Cardinal Cupich: Liar

Pro-LGBT Cardinal Cupich is asserting that Saint Pope John Paul II would have supported Francis's crackdown on the Traditional Latin Mass. See here.

What to make of this load of bovine scatology?

The facts:

In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition. While we should thank God for those positive developments in the liturgy over the past 40 years (and contrary to what some "traditionalists" would have you believe there have been many), still, we must not foster an atmosphere of hostility toward those who prefer the Latin Mass. As Pope Benedict XVI has been teaching for so many years now, there is no "pre-Vatican II Church" and "Post-Vatican II Church." There is one Church with a continued Tradition and a richness of expression.

I am one of those Catholics who has always hoped and prayed for a "Reform of the Reform." As one of the few Catholics who has spent a considerable amount of time actually reading and studying the 16 documents of Vatican II, I look forward to that day when the teaching of the Council is actually followed. In both letter and spirit.

Is Francis showing respect for  "the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition"?

The answer is obvious.  Cardinal Cupich, you are a liar.

Facebook covers up excessive Covid deaths

 

Facebook is covering up excessive Covid deaths by banning articles and posts which reveal the deaths and by imposing restrictions on those who dare to speak the truth.  See here.

My account has faced such restrictions because I posted such information. 

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

Archbishop Vigano on the Satanic nature of "Gay Pride"

 

Archbishop Vigano is an authentic Shepherd who doesn't mince words.  His compassionate warning to homosexuals who participate in pride demonstrations here.

Pope Saint Pius X, in his 1910 Catechism, teaches us that sodomy ranks second in gravity to voluntary homicide, among the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance." According to this Catechism, these sins "are said to cry out to God because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so grave and manifest that it provokes God to punish with more severe chastisements."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican in 1994 teaches clearly that homosexuality is contrary to nature and that homosexual acts are among the "sins gravely contrary to chastity." (CCC, 2396). This Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," "contrary to the natural law," and that "under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357).

There are many misguided souls today, and sadly even within the Church, who want to convince others that Christian "compassion" for homosexual persons should leave such individuals comfortable in their sin.

Now while it is true that everything must be done to help sinners, this cannot include helping them to sin or to remain in sin. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49, which may be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm).

Planned Parenthood's CEO Alexis McGill: Killing babies is nothing to be ashamed of

 As noted here:

Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson is proud that her billion-dollar organization aborts unborn babies. Johnson, a political activist with no health care background, runs the largest abortion group in the U.S. Planned Parenthood aborts more than 340,000 unborn babies every year while reporting billion-dollar revenues and donating massive amounts of money to Democrats’ political campaigns.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Johnson made it clear that she is unapologetic about her abortion advocacy and anyone who supports Planned Parenthood should be, too.

She described the killing of unborn babies in abortions as 'basic health care' – and emphasized that it’s nothing people should be ashamed of."

"The symptoms of possession, Father [Malachi] Martin says, are often confused with mental illness. 'Science spent a lot of time trying to prove that these people were, so to speak, loonies,' he says. 'Now most of my cases are referred to me by psychiatrists.' Victims tend to undergo a startling change of personality. They may become unpredictable, violent and treacherous. They humiliate their families, plot against their friends, lie to their colleagues. 'They have become alien entities. They have surrendered their wills. The most extreme state is ‘perfect possession’, when the demon has taken complete control. The perfectly possessed person is totally lost. There is nothing I can do,' says Father Martin.

'The peculiar thing is that these people are usually highly sophisticated, and the last thing you would suspect is that they were in league with the Devil. But there is always something about them. It may be a look in their eyes, a tone of voice, a sense of coldness, of contempt. Some- thing inhuman. When you encounter it, you know you have met the true enemy.'" Full article here.

And today, more than ever, we are encountering the true enemy across our culture.  And even within the Church - Catholics in name only who routinely engage in fornication, homosexual acts, contraception and who even approve of the killing of children through abortion.

And these children of the Devil rationalize these sins while straining to condemn orthodox Catholics for perceived faults.  They are very much like the Pharisees of old, straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

By their wicked and perverse actions you will recognize them.

Catholic teaching: Catholics may never vote for Pro-Abortion candidates for any reason

Father Stephen Torraco explains:


"If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue.

For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a 'disqualifying issue.' A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights.

A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about "disqualifying issues" is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law."


This point is understood by authentic Catholics.  Unfortunately, thanks to priest-idiots such as the clown cited here, some who pretend to be Catholic continue to justify their vote for pro-abortion candidates such as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

The teaching of Christ's Church has always been crystal clear to practicing Catholics with a modicum of intelligence:

"It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life...

The role of law is not to record what is done, but to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person's rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men's hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all...

It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, nos. 19-22

"..each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue..."

Unlike Bishop Rozanski, here's a Bishop who understands that Catholics have a right at all times to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.  See here.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 92:


"Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Holy Communion on the tongue is the norm.  Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult, which is a sort of grudging permission.

I challenge Bishop Rozanski, or any Bishop or priest who believes Communion on the tongue may be prohibited, to cite a Church document that justifies this belief.

I await a response.

In the meantime.  See here.

Faithful Catholics should resist Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, a modernist thug who wants to use Covid-19 as an excuse for prohibiting Communion on the tongue

As noted here:

"Tension is brewing between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, who is forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue in spite of the USCCB's recent decision to the contrary.

In anticipation of Massachusetts' planned multiphase reopening, Springfield bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski sent his clergy a document titled 'Re-Opening Considerations' to give guidelines and suggestions for conducting public Masses as they resume.

Maintaining previous diocesan restrictions and state guidelines, Rozanski is requiring that at public Masses, Holy Communion is offered in the hand only, Holy Water fonts remain empty and covered, social distancing is enforced at a minimum of six feet between individuals and masks be worn at all times. 

Rozanski's prohibition of Holy Communion on the tongue contradicts the USCCB's "Guidelines for Sacraments and Pastoral Care" published in late April, which states:

We have carefully considered the question of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. Given the Church's existing guidance on this point (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), and recognizing the differing judgments and sensibilities that are involved, we believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.

Bishop Rozanski has no right to prohibit Holy Communion on the tongue and faithful Catholics should resist this ecclesial modernist thug to his face.  A Canon Law expert here.

More on Rozanski here, here and here

Update on Bishop Rozanski: Complaint filed against him.  See here.

For Francis the False Prophet, China, which tortures Catholics and other Christians, is "a reference point of greatness."

As reported here, Communist China routinely sends Christians to concentration camps to be tortured in an effort to "re-educate" them.

In an interview with Asia Times, which was published on February 2, 2016, Francis the False Prophet was quoted as having said that, "For me, China has always been a reference point of greatness. A great country. But more than a country, a great culture, with an inexhaustible wisdom."

It was his first extended interview on China, and his opening remarks set the tone for the exchange. Francis has long been known to be an admirer of the world’s most populous country, telling journalists that he would like to visit China.

As reported here:

"A new U.S. government report says that human rights abuse in China has worsened in the last year, and specifically highlighted the escalating persecution of Chinese Catholics in the wake of the Vatican-China agreement of 2018.

'During its 2019 reporting year, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China found that the human rights situation has worsened and the rule of law continued to deteriorate, as the Chinese government and Party increasingly used regulations and laws to assert social and political control,' stated the commission’s annual report, released on Wednesday.

The report said that 'After the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs signed an agreement with the Holy See in September 2018 paving the way for unifying the state-sanctioned and underground Catholic communities, local Chinese authorities subjected Catholic believers in China to increasing persecution by demolishing churches, removing crosses, and continuing to detain underground clergy.'


The Beast Like a Leopard...


“And out of the sea*, in my vision, a beast came up to land, with ten horns and seven heads, and on each of its ten horns a royal diadem; and the names it bore on its heads were names of blasphemy. This beast which I saw was like a leopard, but it had bear's feet and a lion's mouth. To it the dragon gave the strength that was his, and great dominion.” (Ap. 13:12.)

The following message from Our Lady was given to Fr. Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, June 3, 1989:


“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.”

* Many prophecy scholars agree that the sea represents the world of politics, which is always tumultuous and the ten horns and seven heads are also seen by many as a symbol of the European Union (a revived Roman Empire). It is believed by many that the Man of Sin will be received first by this new European Union.

Interestingly, Paul-Henri Spaak, who served as Belgian Prime Minister and gained international prominence in 1945 when he was elected chairman of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, once said:

"We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he God or the Devil, we will receive him."

Related reading: http://www.spiritdaily.net/New-world-order/microchip.htm

The Sons of Belial have their own priorities: Ignore the Culture of Sodomy and Dissent while condemning devout Catholics

The culture of lies, deceit and corruption throughout the Church continues to anger authentic Catholics. Christopher Mannion notes that, "In recent days, as California was rocked by a magnitude 7 earthquake, the Vatican and America’s Catholic hierarchy were inundated by an avalanche of their own.

For a year after the McCarrick scandal broke, prelates here and in Rome had managed to preserve a semblance of credibility, adorned with trappings of a synod and new laws and earnest promises. But within the past fortnight, the rickety stonewall of coverup and omertà crumbled with increasing speed.

On July 3, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, shared new charges with LifeSiteNews. They are troubling indeed.

'Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse,' Viganò writes, 'he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers.'"

No, Francis has his own priorities which include condemning materialism while overlooking filth, perversion and sexual abuse, see here or condemning devout Catholics who want doctrinal clarity (see here) while looking the other way when it comes to the Cult of Softness (see here) and Sodomy within the Church.

That's the thing with Modernist counterfeit Catholics; they have all the love in the world for those who engage in sodomy or who misrepresent the teaching of the Church, but have nothing but contempt for those of us who actually adhere to Catholic moral teaching while maintaining a devotion to the Immaculata.

For example, I was banned from the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts (where I attend Mass) because of my commitment to the Church's perennial teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  But the same Facebook Page promoted Father Jonathan Morris, who has misrepresented Catholic teaching and who has since left the priesthood.

Now I could care less about the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's.  Nobody reads the thing anyway.  I get more visitors in five minutes than that page does in an entire month.

But it shows the enmity (see here) these sons of Belial have for authentic Catholics. Make no mistake about it.  This enmity will continue to grow until Christ returns as Saint Louis de Montfort has warned.

Arm yourself with your Rosary and continue to stand against those modern-day Judases within.

Catholics in name only: Don't criticize "Culture Warrior" Catholics

From Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulture.org:

"'Pride Month' has come to an end. And for the first two days of July, the first readings at Mass told the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I’d call that a coincidence—if I believed in coincidences.


Just after the middle of the month, Joseph Sciambra posted a very provocative comment on his Facebook page. Sciambra knows whereof he speaks; having once been caught up in the homosexual underworld, since experiencing a conversion he has made it his special mission to reach out to homosexuals, helping to heal their wounds. And they are wounded. The grotesque excesses on display at 'Gay Pride' events are evidence that these people need help. Sciambra observes:

But there is a far greater evil (than any 'Pride' Parade) that goes largely unchecked and mostly unchallenged in the Catholic Church: the ongoing problem of priests and prelates and their lay underlings who openly disseminate their own spin on LGBT propaganda. What makes their actions grossly evil—is that they do so in the name of God.
Building on Sciambra’s argument, let me suggest that when Catholics complain about the 'Pride' activists, they are aiming at the wrong target. Not because the complaints are unjustified—they are not—but because we have a more pressing problem on our hands. Before we lament what is happening on the city streets, let’s address what is happening in our own churches. We Catholics cannot restore sanity to society until we have restored integrity in our Church. We cannot continue fighting a two-front war.

In Hoboken, New Jersey, a Catholic parish capped the month with a 'Pride Mass,' encouraging members of the congregation to join the parade in New York. In Lexington, Kentucky, Bishop John Stowe offered a 'celebration of Pride' prayer card, featuring a crucifix bathed in rainbow-colored light. How can we expect to gain a hearing for Catholic moral teachings, when the Church issues such confusing messages?

Unfortunately, those examples in Hoboken and Lexington can no longer be considered exceptional. If you think your own diocese is free of such problems, you should probably think again. Are there one or two parishes that welcome and encourage LGBT activists? Has Father James Martin come to speak to a parish or college group? Are there gay-straight alliances in parochial schools? If so, then you should address that situation before you begin to worry about the secular activists. We must speak with clarity. We must show unity in support of Christian morality. We must display the integrity that comes only when we practice what we preach.

Liberal Catholics scoff at bishops and priests—yes, and internet pundits—who they dismiss as 'culture warriors.' But that characterization begs the question. Is there a culture war going on: a battle for the soul of our society? If you answer that question with a No, I probably can’t convince you otherwise. But if you say Yes, then don’t criticize the 'culture warrior' Catholics. On the contrary; you should criticize those who do not earn that sobriquet.

The battle is real, and the conflict is escalating. As a presidential candidate, just a bit more than a decade ago, Barack Obama opposed legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Today that stand would disqualify him as a Democratic candidate. A decade ago a frat boy might have earned guffaws from his classmates by suggesting (in jest) that biological men should have legal access to abortion; this year a Democratic presidential hopeful made that point in all seriousness.

And while the sexual revolutionaries continue to rack up victories, the middle ground is shrinking. Anyone who dares to oppose the LGBT agenda is subject to public denunciation for 'hate speech,' perhaps barred from social media, or even 'doxed' and harassed at home.

'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,' wrote Yeats in what is probably his most-quoted line. Look down just a couple of lines in that poem ( 'The Second Coming') and the Irish poet seems to be speaking of our own time:

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
We adults will survive these culture wars, one way or another. But think of the children; think of 'ceremony of innocence.' We owe it to our children to preserve their innocence, to preserve a culture in which they can find stability, serenity, and strength.

Do you want to know why I am a culture warrior? The Left will tell you that I’m consumed by fear. In a way that is true. I am afraid that if I remain silent, I shall have no defense when I am asked, 'What did you do during the culture wars, Grandpa?'

Don’t ask whether or not there is a war going on: a war for the soul of our society, a war for the integrity of our Church. There is. The right question to ask—first of yourself, then of your pastor and your bishop and your Catholic friends—is: Which side are you on?"

Precisely!

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

At the Beatification of Joan of Arc on December 13, 1908, Pope St. Pius X said that: "..the greatest asset of the evilly disposed is the cowardice and weakness of Catholics.  Oh!  If I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of your hands?' the answer would not be doubtful.  'With these I was wounded in the house of those who did nothing to defend me and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries.'  And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

Yes, even certain priests, Bishops and Cardinals.

Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., my mentor, once said, "Fortitude is that virtue which enduringly resists difficulties of mind and body while persistently seeking, defending and spreading the truth and holiness of the Gospel.  St. Thomas reminds us that fortitude is especially concerned with overcoming the fear of performing difficult deeds for the glory of God.  This virtue prevents a soldier of Christ, and above all officers in Christ's army such as bishops and priests, from fleeing the field of battle, from betraying the brethren when real or imaginary obstacles present themselves.  The great fault of the pusillanimous is that they succumb easily to irrational fears and leave the field of battle to enemy forces.  This moral deformity reveals a lack of faith in the cause of Christ and a distrust of the assurance he gave his followers when he said to his Apostles: 'Have confidence, I have overcome the world.'  The defect of irrational fear weakens virtue and renders Christians cowards.  All the Apostles except Judas overcame this fear when they received the gift of Fortitude from the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday.  And priests should pray daily for this gift which the Holy Spirit will never deny them."

I can attest to that.  As a Catholic layman named after two heroic preachers (St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles who endured every measure of hardship and persecution and St. Anthony de Padua, popularly known as the Hammer of the Heretics), and who took the Confirmation name Michael (after the glorious Archangel St. Michael who, by the power of God, cast the Devil out of Heaven), I pray every day for the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude as well as the three other Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice and Temperance.  Not to mention the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

I can do all things in Him Who strengthens me - Omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat (Phil 4:13).

This apostolate has been attacked more times than I can remember.  I have more enemies than you can shake a stick at - and, thank God, even more friends!

I have received death threats. One from a homosexual activist threatening to execute me with a high-powered rifle. Stormfront has vilified me as the "village communist." This even though I have railed against Communism and it's slower twin Socialism.

Priests of Almighty God: What are you afraid of? The same God who parted  the Red Sea and incinerated the five cities of the plain will guide and protect you.

Remember the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., when fear enters.  Standing before a firing squad, which is much more terrifying than the ridicule of functional idiots in the public square, this heroic priest said, "Viva Christo Rey."  Long live Christ the King.

Amen!

Francis, your legalism is showing...

My last Facebook post:

Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say:

"Theologians and pastors [pay attention here Francis] who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church's contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez then went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law.."

Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts continues to promote a priest who has misrepresented Catholic teaching..

As noted here, Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of New York as well as a Fox News contributor, misrepresented the Church when asked what conscientious objectors should do if they work for an agency issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."


Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

And yet, knowing that Father Jonathan Morris has misrepresented the Church's teaching in this area, Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts continues to promote this cleric on its Facebook page even while blocking orthodox Catholics faithful to the Magisterium from commenting on that same page.

It is unclear where the parish stands with regard to Considerations.

Archbishop Eamon Martin: Killing children should be "safe, legal and rare."

Archbishop Eamon Martin of Ireland has said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."  See here.

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action". (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, No. 57).

We are living in a time which has been spiritually crippled by a diabolical disorientation.  And this should hardly comes as a surprise.  As Dr. Germain Grisez has explained, "Insofar as they are in sin or remain emotionally attached to it, people not only cling to thoughts and feelings inconsistent with moral truth but are unreceptive to other thoughts and feelings without which they will probably not reach it, will perhaps not recognize it if it is reached, and will hardly welcome it if it is recognized.  Sin leads them to shun the bright light of moral truth; living in sin, they prefer the shadows of self-deception and rationalization (see Jn 3:19-20).  Like a blind person unable to tell that he or she is in the dark, one cannot discover one's evasions of moral truth and root them out by any direct effort.  The only way to get rid of them is by praying for the healing of the Spirit and making good use of the sacrament of penance, with sincere contrition for one's sins (see Ps 51: 6-12).

The only way to get rid of them is by praying for the healing of the Spirit and making good use of the sacrament of penance.  This is what Pope Benedict XVI said a few years back as he warned of danger for the Church.  See here.

Diabolical disorientation under Francis and its consequences.  See here.

Good Catholics cannot ignore the controversy over Francis...but at Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, that's standard operating procedure

Barbara Simpson writes:

"Roman Catholics were just entering the critical weekend of their Easter celebration – Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, perhaps the most important commemorations in their religion – when Pope Francis threw another of his religious bombshells into the lives of his followers.

Just before Holy Thursday dawned, an interview with the pope was published in La Repubblica. It was written by the founder of the left-wing publication, Eugenio Scalfari, an Italian atheist.

In the article, the 93-year old journalist claimed the pope told him hell does not exist because people are not punished. If they do not repent and go to heaven, they just 'disappear.'

According to Scalfari, the pope said, 'There is no hell – there is the disappearance of sinful souls.'

Inasmuch as that’s a refutation of a core belief of Catholicism, when word of the interview got out, it spread like wildfire, in religious and mainstream publications.

Criticism was widespread, from The Drudge Report to the New York Times, to say nothing of the international press. There was consternation among clergy, and the average churchgoer was at a loss as to what was going on.

The Italian press acknowledged the pope had met with Scalfari five or six times in the past for lengthy 'interviews' and that the journalist does not take notes, nor does he record any interviews. As a result, there clearly were doubts raised as to the accuracy of what he claimed were Francis’ statements. In fact, this was not the first time such questions have been raised about his 'interviews' with the pope.

The Vatican also jumped to respond – but not forcefully. Its reaction didn’t deny what the pope said, but also didn’t affirm it, saying essentially that some of the words were not those of the pope.

Uh, exactly, what does that mean? The problem is that his statements are indeed heretical, so what now?

Apparently, nothing. Francis goes his merry way leaving bits and pieces of his Church and doctrine fraying around the edges and thoughtful clergy beginning to be angry.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke is greatly concerned about what is happening with this pope, saying that by not clarifying what was said, he only 'feeds the confusion.'

Burke is a well-known canon lawyer and the former head of the highest Vatican court. He didn’t mince any words, saying that what Pope Francis said 'went beyond what is tolerable' and is 'a source of deep scandal.'

The whole situation has left many questions, and it appears that there will be no answers, at least not yet. Either Pope Francis is the most naive of men or an individual dedicated to shaking up the lives of Catholics for a purpose he hasn’t revealed.

To the layman, it would appear he’s intent on undermining Catholic beliefs and watering down Church doctrines to suit some ulterior motive.

Regardless of which, it’s dangerous territory and could threaten to tear apart a Church already losing membership and clergy. There are those who believe the Church faces the possibility of collapse during this generation.

And speaking of church destruction, Cardinal Joseph Zen, who is the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong, is furious with how the pope has handled dealing with China and Catholic Church activities in that country. He’s blasted the deal, which he says, appeases China by agreeing to have the government choose Church leadership. He says that will be the annihilation of the 'underground church,' which is, in fact, a church that follows traditional Catholicism.

He should know: He spent seven years teaching in China’s official, state-approved church and said he 'know[s] that the church is completely enslaved to the government.' Remember, it’s a Communist government.

But there’s more. Over time, it’s been clear Francis veers left on most of his public positions on world affairs, from war to the environment to the family to borders and refugees.

And there he is again – this time, equating protecting the lives of the unborn to protecting the lives of migrants and their rights. In his latest 'guidance for Catholics,' published just last week, Pope Francis said that Christians must care for immigrants just as they care for the unborn.

In his text, 'Gaudate et Exsultate' ('Rejoice and Be Glad'), he said all human lives matter, and he went on to enumerate everything from the living, the sick, slaves, victims of trafficking and anyone rejected for any reason. While he reaffirmed the Church’s position of the sinfulness of abortion, he criticized those who see it as more important than migration.

He said the defense of the 'innocent unborn' should not supersede the defense of the poor or migrants.

Again, just what does that mean? Here he’s dealing with the issues of borders and massive migrations across Europe and North America. The pope has spoken out before that migrants have rights that supersede the sovereign rights of countries. Now that he is putting the burden of 'sin' on those who oppose open borders, the picture, for Catholics, at least, has changed.

But there’s even more: The pope has just released a written apology to the bishops of Chile for a long-standing child abuse situation.

There are 64 victims in New York and Chile involving a cover-up by Chilean Bishop Juan Barros, a man the pope has supported over the years. Despite the allegations of abuse, the pope continually denied knowing of their validity and said he’d never heard from any of the victims.

The recent Vatican investigation, as reported on LifeSite, finally forced the pope to admit that 'he made grave errors' in this case. In his written note, he asks 'the forgiveness of all those whom I offended over the years,' blaming it on a lack of true information.

He omitted any call for justice against those who committed the abuses. Just an 'I’m sorry.'

So Pope Francis is human and made a big mistake. Now what?

It’s not common for Catholics to criticize a pope – but it is the opinion of this cradle Catholic, and I suspect I am not alone, that he’s used up his 'passes.'

It’s time for Pope Francis to step aside and spend time in deep reconciliation with his faith and God – thus putting an end to his reign of Catholic confusion."

While many clergy, religious and laity are deeply concerned over the errors and misguided actions of Francis, sadly some blindly follow him, preferring to keep their heads in the sand.

And while Raymond Arroyo, over at EWTN, has said that good Catholics cannot ignore the controversy over Francis - see here -  some prefer to view the pope not so much as the Custodian of immutable truths, but as a sort of ersatz wizard with a magic wand, capable of changing that which has been revealed by the Lord Jesus, the true Head of the Catholic Church, Who will judge us all - Popes included.

This is the situation at Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts. For Father Shaun O'Connor and his "pastoral team," there is not only no reason for concern, but we should all be enthralled with Francis, his errors, falsehoods and wreckovation included.

Which makes me wonder: Whom do they worship?  Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, the Incarnate Word, or a frustrated modernist who seems Hell-bent on undermining Catholic teaching while sowing confusion.

Confusion is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is, in fact, a mark of the Devil. Perhaps this explains

why the Saint Michael Prayer has been dropped after weekend liturgies at the parish.

Angela Markas has Francis' ear...

We already know that Francis ignores faithful Catholics whom he labels as "rigid."  But look who has his ear.  As this article notes:

"Francis..heard some tough talk from Angela Markas, 22, of Australia. 'There is a tendency in the Church to avoid matters that are not-so-easy to talk about. This includes same-sex marriage, our sexuality, and also, the role of women in the Church,' she told the pope."

Today, the family is under violent attack. Primarily through abortion and the push for same-sex "marriage." Those within the Church who seek to redefine marriage have rejected Christ as the institutor of the sacraments and, in their revolution against God the Author of the Sacraments, are preparing the way for the Man of Sin, who will bring man his own ersatz "sacraments" which will be signified by lying and homicide.

We ignore the teaching of Pope John Paul II to our own peril:

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 32).

Francis: I ignore faithful Catholic Bloggers but homosexual activists have my ear...

Francis has made it clear that he doesn't read Blogs written by devout Catholics faithful to Tradition.  As noted here:

"Few bloggers critical of this notorious pontificate, mired in scandal upon scandal, can be surprised that the Pope regards them as enemies to be prayed for, but ultimately ignored, like a bedraggled Big Issue vendor outside a supermarket might be for much of his time. Some, but not many, will be surprised to hear that he 'sees them and knows them' and that it is unlikely that he sees 'spiritual goodness' in many of them."

For Francis, inspired not by Heaven but by the poison of Hell, orthodoxy, fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Revelation, is wickedness.  See here.  As one Cardinal has said, "Do not follow this pope into his evil designs to destroy Holy Mother Church."

Now that we can say with certainty that Francis ignores those of us who lovingly embrace the Church's perennial teaching, the immutable truths of Holy Mother Church which are not subject to the whims of sociopaths or the prevailing zeitgeist, who exactly does Francis listen to?

With his appointment of LGBT promoting Father James Martin, S.J., as a Vatican Consultant and his meeting with homosexual activist Simon Cazale, a man who claims to be married to another male while demanding that the Church change her teaching regarding homosexual acts, it's obvious who has Francis' ear.  It's not Nineveh he's listening to, it's Sodom and Gomorrah.

For Archbishop Chaput, Father James Martin's ad hominem trashing of faithful Catholics is apparently just fine

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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

Faithful Catholics: Stand with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Caffarra and other legitimate shepherds against the forces of Ecclesiastical Masonry

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra has reminded us that we have entered the time of the final battle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, between the Culture of Truth and the Culture of the Lie.

Caffarra said that legalized abortion comes from the “culture of the lie” where the “crime” of murdering a human being is seen as a “good.”

Abortion is a “sacrilegious act,” he said, adding that it is the “profoundest negation of the truth of man.”

“The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an ‘anti-creation.’ By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his ‘creation’: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein,” he said.

The Cardinal said Homosexual “marriage” also comes from the “culture of the lie” since it “denies entirely the truth of marriage” as it comes from the “mind of God the Creator.”

“The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other,” he said.

“The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God,” he added.

Satan, in pushing the lies of abortion and homosexuality, is attempting to destroy the two most important pillars of creation, the “human person” created in the image of God and the “conjugal union” between a man and woman.

This is solid Catholic teaching in preparation for this final battle between the Children of Mary and the Children of Lucifer.

By contrast, Masonic forces, led by Francis, would have us believe that Faithful Catholics have been obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.

But how can the defense of "the two most important pillars of creation" be justly labelled "obsessive"?  Why then would Francis assert such a thing? Because the Devil is pursuing a divide and conquer strategy even within the Church.

At Fatima, Pope Benedict XVI called abortion and same-sex "marriage" some of the most "insidious and dangerous" threats facing the world today.

And so they are.  Which is why faithful Catholics need to stand with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Caffarra and other legitimate shepherds and against the forces of Freemasonry within the Church.

The hidden hand of masonry here.