President Trump stands with the Oppressed Cuban people. Does Prevost?

President Trump: We will not rest until Cubans have freedom 

President Trump is looking at Cuba (see here) as he continues his work to purge the hemisphere of Deep State government now that the sociopath Raul Castro has been indicted. 

Readers of this Blog will recall how,  beginning with Francis, the sociopathic dictator was welcome at the Vatican.  See here and here.

Pope Pius IX described socialism as a "fatal pest" and an "infamous doctrine" that fundamentally opposes the Church and natural law. 

Pope Pius XI explicitly addressed socialism in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, asserting forcefully that, "No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."

The Holy See has actively maintained diplomatic relations with the murderous Marxist-Leninist Cuban government. Reports indicate that the Cuban government has sought the Pope's diplomatic assistance to encourage the easing of U.S. embargoes.

Indeed it seems that Raul Castro, a Marxist-Leninist murdering dictator is afforded more respect by Leo XIV than he seems willing to grant to President Trump and the United States as it stands with the oppressed people of the now indicted thug to our South.

Pray.

The murderous Castro regime's victims - See here.

The Dictator Pope bans the unvaccinated faithful from the Vatican

 Francis is denying the unvaccinated access to the Vatican.   See here.  This is the same Francis who previously said that freedom of conscience must "always and everywhere" be respected.  See here.

In any case, for your consideration:

Francis and constructive criticism

In an article which may be found here, Francis is quoted as having said, "...criticism is always useful, always. If someone receives criticism, he should immediately do a self-criticism and ask, ‘Is this true or not, or how much so?’ I always learn from criticism. Sometimes [criticisms] make you mad, but there are advantages.”

Francis always learns from criticism?  Is this why he refuses to listen to constructive criticism and dismisses his critics as "rigid"?  See here.


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).

*  See here.

Francis: Propagator of the Cult of Softness...

Father Ray Blake writes:

"Finished that book, 'The Dictator Pope', a few days ago. There was very little that was new in it but it is shocking when scandals are brought together in a catalogue of vice. This is certainly not a book I would recommend most people reading, especially those who are easily shocked.

It portrays a picture of an arbitrary self-seeking princeling with few virtues and practically every vice. For those who hear confessions regularly it gives an insight into the cup which is clean on the outside but full of corruption on the inside.

It gives an insight into the contemporary Church, certainly into the psychology of many of its leading clergy and perhaps into the heresy of Mercy. In the abuse crisis so many of our leaders like Cardinal Daneels, who comes in for much criticism, not only defended abusers, telling their victim they needed to repent but they simply pretended there was no problem. Maybe they were not as bad as Cardinal Maradiaga who chairs Francis' Council of Nine, he dismissed the whole matter as a construction of the 'Jewish media'.

A false, heretical understanding of Mercy reduces God to being tolerant of everything, to the point where sin disappears and black becomes white, the foolish are regarded as wise, the corrupt become virtuous. A tolerant God means mankind has no need of Redemption or Salvation, the whole Christological drama becomes unnecessary and humanity has no need of a moral compass, because whatever is done, so long as it doesn't undermine the Enlightenment virtues, is fine.

An excess of Mercy has a tendency to remove any critical faculty. God becomes the watchmaker who having finished his work, sets it in place to run by itself, he is not as scripture portrays him concerned by our every action, nor is he the one who will come to judge between sheep and goats, and certainly not the one who is concerned about our personal integrity, our truth telling, our sexual or financial morality and our craving for power. It works well for a dictator, in that any criticism or expression of doubts or any questioning about this new god (the god of theological speculation, rather than God revealed by Jesus Christ in scripture and Tradition) becomes a sign of sickness, rigidity, even heresy but worst of all of the unforgivable sins of divisiveness and disloyalty.

What I find so shocking in this book, which hardly reveals any new secrets, just adds a few details, is that such corruption as it reveals causes dis-ease in so few. Indeed, those who do raise concerns are hussled to the margins and vilified. Colonna gives us insight into a court that seems to be hotbed of neurotic revenge, nepotism, financial corruption, homosexual practice and where surveillance and gossip are rife and where image is all. A quote from the book, a priest said, "It is not who or what you know, it is now about what you know about who you know", he was talking about a culture of blackmail.
Why is it tolerated? Why is it so easily accepted? Why do so few denounce it?

Perhaps it is that Catholicism in particular has seen so many changes in recent years that there are so few points of stability from which bearings can be taken. Even the Gospels, the actual revealed words of Jesus are pushed to the background and replaced by 'the sublime theology' of some German Cardinal. The author makes the point that what has been lost in the last few years is Jesus's 'Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no',

Being anxious that some fragment of the Lord's body might be lost or desecrated should be important to priests, nowadays being deeply concerned that a word, a comma of Lord's being lost should be a deep, deep concern of every Christian because where sin and vice abounds Christ cannot be tolerated

But then many bishops and religious superiors simply turned a blind eye to sexual abuse and abusers....."

ABC News reported earlier this year that, "Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope's own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope's clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.


The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope's own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

"With all this emphasis on mercy ... he is creating the environment for such initiatives," the church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and defrocked some 800 priests who raped and molested children.

At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the congregation dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and church official said..."

Contrast the attitude of Francis with that of St. Basil of Cesarea (322-379AD). He instructed that the cleric or monk caught making sexual advances (kissing) or otherwise sexually molesting young boys or men was to be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure (head shaven), bound in chains and imprisoned for six months, after which he was to be contained in a separate cell and ordered to undergo severe penances and prayer vigils to expedite his sins under the watchful eye of an elder spiritual brother. His diet was that of water and barley bread - the fodder of animals.

Outside his cell, while engaged in manual labor and moving about the monastery, the pederast monk was to be always monitored by two fellow monks to insure that he never again had any contact with young men or boys.

Clearly Francis, his mind corrupted by false notions of "compassion" and "mercy," has more regard for sexual predators than their innocent victims and those who seek to discipline the predators.

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,

Weakening or watering-down moral norms is not an act of charity.  It is an act of counterfeit charity, an act of spiritual violence.

It seems that Francis is committed toward re-victimizing those who have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of predator priests and is not truly concerned with showing an authentic compassion and mercy toward convicted pederasts.

Recall the anger Francis demonstrated and the  tough words he had for a rowdy crowd when their shoving caused him to fall in Mexico.  He was angry because he perceived his safety was in jeopardy.  What a shame he lacks the same concern for the safety of innocent children.

But then, the dictator advanced the Cult of Softness.

Walsall Manor Hospital in England fires a doctor for circulating a prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians is reporting that a Christian doctor who was fired (sacked) for emailing a prayer to his colleagues has lost his clam for unfair dismissal, after an Employment Tribunal ruled that there was "no need" for religious references to be made at work.


We read here that, "Dr David Drew (aged 64) took legal action against Walsall Manor Hospital after he was dismissed for e-mailing a motivational prayer by St Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, to his department, stating that his colleagues had made him feel like a 'religious maniac' for circulating the message.

However, Employment Judge David Kearsley ruled that the hospital had not acted unlawfully in sacking Dr Drew because discussions about religion should be avoided if considered 'inappropriate.' He said: 'There is no need for such assertions in professional communication nor was there a need to make religious references if they are considered inappropriate and if they hinder proper communication.'

One employee also complained about a text message that Dr Drew had sent wishing him 'a peaceful Christmas'. An independent investigation subsequently conducted into Dr Drew's behavior, ordered him to 'refrain from using religious references in his professional communications, verbal or written'. Dr Drew rejected the recommendations and was subsequently dismissed after refusing to accept a 'bribe' from hospital bosses to leave quietly.

Dr Drew said: 'The allegation that I have forced my religion onto other people, that I am some kind of religious maniac, was made worse by the fact that they told me there was no need to understand what this is all about. This means that you cannot be yourself in the workplace, you cannot say 'I am a Christian.'

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented: 'This is like the shutting down of identity. This approach to Christians is like forcing them to deny their identity – being Christian isn't something which you take off when you go to work. To say that it is not appropriate to say that you are a Christian at work is to totally misunderstand our history, our heritage, freedom under the law, freedom of religion, it is deeply illiberal, it is wrong.'"

I would like Judge David Kearsley to explain how an inspirational prayer from St. Ignatius of Loyola, sent to co-workers in an email, may be interpreted as "inappropriate" and how such a communication could possibly "hinder proper communication."  If Dr. Drew had sent an email promoting an LGBT event, would such an email also be considered "inappropriate" and as obstructing proper communication?  Or as evidence of fanaticism or mania?  How about a passage from the Koran?  Or a quotation from one of Richard Dawkin's books? Or is it only the Christian message and Christian prayer which are deemed "inappropriate" and a stumbling stone toward inter-office communication? 

I think we all know the answers to these questions.  But I would still like to hear from Judge Kearsley. 

Writing for the Church of England newspaper last month, Andrew Carey noted that, "Free speech is an increasingly limited value in modern Britain.  Yet it is astonishing that there is so little outcry over the limitations to free speech that have been introduced in recent years."  Astonishing.  But not unexplainable.  Increasingly, the peoples of the West are being desensitized to the rapid decay in faith and morals and the loss of freedoms which result from what Pope Benedict XVI has called "the dictatorship of relativism."

The English psychiatrist William Sargent explained that, "It is not the mentally ill but ordinary normal people who are most susceptible to 'brainwashing.'" And in her book The Nazis and the Occult, Dusty Sklar notes how, "Hitler's early speeches were so mesmerizing that even people who were repelled by his ideas felt themselves being swept along. The playwright Eugene Ionesco mentions in his autobiography that he received the inspiration for Rhinoceros when he felt himself pulled into the Nazi orbit at a mass rally and had to struggle to keep from developing 'rhinoceritis.' 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....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. Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. Heinrich Hildebrandt, a schoolteacher who was anxious to hide his liberal past, joined the Nazi party, and to his own disgust, found himself 'proud to be wearing the insignia. It showed I belonged, and the pleasure of belonging, so soon after feeling excluded, isolated, is very great...I belonged to the new nobility..'" (The Nazis and the Occult, pp. 157, 158).

It was Tacitus who proclaimed, "O man, how prompt to slavery."  And waiting in the wings is a Lawless One who will rule over such men.  The Christian message will not be tolerated.  He will strive to stamp it out altogether.  He will seek to eradicate any expression of Christian thought or prayer.  He will outlaw the Holy Mass.  And then he will demand worship of himself.