the flag is displayed, (a) all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (b) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (c) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (d) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed."

Source:

http://legionstuff.blogspot.com/2011/11/proper-protocol-for-allegiance-natl.html?m=1

But for sniveling simps like Tom Brady, who understand nothing of the sacrifices made by professional soldiers such as my father Joe Melanson and my uncle Arthur, whose body was never recovered, "freedom of speech" includes dissing the United Stated Flag and the National Anthem.

I think he may have received one too many concussions.

Pauline Hanson once said, "To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag."

To individuals like Tom Brady, infected by a sophomoric philosophy, the flag is nothing more than a useless symbol, so why respect it? And our national anthem is something to be pissed on in the name of political expediency and appeals to "freedom of speech," akin to Serrano's display of freedom of speech with his "Piss Christ."

Boycott the NFL.  And while you're at it, Tom Brady.

Chaput goes kaput...

Every now and again, I receive criticism from another Catholic who accuses me of "lacking peace" simply because I defend the Church's authentic teaching on a variety of issues and because I oppose dissent from the same. These confused Catholics have a distorted notion of what constitutes "peace" and are often motivated by guilt which stems from their own refusal to live up to their duty, their responsibility, to both defend and promote the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Such is the case, sadly, with Archbishop Charles Chaput.  In an article published in First Things, the Archbishop, who is fast becoming a modern-day Judas, says:


"Fr. Martin* is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing. In Dr. Faggioli’s view, Fr. Martin is yet another victim brought low by a mob of conservative cyber-militias. And these militias have allegedly been fostered by a generation of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bishops, who reshaped “the U.S. episcopate in the image of the ‘culture warrior.’”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Christopher Ferrara explains that the homosexual activist dissident Father Martin continues, "preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls 'love.'  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend 'Mark' and that he professes not to understand how 'even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...'"

I never lose any sleep over asinine criticisms such as those from Archbishop Chaput. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.

How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).

Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace?

Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

And in so doing, one may justly employ strong language.  See here.

There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic like Charles Chaput levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.

Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.

It is interesting that Archbishop Chaput has nothing to say about Father Martin's and other's  unjust criticism of faithful Catholics who defend the immutable teaching of Christ's Church.
But then, evil attracts evil.

*  See here

Francis advances a "mercy" which leads souls to persevere in sin and so be lost

Francis is putting mercy before doctrine and encouraging delusion* as reported here.

In one of his sermons, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori warned, "'But God is merciful.'  Behold another common delusion by which the Devil encourages sinners to persevere in a life of sin!  A certain author has said that more souls have been sent to Hell by the mercy of God than by His justice.  This is indeed the case; for men are induced by the deceits of the Devil to persevere in sin, through confidence in God's mercy; and thus they are lost.

God is merciful.  Who denies it?  But, great as His mercy is, how many does He every daysend to Hell?  God is merciful, But He is also just, and is, therefore, obliged to punish those who offend Him.  And 'His mercy,' says the divine mother, extends 'to them that fear Him.' (Luke 1:50).  But with regard to those who abuse His mercy and despise Him, He exercises justice...

The Lord pardons sins, But He cannot pardon the determination to commit sin.  Saint Augustine says, that He who sins with the intention of repenting after his sins, is not a penitent but a scoffed.  Irrisor est non poenitens.  But the Apostle tells us that God will not be mocked.  'Be not deceived; God is not mocked.' (Gal 6:7).  It would be a mockery of God to insult Him as often and as much as you pleased, and afterwards to expect eternal glory." (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Sermons For All the Sundays in the Year).

*  See here.

Father James Martin, S.J.: Unbeliever or demoniac?

Over at Fatima Network Perspectives, Christopher Ferrara writes:

"As I have already shown..
behind Father James Martin’s treacly grin is a cunning subversive on a mission to overturn, if it were possible, the Church’s infallible teaching, rooted in the divine and natural law, that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity, … [as] tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’…; Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

On and on Father Martin goes, preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls “love.”  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend “Mark” and that he professes not to understand how “even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...”

As Scripture makes clear, the irreproachable Justice of God recognizes the sin of Sodom as one of the four sins that “cry out” to Heaven for divine retribution, along with murder, the oppression of widows and orphans, and cheating workers out of their just wages.  (Cf. Gen. 4:10; Gen. 18:20-21; Exod. 21-23;Deut. 24:14-15). Of course, these sins may be forgiven by the merciful God through the ministry of the Church. Nor does the Church teach hatred of those who commit such sins, but on the contrary her perennial counsel is “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

But forgiveness is not possible without repentance and a resolution to sin no more.  Martin, on the other hand, denies the need for repentance and teaches that intrinsically depraved homosexual acts are good.  This is simply monstrous.  And yet not only does he get away with it, day in and day out, he has even been given a promotion to the status of a consultor to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications..."

Of course, Francischurch is committed toward genuflecting before the Devil.

Today we are living in the most decadent, violent and faithless period in the history of mankind. But many cannot see this because they have succumbed to satanic pride. Satan fell in love with his own beauty and wound up rebelling against God and leading other angels to do the same, drawing them to Hell.

Today, bishops, priests, religious and laity, puffed up with satanic pride, have become enamored with themselves and their "intellectual prowess." And like their master, the father of all lies (John 8: 44), these too are now rebelling against God and His Holy Church.

These sons of Hell spend much of their waking hours contradicting Sacred Scripture, denying dogma and popularizing immorality. These pseudo-intellectuals arrogantly divinize man's intellect while ridiculing the Word of God. Saint Paul spoke of these disciples of Lucifer in 2 Timothy 4: 1-4: "I charge you to preach the word, to stay with this task whether convenient or inconvenient - correcting, reproving, appealing - constantly teaching and never losing patience. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables."

In Romans 1, Saint Paul emphasizes the fact that there is a connection between a refusal to acknowledge and obey God and a subsequent degeneration of morality. And yet, with all the sex abuse scandals within the Church and all the sexual immorality and dissent, there has been very little discussion about this truth. False worship and pride in one's own intellect cause spiritual blindness and subject men to the destructive and degrading drives of fallen nature - most especially in the area of sex. Saint Paul tells us that people who fall into such spiritual blindness begin to encourage others to do so. And so infidelity spreads like a cancer.

There is an increasingly hostile attitude toward Sacred Scripture on the part of many who believe that they can "correct" God's Word. Still others, as you note, alter the scriptures because a particular verse convicts them.

Contrast this arrogance with the Church Fathers. When confronted with such an arrogant approach to God's Word, they responded in no uncertain terms:

"They have not feared to lay hands upon the sacred Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. Nor is it likely that they themselves are ignorant of how very bold their offense is. For either they do not believe that the sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers, or if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else can they be but demoniacs." (St. Hippolytus of Rome, "Fragment" in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, ch. 28).

Father Martin is one or the other.  In either case, he has forfeited any and all credibility with serious Catholics who adhere to Church teaching.

Under Francis, the emerging signs of the end times are intensifying...

Update: Catholic scholar says that the official persecution of faithful Catholics under Francis has begun.  See here.

An example of this persecution here.


"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned." (2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12).

Philip Johnson, in his book "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, tells a story which is both amusing and frightening at the same time. He writes: "I am convinced that conscious dishonesty is much less important in intellectual matters than self-deception...The German biologist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable story to illustrate his thesis that 'self-deception plays an astonishing role in science in spite of all the scientists' worship of truth':

When I was a student in a German gymnasium and thirteen years old, I learned a lesson that I have not forgotten...One early morning our physics teacher placed a telescope in the school yard to show us a certain planet and its moons. So we stood in a long line, about forty of us. I was standing at the end of the line, since I was one of the smallest students. The teacher asked the first student whether he could see the planet. No, he had difficulties, because he was nearsighted. The teacher showed him how to adjust the focus, and that student could finally see the planet and the moons. Others had no difficulty; they saw them right away. The students saw, after a while, what they were supposed to see. Then the student standing just before me - his name was Harter - announced that he could not see anything. 'You idiot,' shouted the teacher, 'you have to adjust the lenses.' The student did that and said after a while, 'I do not see anything, it is all black.' The teacher then looked through the telescope himself. After some seconds he looked up with a strange expression on his face. And then my comrades and I also saw that the telescope was nonfunctioning; it was closed by a cover over the lens. Indeed, no one could see anything through it.'

Muller-Hill reports that one of the docile students became a professor of philosophy and director of a German TV station. 'This might be expected,' he wickedly comments. But another became a professor of physics, and a third a professor of botany. The honest Harter had to leave school and go to work in a factory. If in later life he was ever tempted to question any of the pronouncements of his more illustrious classmates, I am sure he was firmly told not to meddle in matters beyond his understanding.'" (pp. 156-157).

Do we honestly believe that this herd mentality is not to be found throughout our society and even in the Church? If so, we deceive ourselves. Pope Benedict XVI has warned of a liberal notion of conscience which is nothing less than a retreat from truth. In a keynote address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," he says that liberalism's idea of conscience is that: "Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding. It is the faculty that dispenses with truth. It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction, and the less depth he has, the better for him."

Is there really any difference between Harter's classmates, who insisted that they could see a planet and its moons when such was impossible, and those who succumb to social conformity and insist that an unborn baby is not really a human being when all the scientific evidence suggests otherwise?

Where will radical subjectivism ultimately lead us? It was Romano Guardini [in his classic The Lord, p. 513] who reminded us that: "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."

More than forty years ago, when things were much better than they are today, Pope Paul VI said, "There is a great uneasiness, at this time, in the world and in the Church, and that which is in question is the faith.  It so happens now that I repeat to myself the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Like: 'When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on the earth?'  It so happens that there are books coming out in which the faith is in retreat on some important points, that the episcopates are remaining silent and these books are not looked upon as strange.  This, to me, is strange.  I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times and I attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging."

If Pope Paul VI were still with us today, he would be alarmed at the growth of these emerging signs.  Under Francis, the perennial teachings of the Church are not simply in retreat, they are under full assault as those who adhere to them are silenced or demoted.  See here and here for example.

The Church is splitting into two camps: The Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist.

The choice is ours as to which camp we identify with.  But there are consequences in the next life.

Antichrist the environmentalist is here...his False Prophet, Francis demonizes opponents of "climate change" as stupid.

The False Prophet has revealed himself openly.  Francis is demonizing opponents of "climate change" as "stupid."  See here.

A "pope" who demonizes those who dissent against the lie of climate change as "stupid"?

The Antichrist is already among us as Cardinal Biffi warned back in 2000.  He is about to reveal himself openly as his false prophet becomes more brazen, preparing his way.  See here.

Prophecy of Premol (496)

"..... And here it is that the King of Zion (Pope) along with his cross, with his sceptre and his triple crown, shaking off, on the ruins, the dust of his shoes, hastens to flee towards other shores. And is it not so, 0 Lord, that Your Church is rent asunder by her own children?

The sons of Zion are divided into two camps; one faithful to the fugitive Pontiff, and the other inclined or disposed to the government of Zion respecting the Sceptre, but breaking in pieces the triple crown.

"But my spirit wanders and my eyes become obscured at the sight of this terrible cataclysm. But the Spirit said to me, that the man who hopes in God does penance, because the all powerful and merciful God will draw the world out of confusion and a new world will commence. Then the Spirit said to me: 'Here is the beginning of the end of Time which begins!' And I awoke terrified."

The Old Italian prophecy speaks of, "the White Pope and the Black Pope" who shall die during the same night.

Frederick William Faber (died 1863): Antichrist…Many believe in a demonical incarnation—this will not be so—but he will be utterly possessed…His doctrine as apparent contradiction of no religion, yet a new religion…He has an attending pontiff, so separating regal and prophetic office (Edward. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, p. 87).

Anna-Katarina Emmerick(19th century): The Church is in great danger…The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for the destruction, even the clergy. A great destruction is now at hand…I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was admitted in it in order to be united and to have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…I saw again a new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… (Dupont Y. Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1973, pp. 66, 71, 116)

Yves Dupont {writer interpreting A. Emmerick}: They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs…An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome (Dupont, p. 116).

Oba Prophecy: It will come when the Church authorities issue directives to support a new cult, when priests are forbidden to celebrate in any other, when the highest positions in the Church are given to perjurers and hypocrites, when only the renegades are admitted to occupy those positions. (Dupont, p. 115)

Ted and Maureen Flynn (20th century): Catholic prophecy warns us of severe problems facing the papacy in these end times…chaos will be within our midst. An Antipope will seize papal authority…It will be those who hold fast to the truths of the faith who will be labeled as the perpetrators of this horrible schism, according to some visionaries. (Flynn Ted and Maureen. The Thunder of Justice. MaxKol Communications, Inc. Sterling (VA), 1993, p. 255)

Jeanne le Royer (d. 1798): I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches a bad priest will do much harm to the Church (Culligan E. The Last World War and the End of Time. The book was blessed by Pope Paul VI, 1966. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 128).

Bl. Anna-Maria Taigi (19th century): At the end, he will have the gift of miracles (Birch DA. Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before During and After Antichrist. Queenship Publishing Company, Goleta (CA), 1996, pp. 362-363).

Saint Zenobius (died 285): Antichrist will work a thousand prodigies on earth. (Connor, p. 73)

Priest O’Connor (20th century?): This final false prophet will be a bishop of the church and will lead all religions into becoming one. (The False Prophet. Living in the Final Generation. http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/ApparitionsofMary.htm 10/12/07)

Priest Paul Kramer (21st century): The errors of Orthodoxy and of Protestantism will be embraced by that false church, it will be an ecumenical church because the Anti-Pope will be recognized by the world—not by the faithful, but by the world—by the secular world and the secular governments. (Kramer P. The Imminent Chastisement for Not Fulfilling Our Lady’s Request. An edited transcript of a speech given at the Ambassadors of Jesus and Mary Seminar in Glendale, California.

Blessed Joachim (died 1202): Towards the end of the world Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See (Connor, p. 76).

St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be divers thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders, to doubt, yea even agree with those heretics which will cause My order to divide, then will there be such universal dissentions and persecutions that if these days were not shortened even the elect would be lost (Culleton, p. 130).


Gregory the Great, Pope (d. 604): In those days, near the end…an army of priests and two-thirds of the Christians will join the Schism. (Culleton, R. Gerald. The Reign of Antichrist, p. 122)

Yves Dupont {reader and collector of Catholic prophecies}: “prophecies are quite explicit about the election of an anti-pope…Many prophecies predict an anti-pope and a schism” (Dupont, pp. 34,60-61)

G. Rossi (1873): We must observe that St. Malachy does not mention the last Pope as a distinct person from the preceding one, whom he styles Glory of the Olive. He merely says, “During the last persecution of the Church, Peter II, a Roman, shall reign. He shall feed the flock in many tribulations, at the end of which the City of the Seven Hills (Rome) will be destroyed, and the awful Judge shall judge his people.” According to St. Malachy, then, only ten, or at most eleven, popes remain to be in future more or less legitimately elected. We say more or less legitimately elected, because out of those future popes it is to be feared that one or two will be unlawfully elected as anti-popes. (Rossi, p. 139)

Priest E. Sylvester Berry (20th century) As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, the prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne . . .(Berry E.S. The Apocalypse of St. John. First published 1921. http://journals.aol.com/langosh5/Father_E_Sylvester_Berry/ 10/12/07)

Priest Herman Kramer (20th century): In accord with the text this is unmistakably a PAPAL ELECTION . . . But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of the logical and expected candidate by threats of a general apostasy, assassination or imprisonment of this candidate if elected. This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail … one…destined for the papacy at the time will institute the needed reforms. A general council may decree the reforms…The lax clergy at the time will extol the conditions then existing…The dragon is a symbolic term for the evil world powers…They will try to make the Church a “state church” everywhere. This is only possible if they can subject the pope to their wills and compel him to teach and rule as they direct. That would be literally devouring the papacy. (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny, pp. 278,285).

Bishop Malachy (12th century): During the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit upon the throne, Peter the Roman…the City of Seven Hills (Rome) will be utterly destroyed (Culleton, R. Gerald. The Prophets and Our Times. Nihil Obstat: L. Arvin. Imprimatur: Philip G. Scher, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno, November 15, 1941. Reprint 1974, TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 138).

The one who comes in his own name (John 5:43) is here.  In a matter of months, he will reveal himself openly.

Those of us who oppose his agenda must be demonized and placed in a ghetto.

Brace yourselves.  Pray unceasingly.

"As can be seen from many recent documents from UN agencies like UNFPA, there is a trend for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be supplanted by documents such as the Earth Charter. Man is considered to be the result of the evolution of matter, and he must agree to submit himself to the Great Whole. This, we are told, is the price to pay for "sustainable development". This view of Mother Earth denies man the central place in the world that was assigned to him in the 1948 Declaration. We must return to this anthropocentrism and this universalism, which was inspired by the Roman, Jewish, and Christian traditions and was brilliantly reaffirmed by the Renaissance, if we wish to save and protect human capital. The quintessential value is man and not the environment. Without men properly prepared to become responsible managers of Nature, Nature itself cannot but deteriorate and man cannot but vanish. This view of man and his relationship with nature necessitates a fully humanistic conception of development. This conception prompts us to revisit current educational, health, and food policies. It also prompts us to reconsider policies relating to women and families."

- Monsignor Michel Schooyans

Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized."

According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."

The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity."

Christ will be denied.  The Holy Mass suppressed.  All religions will merge into a New Humanitarian Religion under the Man of Sin.
CCC, 675.

If Francis were authentically pro-life, he would condemn the murderous Castro regime

Carlos Eire notes how Francis is once again exposing himself as a hypocrite. He writes: "Once again, Papa Che has come out swinging against an evil, heartless capitalist figure.

Yet, he remains totally silent on evil, heartless socialist and communist dictators.

Papa Che has condemned the Trumpinator for his elimination of the DACA carte blanche to illegal immigrant children.

Granted, he is constantly probed by the left-leaning press on issues such as this, so he can make pronouncements against those who don’t lean left.

In other words, he is provided with more opportunities to criticize capitalist democracies than leftist tyrannies.

So, journalists are partly responsible for prompting and reporting Papa Che’s swipes at capitalist democracies.

Yet, when he visits countries where there is plenty of heartless un-Christian totalitarian abuse of power going on, he says nothing, nada, nichts, zero, null, rien, niente…"

Mr. Eire cites The Daily Mail:


"Pope picks a fight with Trump saying president can’t be pro-life life if he ended DACA

Pope Francis has gone after President Trump over yet another controversial immigration issue, saying if the president is ‘pro-life’ then he should reconsider his order to rescind DACA."

No one can accuse Francis of being a scholar.  But even this dim light should be capable of understanding No. 2273 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . ."

If Francis were authentically pro-life, he would condemn the murderous Castro regime.  Not only has he failed to do so, but this Pharisee has welcomed Raul Castro at the Vatican with open arms. See here.

Church of the "Nice guy"

From my friends over at Les Femmes, a terrific article refuting the "Nice guy" approach to Catholicism advanced by effeminate clergy and idiotic feminist types:

The City of God has a problem, a big problem. Many of those charged with protecting and defending the city have gone over to the enemy. Some are active members of the treasonous conspiracy, but others commit treason by their silence and capitulation. They are the “nice guys” who want to be liked and admired. They don’t want anyone rocking the boat by insisting on unpleasant truths and they fear epithets like “rigid” and “medieval.” And so they say and do nothing when the active conspirators within and the enemy without take their jackhammers and wrecking balls to the foundations of the holy city.

In a recent article at The Catholic Thing,  Deacon James Toner discussed The Nice Guy Syndrome and raised some provocative points:

Nice guys are sincere….. Nice guys are tolerant…. Nice guys are “authentic”….That there can be sincere rapists, tolerant drug dealers, or authentic terrorists; that abortionists can be pleasant people; that those planning a political paradise marked by eugenics and euthanasia can simultaneously be loving grandparents – all these things testify to what Hannah Arendt famously called the “banality of evil.”….
Nice guys…have done, and can do, great evil because of apathy, because of unwillingness to seek the truth and then to do it. Truth obliges. Knowing the truth requires us to act in that truth – to “do” the truth. (James 1:22, CCC 898) If being a “nice guy” means that we must be wishy-washy or apathetic about knowing and serving truth, then we must be as disagreeable, as dyspeptic, as possible….

Smiling nice guys are legion: we find them in parliaments and in pulpits, in chancelleries and in colleges, in the public square and in religious synods….
… if I do not trouble myself about the truth – about its certainty in Christ – then I need not concern myself about doing the truth, about testifying to that truth by what I say and do, and thus risk alienating those very people who see me as a “nice guy.”[i]

This article will focus, not on the “nice guys” of the world who lack the advantage of the fullness of the faith; rather it will look at those within the City of God with the responsibility to teach: the men in Roman collars with multiple letters after their names, the Catholic educators and writers willing to purge the truth from their institutions and works, and the laity in the pew who pick and choose their beliefs in accordance with their pet sins. Not all these “nice guys” are merely silent about the truth. Some actively seek the approval of the world by vigorously defending what’s popular and politically correct. They may even uphold certain teachings of the faith when it is easy and costs nothing. Their silence, however, is deafening when it comes to hard truths that make them targets of criticism and ridicule. These are the “nice guys” committing treason against the City and her ruler, Jesus Christ.

The word treason derives from the Latin “traditionem” meaning to hand over, deliver, or surrender and from the Old French verb “trair” meaning to betray.  Under old English law, high treason involved a subject’s betraying his sovereign (in our case Christ Himself) or the state (the City of God). Petit treason involved a subject’s offense against a fellow subject.  Today, “nice guys” commit both of these treasons. They violate the two great commandments to love God and neighbor. They undermine the faith and weaken the ability of the City of God to carry out its proper role of bringing the entire world to the service of Christ the King. They also undermine the faith of Catholics.
Let us examine several common spheres of silence that reflect the failure of “nice guys” to defend the faith and rob the Church of her evangelical mission to proclaim the truth and spread it to the ends of the earth: silence in the pulpit about moral evils common among the flock, silence from the hierarchy about syncretism, the belief that all religions are essentially the same and all can lead to salvation, and failure of the laity to defend the faith in the marketplace.

First of all, consider the silence of the clergy to teach the faith clearly and boldly. This problem plagued the Church from its very beginning and often arises from human respect. Peter himself fell victim when he stopped eating with the Gentile converts in order to please the Jewish converts.[ii] St. Paul called him to account and, when the first council met in Jerusalem, the Church spoke clearly about the limited obligations of the Gentiles to follow Mosaic Law. But it took a very UN-silent St. Paul to chastise the pope himself. How many clergy fall into the same trap as the English bishops who chose silence to please a king and avoid martyrdom? And the clergy today do it with much less cause, since they will hardly be executed for making a handful of parishioners angry. The bishop may lose some big contributors, of course, which seems to be an important consideration with nice guys in the chancery.

There are several particularly pernicious areas of silence for which our teaching shepherds are culpable. Humanae Vitae, the encyclical condemning contraception, remains unproclaimed after fifty years. The silence in most dioceses and parishes is deafening. Most clerics never challenge the sins of the flesh common to their flocks: abortion, contraception, pornography, immodesty, etc. Have you ever heard a sermon on the seven deadly sins or the four last things? Hell and damnation are very real, but those words are seldom heard. Instead, the Sunday homily, the major opportunity each week for the clergy to teach doctrine and morality to their parishioners, often has little more substance than a bowl of jello. How many clergy will have to answer to Christ, because they abandoned their flocks to spiritual ignorance?

We should be especially aware of the damage of silence in this anniversary year of Fatima since Our Lady told the three shepherd children that sins of the flesh send most sinners to hell.  And certainly the sin of our day is lust. Contraception, pornography, and immodesty give free reign to fornication, adultery, and the perversion of the marriage bed. Contraception often leads to abortion since many couples cite contraceptive failure as the reason they kill their children. According to a 2011 U.K. study by the largest abortion provider in the country, two thirds of women choosing abortion were using contraception when they conceived.[iii] When I was sidewalk counseling, several abortion-minded women told me it wasn’t their fault since they conceived while using birth control. Hence, in their minds, abortion was justified.

And yet the silence about the immorality of these evils continues. Since the publication of Amoris Laetitia it’s been joined by another major assault on the family, the attack on the indissolubility of marriage. Only a handful of clerics joined the Dubia asking Pope Francis for clarification of the document which is being interpreted in some places to allow adulterers and fornicators to receive Communion. The majority of the clergy are taking the role of silent “nice guys” who want to be “pastoral” by not upsetting those living in sin. Add the massive silence on gender ideology and you have a triumvirate of lust treated with silence: contraception, the indissolubility of marriage, and gender ideology.

   Many families I know struggle with “gender” issues having a son, daughter, niece, nephew, cousin, close friend, etc. who identifies as one of the letters in the LGBTQ alphabet. Is this ever addressed from the pulpit except in gay-friendly parishes where clergy affirm it? Silence indicates consent. So it appears that the “nice guys” are willing to accept that the souls in their care can choose their own genders and/or embrace “marriage equality” even when these choices defy reality and lead to spiritual death. Perhaps they sincerely believe it isn’t a problem for their parishioners, but most religious polls show that Catholics are more accepting of same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality than any other group except white mainline Protestants and the unaffiliated.[iv]

   Of course, since so many self-identified Catholics don’t believe what the Church teaches, it’s hard to say what the statistics really prove. It is probably more useful to look at beliefs. In a 2014 Pew Religious Landscape study of 35,000 Americans(20.8% were Catholic, but only 58% of the them said religion was “very important.” The survey found that about 19,000 of those interviewed favored same sex marriage while about 14,000 opposed it. The differences among the two groups were not surprising. A lower percentage of gay marriage supporters attended religious services once a week and prayed daily or were even certain that God exists. 76% of those strongly opposed said religion was “very important” in their lives. Only 36% of gay marriage supporters believed religion was important.[v]

   But no matter how you look at the statistics, it’s clear that a large number of Catholics do not accept Church teaching on these issues. It is an obligation of charity to preach and teach the truth lest many souls fall into hell as Mary showed the children at Fatima. Silence is a cowardly option. Sadly, it is one commonly found on Catholic college campuses where faithful professors are likely to be persecuted if they break the silence, as happened to Professor Anthony Esolen at Providence in Rhode Island. The Cardinal Newman Society website gives ample testimony to the collapse of Catholic higher education at schools like Notre Dame, Marqhette, Fordham, Boston University, etc. where LGBTQ events are more prominent than teaching the faith.

What may be an even more dangerous error of the “nice guys,”however, is their focus on a false ecumenism that treats all religions the same and fosters indifferentism, a sin against the First Commandment.  Authentic ecumenism works toward the unity desired by Our Lord at the Last Supper when He prayed that “All might be one.”[vi] The Vatican II document on ecumenism makes it clear that:
…our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it never loses sight of the fact that it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”[vii]

Our goal in ecumenism, then, should not be to conform Christ’s teachings to the heretical beliefs of those who abandoned the Church. Rather we should encourage our “separated brethren” to return to the fullness of the faith. Watering down doctrines to make them more palatable to non-believers and Protestant Christians is like turning the miraculous wine of Cana back into water.  But that’s exactly what the “nice guys” do. In RCIA classes they avoid discussing difficult issues like remarriage after divorce (even more problematic after Amoris Laetitia) and the use of contraception. They often focus exclusively on shared and non-controversial beliefs. They join in ecumenical prayer services that imply a union with mainline Protestants and even non-Christian religions that does not exist. At weddings and funerals they fail to instruct that only Catholics not conscious of grave sin may approach for Communion. Some even invite non-Catholics to receive committing a serious sin of scandal.

Pope Francis’ trip to Lund last Fall to “celebrate” Martin Luther’s revolution was a prime example of the scandal of false ecumenism and it is being imitated by some bishops. In Orlando, for example, Bishop John Noonan held a similar event and, on the Orlando diocesan website, quoted Pope Francis’ statement from the week of Christian Unity last January that “the intention of Martin Luther five hundred years ago was to renew the Church, not divide her.”  That anyone can know the intentions of another is questionable, but one can be especially skeptical after considering Luther’s own statements.

After refusing to reconcile with the Church, Luther responded to the Bull of Excommunication three years after his rebellion by calling the pope the “anti-Christ.” His statements attacking Holy Mother Church and the priesthood caused his contemporary, the bishop-martyr, St. John Fisher, to write, “My God! How can one be calm when one hears such blasphemous lies uttered against the mysteries of Christ? How can one without resentment listen to such outrageous insults hurled against God’s priests? Who can read such blasphemies without weeping from sheer grief if he still retains in his heart even the smallest spark of Christian piety?”[viii] My answer to the saint’s question – the “nice guys.” Ecumenism for the them equals indifferentism. I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay. This is particularly noticeable among those who believe and teach no one needs to convert.

Not so for St. Pope John Paul II who wrote in his encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (That all may be one) “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, the way, and the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?”[ix]

Ecumenism will not come about by the friendly indifferentism promoted by “nice guy” clergy with their touchy-feely prayer services ignoring doctrinal differences on major moral issues like abortion and theological issues like the Real Presence. They foster a false ecumenism described by Fr. John Hardon, S.J. who writes, “In large part, and with rare exception, Christian bodies separated from Rome conceive the foundation of religious union more or less independent of doctrinal agreement; or at best, they minimize the agreement and make it subjective. They are less concerned to reunite the churches by their common acceptance of Christian revelation than to merge them at any price, even to eliminating doctrines that are an ‘obstacle’ to uniformity.”[x] Father also warns that this false ecumenism leads many Catholics out of the Church who, with a weak foundation in their own faith, come to think that all faiths are essentially the same. Fr. Hardon concludes writing, “For the Catholic Church only one condition is necessary [for reunion] and only one possible—the acceptance of her teaching and submission to her authority, not because they are hers but because they are divine. Conscious of her possession of revealed truth, she assumes that those who are seeking unity implicitly want, because they need, the unifying principle that only God in His Church can supply.”[xi]

The silence of the English bishops, with the exception of St. John Fisher, allowed the heretic Henry VIII to snatch the authority of the papacy and make himself the head of the Church in England. That entire country, with the exception of a minority of recusants, lost the faith. Today, 500 years later, the silence of most American bishops about the real Martin Luther, a malicious heretic who began by addressing an abuse over indulgences and ended up viciously attacking the priesthood, the Mass, the papacy, and Jesus Christ Himself, is creating a spirit of indifferentism.
Bishop Robert Barron recently called Luther a “mystic of grace.”[xii] What an insult to Jesus Christ. Luther accused our Savior of being a sinner who committed adultery and fornication with the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene.[xiii] Can Bishop Barron be serious? Silence on these facts is part of the false ecumenism that threatens to mislead poorly formed Catholics to accept the idea that all faiths are the same. If Luther is such a hero, why not be Lutheran?

The laity too can fall into the “nice guy” trap. Parents do it when they condone by their silence or even actively affirm their adult children living sinful lifestyles or fail to discipline and train teenagers because they fear their wrath. In the workplace it can be tempting to participate in immoral activities especially in health care where a medical school or nursing program might require a rotation performing or participating in abortions. A psychiatric social worker might be required to affirm gender ideology and pharmacists will almost surely face the problem of being asked to fill prescriptions for drugs that kill babies in the womb. More commonly, the challenge might be the temptation to be silent when work colleagues share dirty jokes around the coffee station or brag about their immoral activities. Going along “for fellowship” is tempting, even for serious Catholics. No one wants to be ridiculed or disliked by his peers. We all want to be accepted and considered “nice guys.”
Being “nice guys” may be the most insidious temptation of our day, leading us to a treasonous betrayal of Christ. Jesus told Pilate He came into the world to “testify to the truth.” We can testify by our actions, but also refuse to testify by our silence. In the Confiteor of the Mass we confess and express sorrow for “what I have done and what I have failed to do.” Silence can be, and often is, a sin.

In May, Cardinal Caffarra, speaking at the fourth annual Rome Life Forum organized by Voice of Family, described the culture of truth and the culture of the lie. Catholics, he said have an obligation to testify to the truth. “Testimony means to say, to speak, to announce openly and publicly. Someone who does not testify in this way is like a soldier who flees at the decisive moment in a battle. We are no longer witnesses, but deserters, if we do not speak openly and publicly.”[xiv] The silence of the “nice guys” is not an option for the Church militant.

Deacon Toner hit the target when he said if being “nice guys” means being wishy-washy about the truth we must be as disagreeable and dyspeptic as possible.” Was he advising unkindness? Of course not! He was using hyperbole to condemn the temptation to value human opinions above the will of God. Toner ended his article quoting a man often called the apostle of common sense, G. K. Chesterton. “Chesterton,” he wrote “had it exactly right in his observation that Christians are not hated enough by the world. Too often, we are ‘nice guys.’” “Nice guy” is a title, none of us should seek, especially if it means advancing the culture of the lie instead of the culture of truth and life. We are called to be soldiers in the Church Militant and should ponder carefully the words of Cardinal Robert Sarah at the 12 Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in 2016. “Discern carefully – in your lives, your homes, your workplaces – how, in your nation, God is being eroded, eclipsed, liquidated….You have a mission of bringing Divine Revelation to bear in the lives of your fellow citizens…. Do not be afraid to proclaim the truth with love…. In the words of Saint Catherine of Siena: ‘Proclaim the truth and do not be silent through fear.’…and above all pray.”[xv]

The silence of the “nice guys” contributes to “eroding, eclipsing, and liquidating” God. It is the lukewarmness Revelation 3:16 warns against. “because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” And that is the lesson for the prudent Catholic who pursues the truth and loves our Lord. “No more Mr. nice guy!”

[i]Deacon James Toner, The Nice Guy Syndrome, The Catholic Thing, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/05/17/the-nice-guy-syndrome/, May 17, 2017.

[ii] Acts of the Apostles
[iii] Peter Baklinski, Two-thirds of women seeking abortions were using contraception: Britain’s largest abortion provider, LifeSiteNews, February 5, 2014, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar.

[iv] Pew Research Center, Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage 2001-2016,
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

[v] Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Sudy, 2014, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-same-sex-marriage/

[vi] Gospel of John

[vii] Unitatis Redintegratio,

[viii] St. John Fisher, The Defense of the Priesthood, translated by Msgr. P.E. Hallet, published by American  Council on Economics and Society, Fraser, Michigan 1996, p.2.

[ix] Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, chapter 18, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

[x] Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Christ to Catholicism, Chapter XI, The Ecumenical Movement, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_033.htm
[xi] Ibid.

[xii]Bishop Robert Barron, Looking at Luther with Fresh Eyes, Catholic World Report, June 13, 2017, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/06/13/looking-at-luther-with-fresh-eyes/#comment-699

[xiii] Raymond Taouk, Luther, Exposing the Myth, http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm#_ftn57

[xiv] Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Address to 4th Annual Rome Life Forum, May 19, 2017, http://voiceofthefamily.com/cardinal-caffarra-we-are-no-longer-witnesses-but-deserters-if-we-do-not-speak-openly-and-publicly/

[xv] Cardinal Robert Sarah, Address to the 12 Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, May 17, 2016, https://thewarourtime.com/2016/05/18/his-eminence-cardinal-robert-sarahs-keynote-speech-at-the-12th-annual-national-catholic-prayer-breakfast-tue-may-17-2016/

Related reading here.

If the USCCB is to be held as credible with regard to its position regarding same-sex civil unions, it must condemn the actions of Francis

The USCCB has stated that:

"Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of "civil unions" contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage."

The CDF has also addressed this issue.  See here.

But Francis has signalled his support for recognizing same-sex civil unions.  In a Lifesite News article which may Be found here, we read:

"Pope Francis seems to have affirmed recognizing homosexual relationships under law, an apparent contradiction of the Church's longheld teaching.

In a new book-length interview, the Pope reiterates his strong opposition to same-sex 'marriage,' but recommends using the term 'civil unions' instead.

'Let us call things by their names. Matrimony is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Let us call the same-sex union a ‘civil union,’ he said.

Pope Francis made the comment during more than a dozen conversations with French journalist Dominique Wolton, who published the Pope’s words in a 432-page book titled Politics and Society. It was published in French on Wednesday.

The Catholic Church teaches that since homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered,' Catholics cannot approve of same-sex civil unions."

If the USCCB is to be taken seriously with regard to its teaching on same-sex civil unions, it must condemn the language used by Francis.  And it must do so immediately.  Otherwise that body will, through the sin of omission, forfeit its credibility.

Francis isn't interested in dialogue, he has succumbed to totalitarianism

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, in Chapter twenty of his critically important classic entitled, "Liberalism is a Sin," has this to say:

Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

This is the preferred tactic of Francis the false prophet. As New Oxford Review put it: "For the past four-plus years, faithful Catholics have bent over backwards to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that the Argentine Jesuit means well, that he is a faithful son of the Church, that he — like his immediate predecessors — has an enduring love of Catholicism and Western civilization, even if at times he comes across as ambiguous, contradictory, and intellectually deficient. The NOR, more than most Catholic-oriented journals, has published critical assessments of Francis’s confusing statements, pontifical missteps, muddled theological writings, and misguided initiatives (we have an entire online dossier devoted to this pontificate: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-francis).

Nevertheless, we have always approached the subject with an eye toward giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. We respect the Petrine ministry and we respect the office, but that presupposes the man elected to that office respects the ministry too. The time has come to offer an unvarnished look at the fruits of this papacy and to suggest that we move beyond giving Francis the so-called benefit of the doubt. Frankly, doubt is no longer an issue. Four-and-a-half years of evidence shows that Francis has fomented division, preached politics over the Gospel, and conducted himself more like a South American strongman than a vicar of Christ."

Of course.  Francis, as with the majority of liberal ideologues, isn't interested in meeting the demands of truth.  He's not interested in an authentic dialogue. He has succumbed to a totalitarian ethic.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Breaking: Francis supports same-sex civil unions and departs from the constant teaching of the Church.  See here.

The Man of Sin prepares to enter the world stage.

Francis: Our Lady of Fatima was lying or mistaken...

Francis is at it again.  This time he is implying that the Mother of God at Fatima was either lying or mistaken.  He asserted in an interview that:

"The smallest sins are the sins of the flesh, because the flesh is weak...The most dangerous sins are those of the mind."

But Our Lady of Fatima said that: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other
reason."  See here.


Sister Lucia, the last living Fatima seer, said this refers primarily to sins against
chastity, also called sins of impurity. The reason for this statement is not because sins against chastity are the most grievous sins, but the most common and, as Sr Lucia stated,
"because of conscience, " since sins of impurity are less likely to be repented of than other sins.

Why? 1) because the sense of injustice committed, which is the primary stimulus to
repent of one's sins, is not strongly felt when engaging in them, with the exception of
adultery;

2) There is a greater sense of shame when committing certain impure acts and hence greater difficulty confessing them in the sacrament of confession, or even repenting of them in one's heart;

3) Sexual activity of all kinds is presented by our post-Christian —
even anti-Christian — popular culture as natural and good, and sexual abstinence is even taught to be unhealthy. The sixth commandment, relating to chastity, has always been
called "the difficult commandment." Today, with pornography everywhere and women and girls dressing more immodestly than ever, it can almost be called "the impossible
commandment." However, Jesus assures us: "What is impossible with men is possible with God." (Lk 18:27) We may add that all who invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary for help in
overcoming sins of impurity, will receive the grace to do so, as she herself has revealed to St Bridget of Sweden and various other saints. And those who strive to live chaste lives know from experience, when sins of impurity are humbly repented of and confessed, a
great burden is removed from our consciences, and we experience that peace of soul that the world and carnal indulgence cannot give.

Clearly, Francis is repudiating the clear and unambiguous message from Our Lady of Fatima. For him, "sins below the belt" aren't really that serious.  They are "the smallest sins."

Francis moves from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabitating homosexual persons...

Francis is indicating his support for homosexual civil unions.  As reported here, he has said that, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Lets call unions between the same sex ‘civil unions’.”

And so, Francis is "okay" with same-sex civil unions.

But, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated:

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

Where is the clear and emphatic opposition from Francis?  Not only is he not opposing this evil, but he appears to be recognizing same-sex civil unions in his comments.

Francis: God the Father is rigid and unable to communicate..

In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), Pope John Paul II reminds us that:

"Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the "natural law". The latter "is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation". He also did so in the history of Israel, particularly in the "ten words", the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be his "own possession among all peoples", "a holy nation" (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41).

The gift of the Decalogue was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, "a new heart" would be given, for in it would dwell "a new spirit", the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).Consequently, after making the important clarification: "There is only one who is good", Jesus tells the young man: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

In this way, a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise was the possession of a land where the people would be able to live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt 6:20-25).

In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the "Kingdom of Heaven", as Jesus declares at the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount" — a sermon which contains the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf. Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred to in the expression "eternal life", which is a participation in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following of Christ.

Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking to the rich young man: "Every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life" (Mt 19:29).Jesus' answer is not enough for the young man, who continues by asking the Teacher about the commandments which must be kept: "He said to him, 'Which ones?' " (Mt 19:18). He asks what he must do in life in order to show that he acknowledges God's holiness. After directing the young man's gaze towards God, Jesus reminds him of the commandments of the Decalogue regarding one's neighbour: "Jesus said: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself' " (Mt 19:18-19).

From the context of the conversation, and especially from a comparison of Matthew's text with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus does not intend to list each and every one of the commandments required in order to "enter into life", but rather wishes to draw the young man's attention to the "centrality" of the Decalogue with regard to every other precept, inasmuch as it is the interpretation of what the words "I am the Lord your God" mean for man. Nevertheless we cannot fail to notice which commandments of the Law the Lord recalls to the young man. They are some of the commandments belonging to the so-called "second tablet" of the Decalogue, the summary (cf. Rom 13: 8-10) and foundation of which is the commandment of love of neighbour: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mt 19:19; cf. Mk 12:31).

In this commandment we find a precise expression of the singular dignity of the human person, "the only creature that God has wanted for its own sake".The different commandments of the Decalogue are really only so many reflections of the one commandment about the good of the person, at the level of the many different goods which characterize his identity as a spiritual and bodily being in relationship with God, with his neighbour and with the material world. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the Ten Commandments are part of God's Revelation. At the same time, they teach us man's true humanity. They shed light on the essential duties, and so indirectly on the fundamental rights, inherent in the nature of the human person".

The commandments of which Jesus reminds the young man are meant to safeguard the good of the person, the image of God, by protecting his goods. "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness" are moral rules formulated in terms of prohibitions. These negative precepts express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in marriage, private property, truthfulness and people's good name.The commandments thus represent the basic condition for love of neighbour; at the same time they are the proof of that love. They are the first necessary step on the journey towards freedom, its starting-point. "The beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is to be free from crimes... such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one begins to lift up one's head towards freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom...".

This certainly does not mean that Christ wishes to put the love of neighbour higher than, or even to set it apart from, the love of God. This is evident from his conversation with the teacher of the Law, who asked him a question very much like the one asked by the young man. Jesus refers him to the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25-27), and reminds him that only by observing them will he have eternal life: "Do this, and you will live" (Lk 10:28). Nonetheless it is significant that it is precisely the second of these commandments which arouses the curiosity of the teacher of the Law, who asks him: "And who is my neighbour?" (Lk 10:29). The Teacher replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is critical for fully understanding the commandment of love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:30-37).These two commandments, on which "depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 22:40), are profoundly connected and mutually related. Their inseparable unity is attested to by Christ in his words and by his very life: his mission culminates in the Cross of our Redemption (cf. Jn 3:14-15), the sign of his indivisible love for the Father and for humanity (cf. Jn 13:1).Both the Old and the New Testaments explicitly affirm that without love of neighbour, made concrete in keeping the commandments, genuine love for God is not possible. Saint John makes the point with extraordinary forcefulness: "If anyone says, 'I love God', and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (Jn 4:20). The Evangelist echoes the moral preaching of Christ, expressed in a wonderful and unambiguous way in the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) and in his words about the final judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46). (VS, Nos 12-14).

But Francis believes himself wiser than God.  This false prophet just said that, "One cannot teach morality with precepts such as ‘you can’t do that, you must do that, you must, you must not, you can, and you can’t.’"


On June 3, 1989, the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests:


"Beloved sons, today you are gathered in cenacles of prayer to celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of your heavenly Mother. From every part of the world I have called you to consecrate yourselves to my Immaculate Heart, and you have responded with filial love and generosity. I have now formed for myself my army, with those children who have accepted my request and have listened to my voice.


The time has come when my Immaculate Heart must be glorified by the Church and by all humanity because, in these times of the apostasy, of the purification and of the great tribulation, my Immaculate Heart is the only refuge and the way which leads you to the God of salvation and of peace. Above all, my Immaculate Heart becomes today the sign of my sure victory, in the great struggle which is being fought out between the followers of the huge Red Dragon and the followers of the Woman Clothed with the Sun.


In this terrible struggle, there comes up from the sea, to the aid of the Dragon, a beast like a leopard. If the Red Dragon is Marxist atheism, the black beast is Freemasonry. The Dragon manifests himself in the force of his power; the black beast on the other hand acts in the shadow, keeps out of sight and hides himself in such a way as to enter in everywhere. He has the claws of a bear and the mouth of a lion, because he works everywhere with cunning and with the means of social communication, that is to say, through propaganda. The seven heads indicate the various Masonic lodges, which act everywhere in a subtle and dangerous way.
This black beast has ten horns and, on the horns, ten crowns, which are signs of dominion and royalty. Masonry rules and governs throughout the whole world by means of the ten horns. The horn, in the biblical world, has always been an instrument of amplification, a way of making one's voice better heard, a strong means of communication.


For this reason, God communicated his will to his people by means of ten horns which made his law known: the ten commandments. The one who accepts them and observes them walks in life along the road of the divine will, of joy and of peace. The one who does the will of the Father accepts the word of his Son and shares in the redemption accomplished by Him. Jesus gives to souls the very divine life, through grace, that He won for us through his sacrifice carried out on Calvary.


The grace of the redemption is communicated by means of the seven sacraments. With grace there becomes implanted in the soul the seeds of supernatural life which are the virtues. Among these, the most important are the three theological and the four cardinal virtues: faith, hope, charity, prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. In the divine sun of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, these virtues germinate, grow, becomes more and more developed and thus lead the soul along the luminous way of love and of sanctity.


The aim of Masonry: blaspheming God


The task of the black beast, namely of Masonry, is that of fighting, in a subtle way, but tenaciously, to obstruct souls from traveling along this way, pointed out by the Father and the Son and lighted up by the gifts of the Spirit. In fact if the Red Dragon works to bring all humanity to do without God, to the denial of God, and therefore spreads the error of atheism, the aim of Masonry is not to deny God, but to blaspheme Him. The beast opens his mouth to utter blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his dwelling place, and against all those who dwell in heaven. The greatest blasphemy is that of denying the worship due to God alone by giving it to creatures and to Satan himself. This is why in these times, behind the perverse action of Freemasonry, there are being spread everywhere black masses and the satanic cult. Moreover Masonic acts, by every means, to prevent souls from being saved and thus it endeavors to bring to nothing the redemption accomplished by Christ.


If the Lord has communicated his law with the ten commandments, Freemasonry spreads everywhere, through the power of its ten horns, a law which is completely opposed to that of God.


To the commandment of the Lord: “You shall not have any other God but me,” it builds other false idols, before which many today prostrate themselves in adoration.


To the commandment : “You shall not take the name of God in vain,” it sets itself up in opposition by blaspheming God and his Christ, in many subtle and diabolical ways, even to reducing his Name indecorously to the level of a brand-name of an object of sale and of producing sacrilegious films concerning his life and his divine Person.


To the commandment: “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day,” it transforms the Sunday into a weekend, into a day of sports, of competitions and of entertainments.


To the commandment: “Honor your father and your mother,” it opposes a new model of family based on cohabitation, even between homosexuals.


To the commandment: “You shall not commit impure acts,” it justifies, exalts and propagates every form of impurity, even to the justification of acts against nature.


To the commandment: “You shall not kill,” it has succeeded in making abortion legal everywhere, in making euthanasia acceptable, and in causing respect due to the value of human life to all but disappear.


To the commandment: “You shall not steal,” it works to the end that theft, violence, kidnapping and robbery spread more and more.


To the commandment: “You shall not bear false witness,” it acts in such a way that the law of deceit, lying and duplicity becomes more and more propagated.


To the commandment: “You shall not covet the goods and the wife of another,” it works to corrupt in the depths of the conscience, betraying the mind and the heart of man.


In this way souls become driven along the perverse and wicked road of disobedience to the laws of the Lord, become submerged in sin and are thus prevented from receiving the gift of grace and of the life of God.


To the seven theological and cardinal virtues, which are the fruit of living in the grace of God, Freemasonry counters with the diffusion of the seven capital vices, which are the fruit of living habitually in the state of sin. To faith it opposes pride; to hope, lust; to charity, avarice; to prudence, anger; to fortitude, sloth; to justice, envy; to temperance, gluttony.


Whoever becomes a victim of the seven capital vices is gradually led to take away the worship that is due to God alone, in order to give it to false divinities, who are the very personification of all these vices. And in this consists the greatest and most horrible blasphemy. This is why on every head of the beats there is written a blasphemous name. Each Masonic lodge has the task of making a different divinity adored.


The first head bears the blasphemous name of pride, which opposes itself to the virtue of faith, and leads one to offer worship to the god of human reason and haughtiness, of technology and progress.


The second head bears the blasphemous name of lust, which opposes itself to the virtue of hope, and brings one to offer worship to the god of sexuality and of impurity.


The third head bears the blasphemous name of avarice, which opposes itself to the virtue of charity, and spreads everywhere the worship of the god of money.


The fourth head bears the blasphemous name of anger, which opposes itself to the virtue of prudence, and leads one to offer worship to the god of discord and division.


The fifth head bears the blasphemous name of sloth, which opposes itself to the virtue of fortitude, and disseminates the worship of the idol of fear of public opinion and of exploitation.


The sixth head bears the blasphemous name of envy, which opposes itself to the virtue of justice, and leads one to offer worship to the idol of violence and of war.


The seventh head beats the blasphemous name of gluttony, which opposes itself to the virtue of temperance, and leads one to offer worship to the so highly extolled idol of hedonism, of materialism and of pleasure.


The task of the Masonic lodges is that of working today, with great astuteness, to bring humanity everywhere to disdain the holy law of God, to work in open opposition to the ten commandments, and to take away the worship due to God alone in order to offer it to certain false idols which become extolled and adored by an ever increasing number of people: reason, flesh, money, discord, domination, violence, pleasure. Thus souls are precipitated into the dark slavery of evil, of vice and of sin and, at the moment of death and of the judgment of God, into the pool of eternal fire which is hell.


Now you understand how, in these times, against the terrible and insidious attack of the black beast, namely of Masonry, my Immaculate Heart becomes your refuge and the sure road which brings you to God. In my Immaculate Heart there is delineated the tactic made use of by your heavenly Mother, to fight back against and to defeat the subtle plot made use of by the black beast.


For this reason I am training all my children to observe the ten commandments of God; to live the Gospel to the letter; to make frequent use of the sacraments, especially those of penance and eucharistic communion, as necessary helps in order to remain in the grace of God; to practice the virtues vigorously; to walk away along the path of goodness, of love, of purity and of holiness.


Thus I am making use of you, my little children who have consecrated yourselves to me, to unmask all these subtle snares which the black beast sets for you and to make futile in the end the great attack which Masonry has launched today against Christ and his Church. And in the end, especially in his greatest defeat, there will appear in all its splendor, the triumph of my Immaculate Heart in the world."

Francis believes that "Thou shalt nots" constitute "rigidity."  And, he adds, “Behind every rigidity, there is an inability to communicate . . . it’s a form of fundamentalism. "