THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

Cardinal Zen stands in line at St. Peter's Square
to deliver letter from China's 'underground Church' to the pope
by Duncan DeAeth


TAIPEI, January 25, 2018 (Taiwan News) - Ties between China and the Vatican appear to be getting more complex with recent news that a retired Hong Kong Cardinal made a secret mission to deliver a letter directly to the Pope on behalf of Catholics in China.

CNA reports that on Wednesday, Jan. 23 in the Vatican, Hong Kong’s 86-year-old emeritus Archbishop, Cardinal Joseph Zen, appeared in Saint Peter’s Square, lined up in the cold with other petitioners, seeking to deliver a letter directly into the hands of Pope Francis.

Reportedly, he was coming to deliver a letter from the “underground” Catholic congregation in China, so that the Pope would better understand the situation on the ground.

According to Italian media, Zen said the letter was successfully delivered, and the Pope promised him that he would read it. [If the DUBIA cardinals had Cardinal Zen's initiative and stood in line to confront him, how would Bergoglio have snubbed them? Meanie me, I assume he would have!]

Cardinal Zen’s impromptu 'meeting' with Pope Francis [I wonder how many seconds it lasted - like maybe the 20 seconds Bergoglio gave to Asia Bibi's family?] follows the Pope's negotiations with representatives from China’s government, and the concession of the Vatican to allow Chinese government-appointed bishops authority over the church’s religious affair in parts of China.

The report about the cardinal hand-delivering the letter from the underground church in China, has led to speculation that Joseph Zen and other Catholics in Hong Kong and China are signaling their objections to the concessions of Pope Francis.

Joseph Zen has been an advocate for democracy and religious freedom throughout his life and service to the Holy See in Hong Kong. For this reason, he has often been the target of criticism and surveillance from the Communist government of China.

In December 2017, CNA reports that Joseph Zen publicly made clear his views about the talk to “unify the churches” in China, speaking about the underground Catholic community, and the officially sanctioned Catholic Church under the Chinese government.

The Cardinal lamented what he saw as a misguided change in policy on the part of the Vatican, and he stated that he did not believe it was the aim of Pope Francis to pursue such an “evil plan.”

According to Zen, “unifying the Church” in China would amount to an open persecution of true Catholics and a silencing of the underground church.

Now even the foremost 'Catholic' pusher for the LGBT cause, James Martin, SJ, has joined those Bergoglians questioning their idol's rock-firm allegiance to
a Chilean bishop he named two years ago despite significant and widespread protests that continue to this day - in a case that is festering and smelling
more and more of the poisonous pus that Bergoglio has chosen to 'nourish' in this most grave wound to his image and to 'the Church' (since the church of
Bergoglio continues to be universally regarded, alas, as the Church that Christ founded). The questioning Bergoglians do not say it but I believe their attitude
is best described as appalled, that all this should come to pass. Brownie points BTW to Fr Martin for seeing clear on this issue.


Observers remain 'mystified' over Pope’s remarks
on clerical sex abuse and call for bishop accountability
The Vatican deemed Bishop Barros’s accusers credible against Fr. Karadima.
Why doesn’t Bergoglio believe them when they say Barros knew about their abuse?
by Christopher Altieri

January 26, 2018

Pope Francis has faced a great deal of criticism since he leveled accusations of calumny against victims of clerical sex abuse last week. Those victims claim that Bishop Juan Barros, whom Pope Francis appointed to the Diocese of Osorno, Chile, on January 10, 2015, had first-hand knowledge of their abuser’s crimes and was an active participant in their cover-up.

The highest-ranking churchman to respond has been Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, who is also a member of the C9 Council of Cardinal Advisors and the man the Holy Father personally chose to head the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (an organization for which people within and without the Church had high hopes when it was launched in 2014, but which quickly proved both toothless and dysfunctional, and now exists in a sort of juridical limbo, its members’ appointments having expired late last year without renewal or replacement).

“It is understandable that Pope Francis’s statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator,” Cardinal O’Malley’s January 20 statement begins. It goes on to say, “Words that convey the message ‘if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed’ abandon those who have suffered reprehensible criminal violations of their human dignity and relegate survivors to discredited exile.”

Another prominent US churchman with ties to the Vatican, Father James Martin, SJ — who serves as a consultor to the Holy See’s Secretariat for Communications — is expressing disappointment over Pope Francis’s comments.

“Like many of Pope Francis’s admirers,” Father Martin told CWR when contacted about the story, “I was disappointed in the Pope’s comments regarding Bishop Barros’s accusers, and found Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s insights a much-needed contribution to the discussion.”

Father Martin recognized that Pope Francis made an effort to ease the hurt his words have caused. “To that end, I was also grateful to see the Pope’s apology,” Father Martin said. [Altieri ought to have pointed out to Martin that the Pope only apologized for hurting the victims for having said he needed 'evidence' instead of 'proof' against Barros, but not for the fact that he accused Baros's accusers of 'nothing but calumny'.] Nevertheless, he remains perplexed at the broader situation.

“In general, what mystifies me is that there is rarely, if ever, any hard and fast evidence in clergy sex abuse cases, because of the nature of the crimes ([viz.] someone preying on a child in private),” Father Martin said. “Consequently, we must take what the victims say very seriously, because, needless to say, there are not going to be photographs or records of any kind. Moreover, some of these same victims were believed in the case of Bishop Barros’s mentor, Father Karadima, so I’m not sure why we would suddenly disbelieve them now. As I said, it’s mystifying to me.”

[One must also bear in mind that Barros stood by Karadima all along and denied he was ever aware of Karadima's wrongdoings - when at least three of Karadima's accusers who testified against him at the CDF have said Barros was present during some of the abuses committed against them, and worse, that he himself was engaged in some petting and kissing with Karadima.

For Bergoglio to simply say, "No, Barros is innocent until you bring me evidence" defies commonsense. ecause it would have been prudent back in 2014-2015 to simply put his nomination of Barros as a diocesan bishop on hold, until a full and formal investigation could be carried out to clear the suspicions and accusations, perhaps once and for all. Barros was willing to take a yearlong sabbatical at the time, but the pope himself now says he urged Barros to stay.

Could Bergoglio's pigheadedness now be because he does not want to admit he was wrong in having pushed Barros's appointment at the time? That he should have done what has become SOP for dealing with sex abuse accusations against a priest or bishop (i.e., suspend him pending a true and proper, not a whitewash, investigation of the charges)? Your Holiness - if that is what you are - when even your staunchest front-rank minions start questioning your sincerity in public, does not that tell you anything at all???]

Father Martin also said the Church must implement systems capable of holding the Church’s hierarchical leadership accountable.

“Until we see real accountability for bishops, we will not be able to get past the abuse crisis,” he said. “The papal commission, then, really needs teeth. In particular, bishops who have offended must be removed, and when they are removed it must be said that this is why they are being removed.”

Martin is not the only prominent US Jesuit to make such a call. Writing for Religion News Service, Father Thomas J. Reese argued, “The fundamental problem is that the Church has no process for judging bishops that is transparent and has legitimacy with the public.”

Pope Francis maintains that he has chosen to leave Bishop Barros in place, because, “There is not one shred of proof against him.” Pressed on the plane trip home from South America, the Pope explained, “The word ‘proof’ wasn’t the best [word to use] in order to be near to a sorrowful heart. I would say evidence. The case of Barros was studied, it was re-studied, and there is no evidence. That is what I wanted to say. I have no evidence to condemn. And if I were to condemn without evidence or without moral certainty, I would commit the crime of a bad judge.”

The Pope does have the claims of the three victims, though. Not to put too fine a point on it: that is evidence, in the form of witness testimony; witnesses a Vatican criminal tribunal believed when they said Father Fernando Karadima abused them. Barros, moreover, is one of four Karadima protégés to have been made bishops before their mentor’s crimes came to light. The accusations against Barros have been in the Chilean press at least since 2012.

So, it simply is not true that Pope Francis has no evidence. Pope Francis does not believe the witnesses. Why the Pope would choose not to believe the victims’ witness against Bishop Barros now, when his own court has found them credible, is, as Father Martin says, “mystifying.”

[It really is not 'mystifying' if you go beyond the image of Bergoglio as a sweet and kindly avuncular man who wishes nothing but good for everyone. This is a very calculating man who enjoys all the privileges, power and authority conferred on him by being pope - he has become the absolute caudillo of caudillos (Franco, Peron, Fidel Castro and an endless line of dead South American caudillos must be green with envy from whatever hell they are in) - and cannot bear to be crossed on anything. And whose first reaction to those who cross him is "Off with their heads!", or pretend they don't exist, like the DUBIA cardinals, while taking every opportunity to denounce their 'disloyalty' to the caudillo in any way he can.

And just as he did on his 'nothing-can-be-more-important-than-this' cause of championing remarried divorcees receiving the Eucharist - and thereby implicitly championing divorce as a routine recourse for 'married' couples in today's world (calling two 'family synods' under false pretenses to give him cover for his never-hidden intention of sacramental leniency, and when they did not, he went ahead anyway and unloosed AL on the world) - he is simply sinking deeper and deeper into a moral and ecclesial quagmire of his own making in the Barros case.]

It also raises a serious question about the Holy Father’s governance of the Universal Church. The presumption of innocence, in its strict juridical sense, is the explicit basis on which the Holy Father has justified his behavior in the Barros case. Even if the Holy Father is correctly applying the principle — and there are strong reasons to believe he is not — it is not the standard a prudent leader employs in making personnel decisions. [Especially not when it involves clerical sex abuse offenses, where every cleric involved must be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion - failing which the cleric under suspicion must be suspended and the necessary investigation pursued to uncover the truth.]

Over at the UK Catholic Herald, their resident canonist Ed Condon - who has usually bent over backwards to justify some of Bergoglio's outright errors - pitches in. One is not surprised, however, that he characterizes the Bergoglio-Barros remarks as a mere 'media blunder'.

Pope’s defense of Bishop Barros
is a rare media blunder
The subject of child abuse does not lend itself well to off-the-cuff remarks
[Except, of course, that in Bergoglio's case, his off-the-cuff remarks are often his 'most honest' statements]
by Ed Condon

January 26, 2018

The storm surrounding Pope Francis’s latest defence of the embattled Chilean Bishop Barros has, following an unprecedented public correction from Cardinal Séan O’Malley and a penitent retraction from the Pope himself, begun to abate.

It is hard to discuss anything touching clerical sexual abuse with a level of dispassion, and specific cases even more so. When the matter involves such a large number of victims of a convicted abuser, as it does in this case, it’s almost impossible. But for those of us who want justice for victims and for the Church’s moral authority to be restored, and especially for those of us who wish the Pope well in his personal ministry, some evaluation of the affair needs to be made. In this specific instance, leaving aside the wider questions of Bishop Barros’s appointment in the first place, it was a deeply regrettable failure of style. [But you cannot leave aside the wider question here, because that is precisely the fundamental issue with the pope's pigheaded defense fo Barros.]

Pope Francis’s enormous media image has allowed him to command attention like few popes before him. He has a number of personal traits which play incredibly well in the age of rolling news and social media. He is spontaneous, and has little or no fear of speaking off-the-cuff, even on sensitive issues. He has a natural candor, something which shows through whenever he speaks, so that when he does address an issue, few are ever left wondering what he actually thinks. He also has a known impatience with process, formality, and what is often termed “legalism,” instead he favours what is often styled a “pastoral” approach, jumping right in to messy situations. [Get my point about Condon leaning over backwards to excuse Bergoglio when and if he can???]

In some instances, these instincts have served him well. When he chooses to, he can get his message across at a volume previous popes would have struggled to reach. But his free-wheeling style can sometimes backfire, this certainly happened last week.

A number of victims of a serial sex abuser, Fr Karadima, have accused Bishop Barros of helping cover up their abuse. Despite this, Pope Francis has stood resolutely behind Barros. On Friday, he was asked again about Barros while in Chile. He responded: “The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I’ll speak. There is not one shred of proof against him. It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”

It was a characteristically blunt response from the Pope, but it kicked off a serious, and totally understandable backlash from Fr Karadima’s victims, whom he’d effectively accused of slander.

The whole affair has drawn fresh attention to the terrible scandals of clerical sexual abuse, something which many Catholics had hoped was receding from the spotlight following serious efforts to address past failings. Ensuring that there be no repetition of horrible past events, and instilling confidence in the faithful that the matter is well in hand, is a task to which Pope Francis’s otherwise effective gifts of communication seem singularly ill-suited. [No, Condon is willfully misrepresenting the situation here. Bergoglio's hubristic belief that no pope has ever been as popular and as powerful as he is have led him to this point - he really thinks he can do nothing wrong in the eyes of the media which truly and literally 'mediate' his self-image to the world. He really believes they will forgive him for any 'lapses' which show that 'the pope-emperor-caudillo is really naked', because they are as invested as he is in the image of Bergoglio that they have sold to the world. The media are as loath to be revealed as liars as Bergoglio is loath to have himself revealed as the phony 'Catholic' that he is.] As we have seen, it is not a subject which lends itself to off-the-cuff remarks.

Past failures, especially those involving bishops accused of cover-ups and collusion, were failures to follow law and proper procedure – something Benedict XVI did considerable work to correct. [Thank you for that acknowledgment, but watch next how Condon seeks to exculpate Bergoglio:]

Pope Francis’s impatience with formal process, and his famous allergy to “doctors of the law” place him at a unique disadvantage when confronted with cases like that of Bishop Barros.

Victims of sexual abuse are only ever truly respected when their abusers are seen and treated as what they are: criminals. This extends to those accused of winking at their abuse. Convicting the guilty, and exonerating the innocent, is a legal task.

For all we know, it could be that the allegations against Bishop Barros are unfounded. But in order to make the kind of full-throated defence which the Pope made of Bishop Barros, it is not enough to say you have not seen any proof. To have any kind of credibility, there needs to be a full legal process which examines the allegations and finds them baseless.

Such a process does exist, it was Pope Francis who set it up with his motu proprio Come una madre amorevole, which established legal norms for handling allegations of negligence, especially when connected with sexual abuse. But since its issuing in June of 2016, little has been done to bring this mechanism to life. The section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which handles cases connected to sexual abuse continues to complain of a serious shortage of qualified staff and resources. [And what does that say of Bergoglio's sincerity about tackling the clerical sex abuse issue other than that it has all been pro forma? To make it seem he is doing something and is sincerely interested in cleaning out the 'filth' completely from the Church. But all he has done so far is to show that if the filth happens to involve some of his favored clerics (or clerics favored by his close associates), then he makes it known that no, that isn't filth you are smelling or thinking you smell - it's really the smell of roses, perhaps the odor of sanctity, in men like Ricca, Inzoli, Capozzo, Barros et al, who, even if they may have been guilty of offenses against chastity, at the very least, have all made it right through confession and absolution, so where's the filth here? And where is your 'mercy'? Of which, BTW, the victims pointing an accusing finger at Barros do not deserve an iota! So much for our selectively 'merciful' pope!]

Similarly, Cardinal O’Malley’s intervention commanded headlines because he was the head of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors – past tense, the Commission lapsed at the end of last year, and the pope has yet to renew its mandate and membership.

These examples illustrate a blind spot in the Francis pontificate, one which has dogged his sincere efforts to reform the curia and which becomes even more problematic when it touches on sexual abuse: his impatience. [Here we are again, with Bergoglio's pigheadedness (I love how appropriate the word is) about Barros being shrugged off as 'a blind spot'. No, it's not a blind spot at all. Bergoglio sees clear and wide through it, but he insists on doing it his way, anyway.]

This Pope is very comfortable making big decisions, for example setting up the C9 Council of Cardinals, the Prefecture for the Economy, and the Commission for the Protection of Minors. But the good intentions of these institutions are doomed to stall without patient and consistent papal attention and support for the nitty-gritty of their work, and, in sweeping works of legal reform, that means lawyers.

So-called doctors of the law are, as we know, a suspect class in the Vatican right now. And even before the Francis pontificate, conscientious canonists are often saddled with the reputation of being nay-sayers. In fact, a good canonist, whether serving the Pope or a diocesan bishop, almost never says “no,” far more often their job is to say “not that way.”

Pope Francis might find that his priorities and interests were served rather better if he had a few more lawyers working for him. Properly deployed he would find that they strengthen his hand, rather than tying it back.

Whether in bringing justice to victims, or reforming the curia, Pope Francis needs help. The Church is a society of more than a billion people. Governing it properly requires dedicated labourers as much as dynamic leadership. It is a great shame, and coming at an increasingly obvious cost, that those around Pope Francis have convinced him the two are mutually exclusive. [Oh well, there's always that old standby: it's not him, you know, it's those around him! John Allen was sooooo wrong in claiming recently that since someone as closely associated to Bergoglio like the better Farrell in the Curia Brian, not Kevin) bears witness with great awe that Bergoglio really knows everything that is taking place and that is being said in the Vatican, it also means that he is also blamed for everything that goes wrong! No, as we see with Condon and other Bergoglio apologists like the odious Austen Ivereigh, when something goes wrong, suddenly they trot out the pluperfect pope and strong leader who can do nothing wrong - it's really those around him who are making him go wrong! Was anyone prompting him when, in Iquique, he snapped back that calumny line to the journalist who asked him about Barros? Was it those around him who said that naming Ricca, with his blatant homosexual infamy behind him, as spiritual adviser to the IOR, would be a great advertisement for Bergoglian mercy? I could go on, but puh-leeze, spare us the 'it's really not him' line!!!! Don't they realize that by using that excuse, they're also saying that their pluperfect absolute monarch is actually being led by the nose by his sycophants and made to dance to their tune? ]


While I'm at it, here's another one of those horrible fallouts from AL. Dan Hitchens of Catholic Herald already wrote about it in FIRST THINGS (posted on the preceding page of this thread), but here canonist Ed Peters lays out the canonical and doctrinal breaches committed by bishops who have decided to implement AL as they think the pope wishes them to do...

Sometimes one side is simply right
and the other side is simply wrong
The Archdiocese of Braga in Portugal has reportedly endorsed Communion
for unqualified remarried divorcees after a 6-month period of 'discernment'.
If so, the Archdiocese is wrong — patently and gravely wrong.

January 26, 2018

That’s the situation here.

It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is, as reported in the Catholic Herald, their plan, they are wrong. Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans. And just like a few others, if only in terms of the wiggle room they allow themselves in these cases, as do, say, the Argentinians.

Of course, one more post here won’t convince the Lusitanians of this point, so I shan’t bother to make all the arguments that I (among many others) have already offered on this matter. We are right about this point and they are wrong about this point, and that’s that.

I suppose, though, I could reiterate for others what “the point” is in its tedious but crucial substantial specifics:

Per Canon 915 (papally issued law, resting on divine law foundations, and, till the current crisis, uncontested by pastoral and canonical tradition in this regard), ministers of holy Communion may not offer that Sacrament (similar problems arise in regard to offering absolution in Confession, but one crisis at a time) to
- Catholics (who are generally the only ones eligible for holy Communion in the first place, per c. 844) who, having entered a marriage that enjoys the presumption of validity (c. 1060),then civilly divorce (or are divorced, in other words, regardless of whose ‘fault’ the divorce is), and, failing to obtain (because they never applied for or were refused) an ecclesiastical declaration of nullity (or a variant on the uncommon dissolutions of marriage as discussed chiefly here and here), purport to enter a new marriage (civilly or by some other mechanism, even one that looks religious, but which, as long as the first spouse is alive, of course, isn’t a “marriage”, but we call it that for convenience, and yes this applies also to
- Single Catholics who purport to enter marriages with divorced persons as described above, but decline to live as brother-and-sister (as befits all people who are not married and which is necessary for them even to approach for holy Communion in accord with Canon 916) and, even if they do live continently (may God bless them), are nevertheless
a) known (always if ‘actually’, and usually even if ‘legally’) to be divorced and remarried outside the Church and so(notwithstanding their arguable eligibility for the Sacrament in conscience)
b) give objective scandal to the faith community (even if no one is surprised by divorce and remarriage these days, and they thereby occasion, moreover, the giving of scandal by ecclesiastical ministers who are thus tempted to disregard their certain obligations under Canon 915).

I think that’s everything.

One might well conclude that Bergoglio was 'unaware' there was any such thing as Canon 915 when he and his ghostwriters drew up AL, but since it strains credulity to think not one of them was aware of what Canon 915 says, one must conclude they decided to proceed nonetheless etsi Canon 915 no daretur because - what?
a) Bergoglio is pope and as the supreme legislator of the Church, his very word is law? and
b) he can always have Canon Law amended to suit his purposes, as he is even now thinking of amending the Catechism - i.e., the articulated doctrine of the Church - to suit his purposes.

Now I must trawl the Web to see if I can find one single Catholic action Bergoglio has performed int he past few days that I could possibly report to offset in some way his current string of imprudent, unpapal and un-Catholic words and deeds.

Aldo Maria Valli's disenchantment with Bergoglio and his Pontificate cannot be better described by the fact that in the course of a year, he has written two books
to critique it - the first, '266', a direct account of all the things that the 266th Successor of Peter has said and done to harm the Church; and a new one
that imagines the 'church' of the future after a series of popes all named Francis, to each of which he attributes words and deeds picked up directly from the
chronicles of 'Francis I', but artfully portrayed as 'new' developments by all his Bergoglian successors. I have been remiss in not translating this earlier,
but he regaled us with two of the chapters from his new book last December. In much the same spirit, he has been alternating his serious commentary lately
with what I have called his fantasy satires. Except that all the 'fantasy' is based on, alas, the all-too-true daily chronicles of this unfortunate pontificate.

What became of the Church
Translated from

December 27, 2018

My new book has been on sale since December. It is entitled Come la Chiesa finì (What became of the Church) and this time, it is not an essay or commentary but a dystopic narrative. Set in an imaginary future, it describes the progressive transformation of the Catholic Church from being the bulwark of truth and freedom to becoming an entity that increasingly became a friend of ‘the world’, ready to make compromises just be able to ‘dialog’. Dialog, along with welcoming, becomes the true objective of the ‘new church’, which by doing so, falls victim to the new masters of the world and is extinguished. Or at least, so it seems. I post here two of its chapters…

****************************************************************************************************************************************

How the Church came
to rehabilitate Marcion

Dear reader, I am about to tell you how it came about that the Church decided to rehabilitate Marcion, a protagonist of Christian thought in the second century A.D. For you, it must seem to be about events that are truly very remote so allow me a brief epilogue.

A native of Sinope on the Black Sea, Marcion lived in Rome where he died around 160 AD. He was a bishop and theologian, and the founder of his own church that was based on heresy. Indeed, he maintained that, given the radical difference between the Old and New Testaments, there was an irremediable contradiction between the two books: the God of the Old Testament could not be the God of the New Testament who is the father of Jesus.

Struck by the extraordinary novelty of Jesus, Marcion saw the Old Testament not as the premise for the coming of Jesus but a past that had to be completely overcome. Not by chance, he wrote a book called Antitesi, which appears to open with exclamations of joy and surprise over the New Testament which he thought could not be compared to anything else.

Those who have studied Marcion say that the most recurrent word in his words is ‘new’. The newness of the Gospel of Jesus seems to him so overwhelming and great as to justify a clear break from the past: Christ as the new God, the new man, bringer of a new kingdom, a new doctrine, new virtues. So, on his part there was clearly a rejection of the idea of continuity and completion. It is not true, he said, that the salvific plan is unique, and that Jesus had realized this plan starting from everything that the Bible narrates since the beginning of time.

For Marcion, behind the revelations of Scripture, there is not one God, but rather two opposing visions of the Divine: one belonging to the Old Testament, the other to the New. The first God, so to speak, was the creator, but then, there was a second God superior to the first because he was merciful and a savior.

And this is what the second new God brought: his mercy, his goodness, his love. Whereas the God of the Old testament was hard, perhaps even cruel and vindictive, the God of the New Testament was a loving father, always ready to forgive. While the first God looks at the law, the second God looks at man. So we have an incurable dualism, Marcione says: on one hand, creation; on the other, salvation. On one hand, justice, on the other, mercy.

Marcione was so convinced of his hypothesis that he ended up mutilating the New Testament: since he considered unacceptable those parts which linked to the Old Testament and which exalted the humanity of Jesus (he thought this was unworthy of a God), he simply eliminated them, considering them not ‘inspired’. [Remind you of someone?]

[BTW, everything Valli writes here about Marcion is historical fact. To begin with, just consult the Wikipedia article on Marcion. But it is hilarious how he condenses Marcion's teachings exactly the way 'Francis I' has been preaching and teaching Bergoglian thought. Pleased to make your acquaintance, Jorge Marcion Bergoglio!]

Now it is easy to understand why the Catholic Church considered him a heretic. Nonetheless, many centuries later, a pope decided to rehabilitate him. This pope was Francis XVII, the Colombian Gustavo Gonzalo Sergio Paulo Ángel Guzmán. Who, after having sought the opinion of the usual commission of cardinals (this time, there were 44, the C44), he promulgated Sic et simpliciter (Thus and simply) in which, precisely on the basis of rehabilitating Marcione’s thought, he established the following:
- God punishes no one, otherwise he would be violent and cruel. The God who punishes is a pagan god, or at most, the God of the Old Testament, but not the Christian God.
- God gives each of his creatures permission to sin freely with the certainty of impunity. Sins must be de-penalized.
- Original Sin is not a historical fact but a myth. God, after Original Sin, did not punish mankind, and Original Sin did not at all generate in men a tendency to sin.
- On the contrary, mankind is good. Everyone is projected towards God and are in God’s grace, even atheists. No one will go to hell, because God forgives everything and everyone.
- Sinners must not be punished, but at most, we must commiserate with them (misericordism).
- There is no moral law that is objective, unchaging and universal, but every man is free to follow his own conscience.
- Dogmas change according to human needs.
- Even moral law is necessarily changeable.
- We must never defend ourselves from the enemy or the oppressor with the use of force: better to allow ourselves to become his slaves.
- There is no just use of force. God could never wish the use of force, or he would be a violent God.
- To defend oneself from an aggressor is sin, violence and injustice itself.
- All disputes must be resolved with dialog, even when one is in a condition of objective subjugation.
- Christ is not the only Savior of mankind, and one can be saved even if is not Christian.
- A Catholic must never seek to convert non-Catholics to Catholicism: Th is proselytism, which is always reprehensible because it shows a lack of respect for diversity.
- One must firmly reject the idea that Christ had offered an expiatory or reparatory sacrifice to make up to the Father for the sins of man. God pardons freely without the need of any sacrifice.
- Therefore, the celebration of Mass is largely idolatry and superstition – to be tolerated only for the sake of those faithful who are less responsible and ill informed.
- To eliminate injustices, divine grace or religious faith are not necessary – rather, good will and good world policy.
- To be virtuous and to be saved, it is not necessary to belong to the Church. One only ahs to be honest and to belong to the human race.
- There are no supernatural virtues, only natural ones.

You can well, understand, dear reader, that Sic et sempliciter had a shattering effect on the faith, the doctrine, and the very life of the Church. From that moment, the Church’s conformity with the spirit of the world underwent an unprecedented acceleration.


How it came about that the Church judged
it was not appropriate to judge

Dear reader,
I now wish to narrate how the Church arrived at imposing on the faithful the rule that they must not judge nor express any opinion on reality and on persons.

The initiative was that of Francis XVIII, the Brazilian Neimar Marcelo David Thiago Firmino, who convoked the cardinals in an extraordinary assembly to communicate to them his great decision: “Enough with making judgments about the world! Enough with all the criticism! We wish to be in harmony with the world, friendly to everyone. Only that way can we have dialog with the culture in which we live. Otherwise, we will always be considered like foreign bodies. This separation must end!”

Francis XVIII was thinking of asking the cardinals to draft an appropriate document on the theme, so that he could have a basis to work on for an encyclical. But the cardinals unanimously informed the pope that they would all be taking a yearlong sabbatical, so there would be no one to draft the document.

Nonetheless, Papa Firmino was undaunted, and alone in his office, he spent the summer engrossed in writing, so that by September, he had his encyclical De gustibus [ellipsis for the full Latin saying 'De gustibus non disputandum est' (In matters of taste, there can be no dispute)], in which the Church promised that it would never again express any judgment on the world, because faith means prayer and not judgment, faith means welcoming everyone not rupture, faith means sharing not separation.

But since a famous Vaticanista from Uzbek wrote on his blog that to speak of welcoming and hearing was in itself a judgment, and that therefore, the pope was contradicting himself, the Vatican issued a notice through its Press Office, in which the pope expressed his great mercy for the Vaticanista for whom he was praying. After which, there was no trace left of the Vaticanista.

De gustibus was welcomed with great enthusiasm in public opinion. “Finally,” said all the headlines of the progressivist newspapers, “Now we have a Church we like! Now we have a Church with a human face! Thank you, papa Firmino!”

The major commentators said that the papal document put an end, once and for all, to the era of the Inquisition, and that henceforth, dialog between contemporary culture and the Church would be much more agreeable and easy, opening up great perspectives of growth for everyone under the sign of reciprocal willingness and collaboration.

After all, the problems to be resolved, they said, were numerous, starting from global cooling (because after the global warming [that everyone had predicted to be catastrophic for the planet], the world was now getting colder), to the extinction of some animal species, to which, according to some ecological associations, the Church had contributed.

The few faithful who – stunned and disoriented – remembered having read that Jesus, although he was merciful, never renounced expressing his judgment on the realities in his time and on the persons he met, and who always exhorted men to convert in order to come closer to God, felt even more lonely and abandoned than ever. Some sought to react by coming together in groups and associations of resistance. The pope promptly let it be known that he welcomed them with great affection and mercy. After which, there was no trace left of them.

“If we do not judge,” one reads in the encyclical, “then we have nothing to propose to the world, and that is exactly what we want. We must not be proposing messages. Faith is not a judgment but a way of consolation. We must not select, deciding what is good and what is bad, The Christian does not select, he welcomes everything. We must get rid of the old views that are unequivocally Manichaean [i.e., black or white]. The Church is at the disposition of everyone, and by njudging, she welocmes everyone, so that everyone can find in her a word of accompaniment, of adhesion and of sympathy. The man of faith does not judge. The man of faith lives! He lives with others, in the midst of others. The man of faith accompanies and supports others.”

Firmino suggested to theologians that to be up-to-date, they should not stop at the idea of salvation. He loved to say that “He who loves is saved, not he who judges. Our language should be totally directed towards love”. An idea which linked to the dialoguing vision that he had about the Church’s relationship with other religions. “The Catholic,” he explained, “cannot sustain that his faith is the only authentic faith. This is an absurdity which would hamper any dialog. Instead we wish to dialog, not to push people away. We wish to build bridges, not walls”.

In a famous speech to the University of a United World in Paris, Firmino asserted that the question about the truth of religion must be considered passe. “Only the intolerant and the hypocrites,” he explained, “would even raise the question. We who do not judge are committed to ensure that our faith – in its desire to go forth and meet everyone – avoids transforming itself into a culture. If she does, that ti will inevitably become a faith that judges. Instead, ours is a faith that only welcomes.”

That day, the applause erupted at length, and Papa Firmino felt that he had given a decisive contribution to the ‘dialoguizing’ development of the Church.

But he didn’t stop there. Wishing to brign the Chruch even closer to the world, more merciful and more welcoming, he convoked at Assisi all the religions of the world and proposed to his brothers and sisters form other faiths to pray for peace. “One of our ancient predecessors,” he said, “was a protagonist in a similar gesture which we today are called on to renew. But in that remote time, an authentic common prayer was not possible. Each faith prayed on its own account, in order – as they said at the time – to avoid any superpositions and confusions. But today we wish our unity to be indisputable. That is why we will all pray together, hand in hand, and pray to our one God. No one will have a pretext to justify a presumed superiority over other faiths. Faiths are either all equal to each other, or they are not faith at all. True prayer is that which happens in a visible unity”. After which, there followed a rite of asking the one God for peace, according to a scheme elaborated and executed by the Vatican’s papal liturgy office in collaboration with the heads of all the other religions.

It was a memorable day, and it is still spoken about as a moment of real change. The commentators said that this time, the ecumenical and inter-religious journey really took a great historical step forward.

I might add that today in Assisi, one can see a hologram of that common prayer. Activated on request, it shows God as each one wishes to see him in such a way, says the label on the hologram, that no one is offended and everyone is respected.

Later, it was reported that one day, in Assisi, a friar dressed in nothing but the Franciscan cassock, stopped in front of the hologram, and suddenly started shouting: “Get away, Satan! Get out of here, Lord of evil!” Some guards stepped in and accompanied him to the local Center for Rethinking, where they would attend to reprogramming him. And now, it seems he is one of the most fervent supporters of an all-welcoming polytheism and has been giving lectures on the topic “Is Catholicism the true faith? The end to a senseless presumption!”

Valli's most recent blogpost satire has to do with the Lord's Prayer that Bergoglio apparently wishes to edit. [Well, why not? Seeing as he has been editing (mostly by omission) what the Gospels report Jesus to have said, time for him to examine - and edit - the Lord's words.

Correcting the 'Our Father'
and its obsolete text
Translated from

January 26, 2018

At that time, at the end of the council convoked to officially decree the obligation to use only the ecclesiastically correct, the reverend conciliar fathers, after long discussions, reached an agreement on the latest translation, reviewed and corrected, then re-corrected and re-reviewed, of the "Our Father", to be used in the place of the
'old formulation', judged by everyone to be inadequate.

Decisive towards arriving at the agreement was the contribution of a famous theologian who fought hard for the new translation and succeeded to convince even the most recalcitrant.

Therefore, the re-corrected, re-reviewed formulation said:

---

"Our father (but also mother, and in any case, without gender distinction), who are in heaven (but even in so many other places and everywhere), hallowed be your name, thy democracy come, may your opinion be heard (while respecting all other opinions and in dutiful dialog), in the world of ideals and where we are. Give us today our correct daily alimentation and be merciful about our offenses just as we may be tolerant of those who offend us, and do not abandon us to temptation, but deliver us from t which we subjectively consider evil in a given situation and considering all attenuating circumstances. Amen."

---

The first word 'Our' is marked by an asterisk indicating a footnote in which one reads:

---

"We decided to maintain the old version and to continue saying 'our', but with this possessive adjective, we do not by any means intend to advocate the claim that the father is such only for those who call themselves Christians. The father is, in reality, 'ours', in the sense that he is the father of all mankind,of all the peoples on earth, with no exclusion, because the Church, besides being universal and welcoming, is inclusive."

---

There were two asterisks after 'those who offend us' indicating another footnote that says:

---

"We decided to maintain the old version and to continue referring to 'those who offend us', but in doing so, we do not mean to offend anyone. Whoever feels that he is among such 'offenders' must know that no judgment is thereby expressed against him".

---

One conciliar father, although he declared himself in agreement with the necessities of ecclesial correctness, noted that the footnotes were longer than the entire prayer, and thus pointed out the disproportion. But the majority said that often, it is precisely in the footnotes that the most authentic significance of a text emerges, as was the case, one ought to recall, with the revolutionary Amoris laetitia years earlier. So the asterisks for the new 'Our Father' were approved.

And so, the re-reviewed and re-corrected version was published. But a strange phenomenon occurred. As much as the national bishops' conferences sought to impose the new version, the people – strangely - continued to pray the old version. And during Masses, this resulted in some strange turns. Because though the celebrant, mindful of his duty, would start out with the new version, he would have to go back to the old because the people continued to pray the old version.

"But all this is unacceptable!" thundered the famous theologian. "Every man prays according to the language of his time, whichch is the expression of a given culture, and that is why we should change the words of our prayers. If Jesus really prayed as we were taught in the past (but we cannot know this for sure because there were no tape recorders then), nothing prevents us from adapting his text to new exigencies and to new sensibilities".

But nothing could be done. Notwithstanding all the effort to impose the new version (even the Cagtechism had been duly corrected), the people continued to pray:

---

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdome come, they will be done on earth as it is in heavne. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen."

---

"Incredible!" the theologian fumed. "They are still saying 'lead us not into temptation' – and to think we had started correcting the prayer precisely on that line!"

One day, the theologian – who was not so old but had rather precarious health - felt ill and ended up in the hospital. He was in a state of near-unconsciousness but he understood what was happening and saw that the doctors were shaking their heads.

"So it's the end!" he thought. And started to pray. So he began: "Our Father, but also mother…" but he could not go on.

As much as he tried to apply the rules of the ecclesially correct that he himself had determined, the words that came from his heart were those of the old prayer as he had learned it when he was a child - the prayer never reviewed, corrected nor re-corrected. "How strange!", he thought. Which was his last thought before he died.

When, right afterwards, he found himself before God to be judged, the theologian was rather surprised. He would never have thought it – but God truly was an older man, with a beard, like the iconographies that he, the theologian, had always thought naïve! And God was truly seated on his throne, and to his right was the Son! This was truly the moment of judgment.

"Incredible, who would ever have thought it?" he told himself.

The God asked him to recite the Our Father, and the theologian had a dilemma. Should he pray the new formulation that he himself, as an expert on the matter, had helped to formulate, or should he just say the old prayer?

God seemed to read his mind. He said, "Son, don't stop to think. Whether you say it in Latin or the vernacular, it's all the same."

Latin or vernacular! God thought that was his dilemma, but that wasn't it at all. Yet he could not stall indefinitely because other souls were waiting in line to be judged. And that is when, once more, the old prayer came from his heart…

"Well!" God said, stroking his beard and turning to his Son with an expression of feigned surprise, "But weren't we made to understand that that text has been replaced?"

The Son said nothing and smiled.

"Have mercy on me!" cried the theologian. And broke into tears…

Two angels came to escort him towards the place intended for him. He could not believe his eyes and ears It was a very beautiful garden. And there, immersed in a melody of indescribable sweetness, thousands of children were chanting the 'Pater noster' incessantly. With the old formula.

Valli has also posted a critique much in the same vein in which he attributes to 'Francis VII' a lexicon for the 'welcoming church'. Clearly Valli has been honing his skills as a satirist. I shall post a translation ASAP...Meanwhile, I have translated an interview with Valli from the site called lettore.org, in which he is very clear about where he stands today about this pope and his pontificate.

Interview with Valli
on his new book
Translated from


Sir, you wrote the new book Come la Chiesa finì published by Liberilibri, which is a dystopic novel about the progressive dissolution of the Catholic Church. How did you come up with this book?
I think it is always difficult for an author to say exactly how a book is born, especially if, as in this case, it is not an essay or commentary but a narrative. In general, it was born in the climate that I breathe in daily, since it is my occupation to report about the Catholic Church daily as the Vaticanista for RAI (Italian state TV)'s TG-1.

Today I see a church trying hard to please the world and to be accepted by it, more concerned about dialog than about defending the eternal divine truths. A church that is mostly dominated by the politically correct and not by the truth of Jesus. I am particularly struck by the language of this church which I would call neo-modernist. Thus, starting out with language, the initial nucleus for the book became a chapter.

Then, asking myself how I could develop my arguments without becoming too weighty or tedious for the reader, nor losing incisiveness, I opted for a dystopic narrative set in a future in which all those that I consider to be the evils in the Church today reach their extreme consequences.

Stylistically, I resort great deal to irony but also a good dose of sarcasm. I am aware that doing so, I could hurt some sensibilities, but I wanted to be honest all throughout and not to dilute the fundamental content of the book, which is a passionate denunciation.

In your account, we see the conversion of the Catholic Church into the New Anti-Dogmatic Church and the proclamation of the Superdogma of Dialog. Is this already going on?
I think it is, even if not in a uniform way, and perhaps, not always consciously. When the Church seeks to present herself as friendly to 'the world', with its hierarchy preaching that no one is going to be judged, and that God himself, being merciful, does not judge but only welcomes, and when the hierarchy does not call for goodness in the objective sense but for a generic individual discernment, then I already see that New Church at work, one which appears to be afraid of the divine truths and therefore, abandons the dogmatic way to descend to the level of dialog which is actually a rejection of the depositum fidei.

How can we forget the words of Jesus, who said: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law..." (Mt 10,34-35).

Then, the question of justice cannot be eliminated or circumvented in the name of a generic 'misericordism' [an ideology of mercy]. Pastors who do that do not confirm their brothers in the faith, but only confirm those who have gone afar in their distancing. I think this is a devastating strategy.

The Church, when she is much applauded in the secular and pagan world, instead of rejoicing in this, should instead ask herself seriously about what she is now teaching and about what line she is now following. Indeed the Gospel warns us: "Woe to you if all speak well of you..." (Lk 6,26).

The events in the book which lead to the 'end ' of the Church as we know it take place through a succession of popes all named Francis. What do you think will be the principal legacy of Papa Bergoglio?
I make an open denunciation here. The church of the future, that I imagine in this book, would have previously established that all popes should call themselves Francis in homage to Francis I, champion of mercy and dialog, the humble pope so very much loved by the media, by leftist intellectuals and by progressivists. So the decision to make the papal name Francis obligatory is born out of sycophancy, conformism, and again, the desire to pander to public opinion and to the 'masters' of thought.

I speak like a jilted lover, in the sense that initially, I believedd in this pope and his ability to give the Church an authentic springtime, but little by little, I had to change my view, and after Amoris laetitia, a document characterized by ambiguity, I finally opened my eyes to a pontificate in which man appears to take precedence over God, and Church teaching on man's need to be converted at heart appears to have been replaced by a magisterium which has come to proclaim a sort of human right or entitlement to divine mercy.

As to Bergoglio's legacy, although I hve written a book set in the future, I do not give myself prophetic attributes. A lot will depend on who succeeds him. If gthe cardinals choose one in line with this pontificate, then the Church will continue to have a magisterium that is ever more 'liquid', more 'soft', ever more 'lite', which might attract some non-Catholics but will be increasingly disorienting for the faithful. If instead, we get a new pope who is attentive to the truth and respects doctrine, the Church will set off on a course that will doubtless be arduous but which will once more reaffirm her fundamental principles, especially on morals.

In the first case, we will have a church praised greatly by the dominant thought and the secular media, but that would become even more disconcerting for the faithful who continue to be anchored to the eternal truths. In the second, we will have a church attacked by 'the world' and the continual target of the media, but faithful to Truth and to Tradition.

Jesus,when he said "Non praevalebunt…' promised that the Church would always survive. In your narrative, does the Church really come to an end?
In the novel, I imagine there will be a last pope, taken into custody by emissaries of the mysterious world regime which at that point, no longer facing the ultimate obstacle of a Catholic Church that has been effectively dissolved, will have full freedom to subjugate all of mankind in the name of a false brotherhood which is really absolute domination and total denial of freedom.

The pope will be abducted and taken away from the Vatican after having made some atrocious decisions which he thinks ought to demonstrate his desire to dialog with the world, but which the regime interprets as a death certificate for the church, the last act of a church that no longer has a reason to exist.

Of course, I cannot get into the details. I can only say that there will be a final coup de theatre from which the reader can sense that the Church, in truth, does not come to an end, but mysteriously will resume her course, with tiny flocks of the faithful, keeping the faith in true humility despite persecution and martyrdom.

On January 11 - it already seems a lifetime ago (three pages back on this thread) - I posted something from Fra Cristoforo at ANONIMI DELLA CROCE of which this is the gist:

---

...My source tells me that a sort of "act of fidelity to the pope (obviously to Papa Omissis) and to his magisterium" is under study. (I have deliberately not capitalized any of the nouns).

This ‘act of fidelity’ will be required of all clerics in the Catholic Church – deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals. And it must be formally professed. In the various dioceses, a day will be chosen on which all clerics – from the bishop to the deacons – shall ‘solemnly’ profess this formal act of fidelity. Which would really mean ‘blind fidelity’ to the ‘magisterium’ and teachings of Bergoglio. Of course this will be obligatory, not optional. Whoever fails to declare this ‘promise’ solemnly should consider himself suspended a divinis [cannot legitimately exercise his priestly ministry].

If this particular rumor should come to pass – and I hope it does not – then we shall really be at a turning point. A schism [even if not formal] from which I don’t think any Catholic can consider himself exempt [he has to be on one side or the other]. Because how can one profess fidelity to a heretical magisterium? [And here I go again: Worse than heretical, it is apostate!]

---

Apropos, but independent of Fra Cristoforo's post, Fr. Hunwicke then posted the following, with the twist that it ought to be the pope who takes an oath when he is inaugurated:

The next papal inaugural
ought to feature a papal oath

January 14, 2018

Nothing would better express the Traditional, Biblical, Patristic, notion of the Petrine Office, as happily defined at Vatican I, than the following reform in what is done at the inauguration of a pontificate.

The prelate who emerges elected from the next Conclave should instantly sweep away all the unnecessary and obsessive ritual flummeries dreamed up, I think, by Pietro Marini and first used at the Inauguration of Benedict XVI.

They should be replaced by the taking of a solemn Oath of Fidelity done in public. Analogies and formulae existed for this in previous ages, which might be used to supply textual materials.
- For people who like ritual stuff, the Oath could be taken on the oldest Bible in the Vatican Libraries.
- For people who like even more ritual stuff, or are fixated on the use of vernaculars, each paragraph, before the pope recites it in Latin, could be chanted by, say, a Jewish Cantor in Hebrew and a Byzantine Subdeacon in Greek and read by laypeople in any number of vernaculars.
- For strange people who want even more ritual than that, the document could then be solemnly attested by Cardinal Notaries and sealed with lead.
- For those whose affection for ritual amounts to a lunatic obsession, the document could, finally, be solemnly processed through the congregation, held aloft by the Cardinal Protodeacon in the popemobile, while the crowd hysterically shouts VIVAT IUSIURANDUM! Meanwhile, the pontiff would remain kneeling in quiet and humble prayer before the Altar. The popemobile could then be taken away, either for immediate ignominious destruction, or for sale at Sotheby's in New Bond Street, the money (including, of course, the auctioneer's commission) being given to the Poor and the Ordinariates.

WHAT SHOULD HE SWEAR?
Essentially, the new Pontiff should swear, in words drawn from Pastor aeternus of Vatican I, to hand down uncorrupted the Tradition which is from the Lord through His Apostles, the Deposit of Faith. He should swear to resist and to put down all novitates, tam in Fide quam in moribus(all novelties, in faith as in morals).

He should acknowledge that, while he will indeed be the Supreme Legislator with full power to change the (human) Law of the Church, he will himself obey the Law and refrain from interfering with legal processes, particularly those relating to the trial, conviction, and punishment of clerical sexual predators who enjoy powerful curial protectors.

And a rather useful practical undertaking might be: "As We uncover evil practices and corrupt deeds and false teachings among Our Cardinals and their clientelae, We shall not allow Ourself to be deterred from dealing with them strictly and according to Justice, by any consideration of who supported or who resisted Our Own election."

WHAT NEXT?
To preserve the poor silly Media from their inveterate temptation to assume that a pope has or ought to have a "programme", the Oath should not be followed by a homily.

If the Tourist Industry desired the service to be padded out to a greater length and dignified with rather more 'heritage', this could be done by a reaffirmation and confirmation (with great solemnity) of the anathemas pronounced by the Sixth Ecumenical Council against Pope Honorius I.

Now, we come to Lawrence England's latest anti-Bergoglio essay:

Anarchy in the Vatican
by Lawrence England

January 15, 2018

There are rumours circulating that an embattled, deceitful and thoroughly discredited pontificate - at least discredited among faithful Catholics following events carefully - seeks to draw the clergy of the Holy Catholic Church, by coercive means, into a new vow of obedience in particular to Pope Francis and his own 'unique' Magisterium. I shudder at such rumours.

Are these rumours true? We do not yet know. How do such rumours evolve? Who wishes these things to circulate? Are they credible? Should it be taken seriously? Only the last question can I answer and only with an opinion. I fear so.

I believe clergy have reason, based on their own observation of five years of laughably less than transparent conduct within the Vatican, to be on the alert at least. The new rumour suggests that this pontificate - one in which the use of reason as a faculty has already been 'taken down a peg or two' during the intra-ecclesial 'dialogue' concerning Amoris Laetitia - is considering the nuclear option of going for broke and enforcing loyalty to a dictatorship of relativism in the Vatican. Would that really be surprising? Not really.

But would Francis contemplate going down that road? He has already said 'I might be the Pope who splits the Church', a throwaway comment that made it sounds like splitting the Church and causing global schism was a bit like ordering food at a Roman trattoria. 'I might have the cod, or I might have the steak. Oh no, I think I might split the Catholic Church instead.'

That this pontificate has sclerotic, schizophrenic but, most pointedly, psychotic tendencies has become quite apparent over the course of time - not that the Church has never seen 'psycho Popes' before. Anarchy rules in Rome. Yet, there is more than simply this to understand about this papacy, since there is simultaneously the most aggressive and to some extent the most effective and consolidated PR campaign in Church history going on, even as I type, and it is in the complete and total service of the Pope and his reputation. Christ our Lord is not a major beneficiary of this extensive publicity campaign, but we have after five years expected very little to come from the Vatican that lauds and honours the Church's [terrestrial] Lord and Head.

As The Dictator Pope made clear, the most disquieting aspect of this pontificate isn't simply that this Pope is something of a thug, with contempt for his critics, for if he were only a thug, the whole world could see it, but rather that he is more like a mafia boss, one desperate to consolidate his power base while living among his enemies, who manages to twist and discredit the message of Jesus Christ while appearing to the majority of the world as a very kind man who is nice to the poor, who kisses babies and visits the sick, imprisoned and elderly, thus making him appear to be saintly and all the while doing it with a cameraman by his side, you know, like all the Saints did.

The truth is that real mafia bosses do not need to go to such great lengths to reinforce the image of their inherent goodness to all and sundry. Such men display greater sincerity perhaps than Francis, because, in fact, they are feared because they are dangerous, not because they appear dangerously virtuous to the public, while being cruel and scheming in secret.

Within the walls of the Vatican, Francis is feared because he is terrible and has grown powerful, [No, he has not 'grown powerful' - as pope he has immense powers no other monarch on earth has - but that he has chosen to use these powers amply and absolutely to advance his personal agenda for a church of Bergoglio to replace the one true Church], not because people are afraid that he might drop round and kiss their sick grandmother.

In truth, no good deed of Pope Francis goes undocumented now, and hasn't for five years, because such deeds are clearly needed to reinforce a PR message that the Pope is wonderful and beyond reproach. It all serves as wonderful cover and camouflage for a man seemingly without much faith in the actual words or mission of Our Lord to save souls and bring the Truth to those who need it, whether they wish for it, or not and even better cover for a psychopath to abuse his Office. [England joins Mundabor in calling Bergoglio an outright psychopath - and if he really is, then there is much lethal method in his madness, which is the madness of all afflicted with overweening hubris, a legacy of Lucifer.]

If I were to suggest one reason why The Dictator Pope has the Francis Team worried, it is that such a document puts something of a break on the canonization attempts that will be a natural consequence and reaction to the day when His Holiness dies. For his changes to be permanent, the mafia need Francis to stay relatively unblemished in the eyes of most of the Church so that his changes can receive 'sanctification' with his reputation for mercy.

And yet, even as Francis's canonization day remains a possibility - could it be the date of his annual address to the Curia? - there is another aspect to this pontificate which has become stridently clear.

Criticism - even stinging criticism, even criticism that rebukes the thuggery involved in this most unique of pontificates, even criticism that levels charges of corruption against Francis's allies, or against Francis himself, is dealt with by a stunning reaction of near total silence, silence from those who should be in some way embarrassed or ashamed. It is almost as if no amount of truth or scandal can hurt those who now enjoy the benefits of power.

Those who have taken over the house at the Vatican obviously understand that if you really want to annoy your critics, if you really want to anger people who only wish to see a modicum of natural justice flourish in the Church, you ignore them. That's worse than ripping people's hearts out while they are breathing because you are doing it spiritually, not physically.

The Francis pontificate is a valuable political and military lesson in both psychological warfare and torture. Whether it is a petition, or a Cardinal in an interview, a dubia, or an article, or allegation, the best strategy is to ignore whatever they are saying - never address what they are saying or asking. Ensure that those who you consider, with contempt, your enemies - and treated with overwhelming indifference so that they feel irrelevant and unheard, while repeating your own message. What is that message? The Pope is changing the Church regardless of what Christ taught but God doesn't mind and by the way, 'Isn't the Pope great?'

Now, in the first instance, it is clear that TeamFrancis are a little, but perhaps only marginally concerned at such things as blogs, or news sites that cover with attention to detail the obvious apostasies and sublime villainy going in the Vatican with a degree of support from the man Francis himself. But the only thing they really fear is a mass awakening within the Church not only to the reality of the conduct and character of the fraud Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his mafia, which should by now have entered into the realms of infamy, but a reawakening of the Church and Her children to the Lord Jesus Himself and His Infallible Doctrines, to Her glorious liturgy and worship and the proclamation of the message of the Salvation of souls.

For Pope Francis, his overwhelming desire (and the desire of those who surround him) seems to be to ensure that his personal reputation is impeccable even while insulting the faithful or castigating priests, or sacking good men, or instigating a global movement within the Church for abandoning Christ's teachings in favour of his own, or selling out the Pontifical Academy for Life to globalist eugenicist monsters. In fact, one could say that the damage Francis does is contingent to his excellent PR team, and is perhaps dependent on it.

But the sheer level of deception that is going on during this pontificate is staggering [Thank you for using the word 'deception', one I have often used to characterize much of what Bergoglio is doing], mind-blowing in fact, if you take into account that the push for the Kasper proposal which has wreaked such havoc already upon Jesus's Church must surely have been planned well before Francis's ascension to the Throne of Peter, because he talked about how wonderful Cardinal Kasper and his book was the very morning after his election, at his first Angelus. There was no waiting around.

On day one of his pontificate, Francis was already stealthily undermining the Lord Jesus Christ and His teaching on divorce and remarriage and was busily prepping us for his earthquake Synod, at which the Bishops of the world were, like the Catholic faithful in general, ignored and the Kasper proposal, voted down by the Bishops, was retained by Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation by virtue of a single footnote.

This pontificate is all about smoke and mirrors. Nothing is as it is presented to be.
- The Synod on the Family was the Synod on the Destruction of the Family.
- The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia was bereft of much that could be described as Apostolic.
= An oath to the 'Magisterium' of Pope Francis will, should it come about - not be an oath to Jesus Christ and His teachings, but more likely to the personal interpretation of the Gospel of the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has distanced himself from the Church's tradition and distanced himself even from the Word of God.

If Pope Francis doesn't care if the entire faithful wake up and smell the coffee in terms of the fraud being perpetuated against them, he does care whether people realise this while he is Pope. This is probably the only thing Francis fears.

Will people realise? It is, sadly, not likely since far too many Catholics are disengaged, and far too many would see no problem with apostasy, many would not even understand the relevance or meaning of the word in terms of their faith.

Readers, you who are firm in the Faith of Christ, we need to be mentally equipped for a hard reality. Francis and his team have probably taken the Church's pulse and it is likely he sees that it is so weak he can get away with anything. Take heart, we'll always have Poland! Deo volente!

And yet, there is more to the Church's most unfathomable pope [Why unfathomable? On the contrary, he is the most transparent and the most shallow figure imaginable - everything he does comes from his boundless narcissism] than this, because even when it becomes increasingly apparent that Pope Francis is psychologically unstable, given to massive temper tantrums when his personal will is thwarted or contradicted, deals contemptuously and spitefully with those who work in his service ,and stands accused of allegedly using money from Peter's Pence to support the campaign fund of his favoured political candidate during the US election, the abortion supporting Hillary Clinton, in the mainstream media, Pope Francis finds very few critics.

This is because - if I may posit a theory - wherever Christ is persecuted and sidelined, marginalised or dismissed from public life, even life within the Church, wherever He is treated with contempt, scorned and derided, all of his enemies will gather together and work together to achieve the outcome so wished for by His enemies, enemies spiritual in nature, enemies who once were angels and now are devils but who inspire those who have, through their willful rebellion against Almighty God, made themselves his servants.

The mass media - even some Catholic media organs - are deeply complicit in the covering up of the obvious personal defects and subtle doctrinal deviations of this Pope and his overarchingly political agenda, not because they are blind to them wholly, but rather because he is serving their shared purpose, or rather the Devil's purpose, in which they are only too happy to co-operate, namely the destruction of the Church from within and especially the destruction of Christian morals. [Exactly, because he has done for them in 5 years what they have been able to accomplish in the centuries since the Enlightenment, which is to weaken the Church to the point of copping out to the world.]

Be honest, if you hated the Church and Her teachings, would you protest a bad or mad Pope who set out to undermine the very religion you hate? They do not want Christ, they do not want Christianity, they want it expunged from public life and if a faithless and rebellious Bishop or Rome does the groundwork for them within the Church they will be happy to stay silent, especially if he places himself and his personal virtue in opposition to the traditional Church and its traditional evils in the eyes of the world.

We don't, sadly, live in an age in which the Press are interested in upholding and serving the public with the truth, but an age in which the truth is manifestly resented and hated within public and private institutions, most notably in Government and in the Media, as well as within the Church herself.

From what I can see, Pope Francis, in terms of fulfilling the Office of the Papacy and doing what Popes are intended by the Lord Jesus to do, or even as what a faithful Catholic is called to do, is a complete and utter fraud, a fraud made all the more scandalous by the determined effort to appear to be such a wonderful Christian on camera, making his pontificate all the more destructive. [I was a wimp, limiting myself to calling him a phony pope, when the stronger term is fraudulent.]

By all accounts, his reputation should by now be covered in ignominy, since there are so many accounts of his behaviour and his intentions to persecute those faithful to Christ are so obvious, but I suppose that is what makes the fraudulent and counterfeit look so real and yet be so fake; the effort in public to go in extreme in the opposite direction in which you are manifestly going in private, behind closed doors, as you scheme for the downfall of your enemies and plot your egocentric outmaneuvering of your enemies, yes, even our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom you claim to serve in public, but whose doctrines you make it apparent you despise in private.

Pope Francis has brought total anarchy to Vatican City and the institutions of the Church in Rome, his strange teaching wreaking havoc on everything he touches and he is visiting his anarchy upon the Church across the world.

I pray very much that the rumour of an oath to attempt to put an end to the resistance to his desired interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is false, but it has got to that stage where it has become clear that those who do resist it are already being called by his favoured so-called 'theologians', 'dissenters'.

How long will Francis tolerate dissent to his 'new paradigm'? Will he go for broke and press the nuclear button? What would a dictator Pope do, knowing that through a prestige marketing and PR campaign ,he could keep the majority of the media onside and rule by fear and by fiat an episcopate and clergy who can, he believes, be easily bullied into submission?

Pray for an end to the crisis in the Church, but whatever rank you occupy within the Church, to which the Lord has called you, pray for the endurance and courage to stand firm and publicly for Jesus Christ come what may. We may be approaching the Church's darkest hour, but dawn will come and the Lord Jesus will eventually shed upon the current darkness his radiant light. Look towards Him and be radiant.

Those who persevere until the end will receive the crown of life, but for now His servants must endure this bitter crown of thorns. Stay faithful, stay true, stay close to Him, for He will never fail you. Prepare for the worst that Francis can do, and prepare for the best, the very best, that which is beyond our comprehension, which the Lord has promised for He is with until the End of Time. Come, Lord Jesus! Victorious King!

Finally, I thoroughly concur with Fr John Hunwicke's post on the Papal Oath of Fidelity, not for the clergy to 'sign-up' to whatever novelties the incumbent is preparing to unleash on Christ's Church, but for the Pope himself to swear allegiance to Christ and to the Deposit of Faith entrusted to His servant and Vicar. It is claimed - though it is not claimed with certainty, that there was such an oath, worded as follows:


That would make a great start. But then again, I guess that even oaths, solemn oaths made in public, mean little if, in our hearts, we seek the destruction of the sacred tradition for some mysterious purpose, in which is advocated some alteration of the saving faith, the saving truth from God that is our glorious inheritance for the salvation of souls.

Pray for our Holy Mother the Church.

Meanwhile, yet another critical editorial from a Bergoglian outlet in France - the weekly Catholic magazine La Vie, which is part of the Le Monde group (Le Monde being the leftist newspaper said to have been the KGB's key outlet for spreading anti-American and pro-Soviet disinformation to the French media).

Pope in an 'air pocket'
By Jean-Pierre Denis
Editorial
Translated from

January 22, 2018

Is his enviable popularity starting to change? In any case, the pope has hit a serious air pocket. For the first time, one of his trips abroad has ended in a checkmate – in a region which he ought to know, Latin America. In Chile, the problem of clerical sex abuse continues to weigh greatly in public opinion and has not been straightened out at all.

Most notably, the pope's unswerving support for a bishop accused of having covered up the sexual abuses committed by his mentor, Fr. Fernando Karadima, has been loudly protested since 2015. But far from availing of his trip to Chile last week to settle accounts, the pope chose to poison the waters farther, insisting that there is no 'proof' to show the bishop's guilt, and seeking to put an end to the 'debate' by using a particularly offensive word to describe the victims' accusations.

Because of reaction in the media and the social networks, the winds of anger raised by the pope's remarks were such that one of the cardinals most involved in dealing with clerical sex abuse, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, published a statement distancing himself from the pope's remarks [and denouncing them]. In the church of Bergoglio, such a reaction has been very rare, indeed, especially coming from one who is considered among his Grand Electors in the March 2013 Conclave, and one of his closest collaborators.

In the plane which took him back to Rome after visiting both Chile and Peru, the leader of the Catholic Church was forced to justify his words and to apologize, in part. But when one re-reads the transcript, his self-justification seems laborious. As to his apology, it could not possibly suffice because it did not go to the deeper reason for the contretemps. And it is what the victims have said: this pope's so-called 'zero tolerance' for clerical sex abuse is not real, or in any case, his actions do not match up to his words.

Who would have thought to see Francis on the defensive? Arriving in Rome, hardly supported by observers who have not stopped their reproaches, the pope does not find himself in an easy situation. Since the start of his pontificate, he has been more and more confronted by a growing protest 'movement' bordering on illegitimacy. [????] It is essentially led by the most conservative wing of the Church – diabolically titillated by the idea of being rebellious anti-papists. [This writer certainly loathes conservatives!]

But it goes beyond them, to priests who are 'perplexed' by this pontificate and to the 'confused' faithful. Just one more detail amid so many, a gesture he made last week also in Chile: Having decided to marry a Chilean steward and his commonlaw wife of eight years on board a brief flight from Santiago to Iquique, the pope then had to try to justify how he could 'cheapen' a sacrament whose importance he has been underscoring. And an action that was never, to begin with, a brilliant PR move, quickly became a true controversy.

But to deplore the attacks on this pope does not suffice. Because they bear directly on the limits of a pontificate which places less importance on a genuine reform of structures but on the direct 'spontaneous' remark addressed to the public at large, unfiltered and without a safety fuse.

In the positive sense, he has kept the prophetic dimension['pseudo-prophetic'!] of his message – on migrants, on the throwaway culture, on sacraments made for man [but to bring him closer to the divine, not to indulge human weakness, as this pope does], the need for Christians to bring their message to the peripheries, or on the rights of indigenous tribes, as in Peru. In all of which he remains the only universal conscience. [Funny Denis should use the word 'conscience', which has devolved under Bergoglio to 'individual subjective discernment', so how can he be - how can there be - a 'universal conscience' in the Bergoglian worldview?]

But on the negative side, one must question his too hasty statements, his contradictory propositions, a habitual haziness [say the word: ambiguity, which is deliberate, so it is not just an atmospheric attribute], and sometimes ,clear statements of purpose while failing to come up with concrete actions, especially on clerical sex abuse.

He will soon celebrate five years as pope. A position for which he does not need re-election. But he is pressed for time to give body and duration to intuitions that are fundamentally good for the Church [That's the progressivist bias speaking!] and to ensure that the next pontificate will not be a reactionary countermovement. [Idem!]

In the traditional liturgy, the Christmas season ends on Candlemas, February 2, the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple, which also doubles as
the Feast of the Purification of Mary. So the Christmas decorations are still up at Holy Innocents Church where, however, today, with the rest of the Catholic
world that celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, we marked Septuagesima Sunday, the start of the annual preparation for Lent - and the priest's purple
vestments were a counterpoint to the red poinsettias adorning the altar. Here is more information on the so-called -gesima Sundays and the whole pre-Lent
preparation:

Septuagesima Sunday:
BRING BACK PRE-LENT!

January 27, 2018

While in the new-fangled calendar Sunday is the 4th in Ordinary Time, and celebrated in green vestments,in the traditional Roman calendar this Sunday is called Septuagesima, Latin for the “Seventieth” day before Easter. Already!

These pre-Lenten Sundays prepare us for the discipline of Lent, which once was far stricter.

The number 70 is more symbolic than arithmetical. The Sundays which follow are Sexagesima (“sixtieth”) and Quinquagesima (“fiftieth”) before Ash Wednesday brings in Lent, called in Latin Quadragesima, “Fortieth”.

One of our frequent commentators here enriched my view of the numerical adjectives:

---

A fairly literal interpretation of the terms Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima:
• Septuagesima Sunday is the 63rd day before Easter and thus falls in the 7th (septimus) decade or 10-day period consisting of the 61st to 70th days before Easter;
• Sexagesima Sunday is the 56th day before Easter and falls in the 6th (sextus) decade consisting of the 51st to 60th days before Easter; and
• Quinquagesima Sunday is the 49th day before Easter and falls in the 5th (quintus) decade consisting of the 41st to 50th days before Easter.

---

Septuagesima gives us a more solemn attitude for Holy Mass.

Purple is worn on Sunday rather than the green of the time after Epiphany. These pre-Lent Sundays also have Roman stations, just as each day of Lent does. The station for Septuagesima is St. Lawrence outside the walls. St. Gregory the Great (+604) preached a fiery sermon here, which we have, and which is read in part for Matins in the traditional Office. The traditional Office also presents three figures over the three pre-Lent Sundays, all foreshadowing Christ: Adam, Noah and Abraham.

When we want to follow what Holy Church is giving us in our sacred liturgical worship we should remember that Mass is only part of the picture. We also have the Office, the “liturgy of the hours”. They mesh together and reinforce and complete each other. PLEASE don’t say “the liturgy” when you mean “the Mass”. Say “Mass”.

Alleluia is sung for the last time at First Vespers of Septuagesima and is then excluded until Holy Saturday.

There was once a tradition of “burying” the Alleluia, with a depositio ceremony, like a little funeral. A hymn of farewell was sung. There was a procession with crosses, tapers, holy water, and a coffin containing a banner with Alleluia. The coffin was sprinkled, incensed, and buried. In some places, such as Paris, a straw figure bearing an Alleluia of gold letters was burned in the churchyard. Somehow that seems very French to me. This custom has been rediscovered and it is being revived far and wide. Each year we see photos of the charming moment from more and more parishes.

The prayers and readings for the Masses of these pre-Lenten Sundays were compiled by Gregory the Great, Pope in a time of great turmoil and suffering. Looking at Gregory’s time, with the massive migration of peoples, the war, the turmoil, you are reminded of our own times.

I like to imagine the Romans who were aspiring to be brought into the Church at Easter, the catechumens. They were brought out to St. Lawrence for today’s Mass. In the echoing space, wreathed in smoke and shafts of light, they heard chanted antiphons about suffering and crying out to God. Then they heard the reading in which Paul says that God wasn’t pleased with everyone who drank from the rock. These catechumens might have looked at each other and exclaimed: “What am I getting myself into?!?” Indeed, I think that was the intended effect of the formulary.

But, if throughout the Mass formulary there are grim messages, there are also signs of great hope. God does hear the cry of those who invoke him.

In the Novus Ordo of Paul VI there is no more pre-Lent. A terrible loss.

We are grateful that with Summorum Pontificum the pre-Lent Sundays have regained something of their ancient status. May they through “mutual enrichment” correct the Novus Ordo...


Septuagesima: In the beginning

January 28, 2018

The lessons for Matins introduce the theme of the penitential pre-Lenten season of
- Septuagesima: Creation and Fall, and Original Sin;
- God's intervention in human History to purify mankind through a remnant in an ark (Sexagesima week) and to choose a People for himself; and the will of the unfathomable Divinity to reveal himself through his chosen people of Israel; and
- the Mystery of the Incarnation, through which the promise to Abraham ("in thee shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed", First Lesson in the Matins for Quinquagesima Sunday) would be fulfilled by the Divine Son of the Blessed Virgin ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel", Third Lesson in the Matins for Wednesday in Septuagesima week).

The reality of Original Sin ("I am the Immaculate Conception") and the great need for penitence in our times ("Penance! Penance! Penance!") were also the messages of the memorable events which began on February 11, 1858 [Mary's apparitions to Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes]:

---

But the world, which today affords so many justifiable reasons for pride and hope, is also undergoing a terrible temptation to materialism ...

This materialism is not confined to that condemned philosophy which dictates the policies and economy of a large segment of mankind. It rages also in a love of money which creates ever greater havoc as modern enterprises expand, and which, unfortunately, determines many of the decisions which weigh heavy on the life of the people.

It finds expression in the cult of the body, in excessive desire for comforts, and in flight from all the austerities of life. It encourages scorn for human life, even for life which is destroyed before seeing the light of day. ...

May priests be attentive to [the Blessed Virgin's] appeal and have the courage to preach the great truths of salvation fearlessly. The only lasting renewal, in fact, will be one based on the changeless principles of faith, and it is the duty of priests to form the consciences of Christian people. (Pius XII, Le Pèlerinage de Lourdes)

---

May we all find good priests to guide us as we "go up to Jerusalem" (Gospel for Quinquagesima Sunday) and help us to be released from the bonds of our sins (peccatorum vinculis: Collect for Quinquagesima Sunday), for the burdensome truth remains unchanged: "many are called, but few are chosen" (Gospel for Septuagesima Sunday).

Septuagesima Sunday

January 26, 2018

Until the reformers of the 1960s abolished it, Septuagesima had, for a millennium and a half at least, pointed the Latin Church to the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Old Testament], and its structural centrality to Christian understanding and to the living of the Christian life. A proper respect for the Pentateuch is something that would come more easily to Catholics if we all had a deeper inculturation into our Jewish roots. Sadly, the the 'reformers' of the 1960s weakened this rather than enhancing it.

So: Septuagesima and its week give us Eve, and Adam, and their Creation; and their Fall. Members of the Anglican Patrimony do not need (but perhaps some others do) a recommendation to read an imaginative piece of theological fiction by the great Anglican apologist Professor C S Lewis: his novel Voyage to Venus, alternatively known as Perelandra. It constitutes an extended meditation on the Fall and on the strategies of the Enemy.

This morning, I would like to offer you a few sentences which seem to me to be highly useful solvents of "The Enlightenment" and of its demonic errors. And just the sort of thing which we need before opening the Word of God at the beginning of Genesis and submitting ourselves to what we find there. [I have made one or two tiny syntactical adjustments.]

---

" ... the triple distinction of truth from myth and of both from fact is purely terrestrial - part and parcel of that unhappy division between soul and body which resulted from the Fall.

Even on Earth the sacraments exist as a permanent reminder that the division is neither wholesome nor final. The Incarnation was the beginning of its disappearance ...

The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed, like the distinction between fact and myth, is purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can. Hence we rightly, for our use, distinguish the accidental from the essential. But step outside that frame and the distinction drops down into the void, fluttering useless wings."

---

(St John Paul remarked that, in God's Providence, there are no such things as coincidences.)

After meeting the pope, Cardinal Zen says
Vatican is ‘selling out’ Church in China

Monday, 29 Jan 2018


Cardinal Joseph Zen has accused the Vatican of “selling out” the Catholic Church in China.

In a post on his website, the former Bishop of Hong Kong said Pope Francis offered words of consolation to the ‘underground’ Church in the country in a private audience earlier this month. However, the cardinal still thinks the Vatican is working against the Church.

A report on AsiaNews last week said a Vatican delegation had asked one ‘underground’ bishop to resign and another to accept demotion. The delegation wanted excommunicated government-backed bishops to replace them.

Cardinal Zen confirmed this report, saying: “Yes, as far as I know, things happened just as they are related in AsiaNews.”

One of the underground bishops, Bishop Zhuang, asked Cardinal Zen to pass on his words to the Pope. The cardinal then travelled to Rome so he could personally hand a letter to Pope Francis. He was able to do this after the Weekly General Audience on January 10.

Later that day, he received a phone call saying Pope Francis would receive him in private audience on Friday, January 12. Cardinal Zen said that during that audience, he asked Pope Francis whether he had had time to “look into the matter”.

The Pope responded: “Yes, I told them not to create another Mindszenty case!”

Cardinal Mindszenty was Archbishop of Budapest during Hungary’s Communist dictatorship. The regime imprisoned him, but he was able to flee to the American embassy during the anti-Communist uprising of 1956.

However, under pressure from the Communist government, the Holy See told the Cardinal to leave the country and replaced him with a successor more to the government’s liking.

Cardinal Zen said the Pope’s words “should be rightly understood as of consolation and encouragement more for [suffering Catholics in China] than for me”.

Despite the reassurance, the cardinal says he is not optimistic: “Do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.”

He concludes on a defiant note: “Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.”

Sandro Magister has a more comprehensive report, as he quotes the full letter Cardinal Zen posted on his blogsite addressed to the media to clarify how things stand at the moment from his viewpoint and personal knowledge of developments in the Vatican-Beijing rapprochement that bodes badly for the underground Church in China.

Cardinal Zen: "The pope told me..."
But new information revealed by the cardinal in a letter
to the media brings even worse news than we already knew

January 29, 2018

The open letter reproduced in its entirety below was published today, Monday, January 29, by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, on his blog, and was immediately republished by the agency Asia News of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions.

In it, the cardinal reveals the essential contents of a conversation he had with Pope Francis, to whom he revealed his grave fears over the steps taken recently in China by Vatican representatives.

These steps consisted in asking two “underground” bishops who are recognized by the Holy See, those of Shantou and Mindong, to make way for two bishops appointed by the government, both illicit and, the first one, excommunicated.

Cardinal Zen now reveals that Pope Francis replied to him that he had given the order “not to create another Mindszenty case,” alluding to the heroic cardinal and primate of Hungary who was required by the Vatican authorities to leave his country in 1971, was removed from his position in 1973, and in 1975 was replaced with a new primate favored by the communist regime.

Here is the cardinal's letter:

---

Dear Friends in the Media,

Since AsiaNews has revealed some recent facts in the Church in mainland China, of legitimate bishops being asked by the “Holy See” to resign and make place for illegitimate, even explicitly excommunicated, “bishops”, many different versions of the facts and interpretations are creating confusion among the people. Many, knowing of my recent trip to Rome, are asking me for some clarification.

Back in October, when Bishop Zhuang received the first communication from the Holy See and asked me for help, I sent someone to bring his letter to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, with, enclosed, a copy for the Holy Father. I don’t know if that enclosed copy reached the desk of the Holy Father.

Fortunately, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai [formerly #2 man at Propaganda Fide, who was inexplicably demoted by this pope to be nuncio to Guam last year], who was still in Rome and could meet the Pope in a farewell visit. On that occasion, he brought the two cases of Shantou and Mindong to the knowledge of the Holy Father. The Holy Father was surprised and promised to look into the matter.

Given the words of the Holy Father to Archbishop Hon, the new facts in December were all the more a shocking surprise to me. When the old distressed Bishop Zhuang asked me to bring to the Holy Father his answer to the message conveyed to him by the “Vatican Delegation” in Beijing, I simply could not say “No”. But what could I do to make sure that his letter reach the Holy Father, while not even I can be sure that my own many letters did reach him?

To make sure that our voice reached the Holy Father, I took the sudden decision of going to Rome. I left Hong Kong the night of 9th January, arriving in Rome the early morning of 10th January, just in time (actually, a bit late) to join the Wednesday Public Audience. At the end of the audience, we Cardinals and Bishops are admitted to the “bacia mano” and I had the chance to put into the hands of the Holy Father the envelop, saying that I was coming to Rome for the only purpose of bringing to him a letter of Bishop Zhuang, hoping he can find time to read it (in the envelop there was the original letter of the Bishop in Chinese with my translation into Italian and a letter of mine).

For obvious reasons, I hoped my appearance at the audience would not be too much noticed, but my late arrival in the hall made it particularly noticeable. Anyway, now everybody can see the whole proceeding from the Vatican TV (by the way, the audience was held in Paul VI Hall, not in St. Peter’s Square and I was a little late to the audience, but did not have to “wait in a queue, in a cold weather”, as some media erroneously reported).

When in Rome, I met Fr. Bernard Cervellera of AsiaNews. We exchanged our information, but I told him not to write anything. He complied. Now that someone else broke the news, I can agree to confirm it. Yes, as far as I know, things happened just as they are related in AsiaNews (the AsiaNews report “believes” that the Bishop leading the Vatican Delegation was Msgr. Celli. I do not know in what official capacity he was there, but it is most likely that he was the one there in Beijing).

In this crucial moment and given the confusion in the media, I, knowing directly the situation of Shantou and indirectly that of Mindong, feel duty-bound to share my knowledge of the facts, so that the people sincerely concerned with the good of the Church may know the truth to which they are entitled. I am well aware that in doing so I may talk about things which, technically, are qualified as “confidential”. But my conscience tells me that in this case the “right to truth” should override any such “duty of confidentiality”.

With such conviction, I am going to share with you also the following:

On the afternoon of that day, 10th January, I received a phone-call from Casa Santa Marta telling me that the Holy Father would receive me in private audience in the evening of Friday 12th January (though the report appeared only on 14th January in the Holy See bulletin). That was the last day of my 85th year of life, what a gift from Heaven! (Note that it was the vigil of the Holy Father’s departure for Chile and Peru, so the Holy Father must have been very busy).

On that evening the conversation lasted about half an hour. I was rather disorderly in my talking, but I think I succeeded to convey to the Holy Father the worries of his faithful children in China.

The most important question I put to the Holy Father (which was also in the letter) was whether he had had time “to look into the matter” (as he promised Archbishop Savio Hon). In spite of the danger of being accused of breach of confidentiality, I have decidde to tell you what His Holiness said: “Yes, I told them (his collaborators in the Holy See) not to create another Mindszenty case”! I was there in the presence of the Holy Father representing my suffering brothers in China. His words should be rightly understood as of consolation and encouragement more for them than for me.

I think it was most meaningful and appropriate for the Holy Father to make this historical reference to Card. Josef Mindszenty, one of the heroes of our faith. (Card. Josef Mindszenty was the Archbishop of Budapest, Cardinal Primate of Hungary under Communist persecution. He suffered much in several years in prison. During the short-lived revolution of 1956, he was freed from prison by the insurgents and, before the Red Army crashed the revolution, took refuge in the American Embassy. Under the pressure of the Government he was ordered by the Holy See to leave his country and immediately a successor was named to the liking of the Communist Government). [Isn't the case of the two Chinese bishops asked by the Vatican to give way to two 'illegal' Beijing-appointed bishops already worse than the Mindszenty case? At least, Mindszenty was able to seek refuge in the US embassy before the Vatican gave in to the communist regime in Hungary!]

With this revelation, I hope I have satisfied the legitimate “right to know” of the media and of my brothers in China.

The important thing for us now is to pray for the Holy Father, very fittingly by singing the traditional song “Oremus”: "Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco, Dominus conservet eum et vivificet eum et beatum faciat eum in terra et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius."

Some explanations may still be in order.

1. Please, notice that the problem is not the resignation of the legitimate Bishops, but the request to make place for the illegitimate and even excommunicated ones. Many old underground Bishops, though the retirement age law has never been enforced in China, have insistently asked for a successor, but have never received any answer from the Holy See. Some others, who have a successor already named, may be even already in possession of the Bulla signed by the Holy Father, were ordered not to proceed with the ordination for fear of offending the Government.

2. I have talked mainly of the two cases of Shantou and Mindong. I do not have any other information except the copy of a letter written by an outstanding Catholic lady, a retired University professor well-acquainted with affairs of the Church in China, in which she warns Msgr. Celli against pushing for the legitimization of “bishop” Lei Shi Ying in Sichuan.

3. I acknowledge myself as a pessimist regarding the present situation of the Church in China, but my pessimism has a foundation in my long direct experience of the Church in China. From 1989 to 1996 I used to spend six months a year teaching in the various Seminaries of the official Catholic community. I had direct experience of the slavery and humiliation to which those our brother Bishops are subjected. And from the recent information, there is no reason to change that pessimistic view.

The Communist Government is making new harsher regulations limiting religious freedom. They are now strictly enforcing regulations which up to now were practically only on paper (from the 1st of February 2018 attendance to Mass in the underground will no longer be tolerated). [That is even more disturbing than asking the underground bishops to make way for illegal bishops! How will the government enforce this ban on 'underground' Masses? And where will the Catholics of the underground Church go for the liturgy and sacraments? Does Bergoglio realize that his self-serving 'Ostpolitik' is now driving the underground Church to be a 'church of the catacombs', as it were?]

4. Some say that all the efforts to reach an agreement is to avoid an ecclesial schism. How ridiculous! The schism is there, in the Independent Church! [That is, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association that is, for all intents and purposes, a 'national church' for China wholly independent of the Vatican.]

The Popes have avoided using the word “schism” because they knew that many in the official Catholic community were there not by their own free will, but under heavy pressure. The proposed “unification” would force everybody into that community. The Vatican would be giving its blessing to the new strengthened schismatic Church, taking away the bad conscience from all those who are already willing renegades and those others who would readily join them.

5. Is it not good to try to find mutual ground to bridge the decades-long divide between the Vatican and China? Yes, but can there be anything really “mutual” with a totalitarian regime? Either you surrender or you accept persecution, but remaining faithful to yourself (can you imagine an agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod?)

6. So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.

7. Some expert on the Catholic Church in China is saying that it is not logical to suppose a harsher religious policy from Xi Jinping. However, we are not talking about logical thinking, but the obvious and crude reality.

8. Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.

Hong Kong, January 29, 2018

---

Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate:
Behind the scenes of the order's
persecution by the Vatican
by Father Paolo M. Siano
Translated for Rorate caeli by 'Francesca Romana' from

January 24, 2018

A few days ago, on January 20th there was an important anniversary in the history of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (FI). On that date six years ago (2012), in our Roman convent on Via Boccea, a meeting took place between the then General Council of the FI and five friars (two Americans and three Italians) who were opponents of Father Stefano Manelli, founder and Minster General [of the Order].

Myself, along with other professors of the then FI Seminary and those in charge of formation, were invited by Father Manelli to take part in the event. The meeting, which lasted the entire day in two sessions, was shocking for the amount of vehemence and malicious attacks made against Father Manelli.

With hindsight we see now that those accusations were gradually deployed and developed in the mudslinging and the ecclesiastic, media and judiciary war conducted against Father Manelli - a war promoted and/or backed by some churchmen (even in the Vatican) - friars, laity and a somewhat “Tridentine” diocesan priest.

Over these past six years I have witnessed the objective devastation of my Religious Family (Friars, Nuns, Laity) the persecution (still going on) of our Founding Father and our authentic FI charism approved by Pope St. John Paul II.

My vocational future and that of other confreres, who like me defend the person and line of our Founders, is uncertain. In the light of various facts, I’m convinced that at least until the end of this Pontificate, we are liable to be monitored, obstructed and persecuted wherever we go and whatever we do or become.

In the meeting on January 21st 2012, those three Italian friars essentially said this to us (I’m a witness to it): “If you don’t remove Latin from the Seminary (at that time, The Theological Seminary of the Immaculate Mediatrix) we will denounce you to the Congregation [CIVCSVA-The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life] where – as you know – the modernists [or progressives] are and who will have you put under a commissioner”. And that’s exactly what happened. We didn’t bend to the threat, so the Visit arrived and we were put under the Commissioner.

Now one of those three Italian priests (in the meantime one of the two Americans has gone back to the Minor Conventuals) is the chief editor of “The Franciscans of the Immaculate 2018 Calendar” (Why wasn’t it sent here to Ferrara?). In a certain sense it is an official text inasmuch as it specifies that it has been published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate “with the benediction and supervision of the Apostolic Commissioner Don Sabino Ardito, SDB”.

Strange though to see on the FI Calendar, that Pope Francis’s letter to the Young (January 13th 2017) is alongside a photo of some young people in the company of - Pope John Paul II! Anyway, the photos and texts cited from St. Maximilian Kolbe, Blessed Paul VI and St. John Paul II are very beautiful.

Nevertheless, we cannot keep silent about some perplexities in the article from the Editor, “Young People, Families, St. Maximilian and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate”. A good thing indeed it is to underline our discipleship as the Marian-Franciscan ideal of Father Kolbe.

Nonetheless, the exclusion with regard to our Founder Fathers, Manelli and Pellettieri, who are not mentioned at all, is very grave and symptomatic. This is in fact a sign of their damnatio memoriae, which they would like to plant among the new FI (The Editor is one of Manelli’s five accusers and opponents at the FI
meeting in January 2012) with the backing and/ or under the direction of some curial figures. [It was clear from the start of this reprehensible FFI episode that both the Prefect of the CIVCSVA, Cardinal Braz de Aviz, and its #2 man, Mons. Rodriguez Carballo, signed off on the crackdown on the FI and have given their full support to the 'commissars' they subsequently assigned to oversee the FI and its female counterpart order.]

In effect, what was and should be our “Marian Vow of Unlimited Consecration to the Immaculate”, which was the primary constitutive vow of the FI, is instead reduced by the Editor (and by the Heads) to a “fourth vow (mass-media – and missionary nature…)”. Who knows what the extended dotted line means. All of this would confirm the program imposed from “on high”: to remake, or manipulate - on the drawing-board - our FI charism, history, formation, thought and conscience.

The plan in action was already in some way perceptible in the disgraceful and calumnious interview published in the 2014 March number of the Vita Consacrata Testimoni (EDB) magazine, which certainly does not stand out for its appreciation of the reality of a somewhat “traditional” Religious Life.

In short, the plan of a few individuals was deducible for some time: to calumniate and destroy Father Manelli “identifying him” first, with Monsignor Lefebvre, second, with Father Maciel Degollado, and third, with Friar Elia of Cortona: consequently cutting off the FI from their besmirched Founder; treating the Founders like infidels of the Church and faithless to the FI charism; denying their charismatic contribution (eg. The Marian Vow and Franciscan poverty); constructing new “founders” and re-programming the FI, perhaps by making them shift slowly towards a probable “return” to the Conventual or other Minor Orders.

Do not forget that in the great Franciscan Families there is a project in the making for unification. (https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/il-francescanesimo-del-futuro-annunciato-da-radio-vaticana/). The Editor of the Calendar seems to be even too optimistic, convinced the FI will conserve at the end of the external administration their fundamental characteristics.

It will not be so: The Marian Vow has already been eliminated, and our Marian nature reduced to a so-called “atmosphere”, an act of consecration, no longer a public and constitutive Vow. Not to mention true Franciscan Poverty and the war against the Associations. In short, in light of the last six years, it can be deduced that from the very start a few individuals had the intent to destroy us.

The resistance, even the legal and judicial one, slowed down their plans which nevertheless continue. Another painful point by the Editor is the emphasis that the external administrator is working on FI “doctrinal clarification”. The insiders know well that he is one of those who accused and calumniated us of a “Lefebvrian drift” and of betraying the Church and our charism.

In truth, in knowledge and in conscience, we now see a “drift” and it is certainly not in the traditionalist sense. For example, it would be interesting to investigate the positions of the Friars and the Heads of the FI about the matter of Communion allowed to the divorced/remarried who are living more uxorio. I, on the other hand, share the DUBIA of the four (now 2) Cardinals and many other more or less well-known prelates and priests

In effect, we fear that those who have made or have even now been making “discernments” about the FI, in other words, those who want “to re-program us”, are in fact influenced by at least some of those principles that constituted the joint plan of Karl Rahner’s transcendental Thomism and Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1971 Liberation Theology.

Churchmen and church workers formed in such a progressive mentality can do nothing other than hope for and cause our destruction [DIM87pt](http://amicideltimoneferrara.blogspot.it/2017/03/teologia-della-liberazione-anno-1971.html).

As long as they are influential in the Church we have no way out.
Appealing to the Vatican Authorities would appear useless. Our Sisters of the Franciscans of the Immaculate had appealed to the Apostolic Signatura against the CIVCSVA and probably they would have been proven right and gotten justice. However someone from “on high” - instead of respecting the correct legal course, perhaps by spurNing the Signatura’s sentence - has practically blocked everything, by accepting the CIVCSVA’s request and decreeing another external commissioning.

With knowledge and in conscience before the Divine Judgment, the God of Israel, we can no longer keep quiet and watch silently and passively at the triumph of injustice and speciousness which indeed cry out for vengeance in the sight of God.

May God and Mary Our Blessed Mother, Co-Redemptrix, the New Ester, help us to bear this suffering for the good of the Church. We do not know what our future will be: whether it will be as FI, diocesan priests, or reduced to the lay state. Only an extraordinary intervention of Grace can save us. Otherwise “we will die” vocationally, but with honor, not as traitors.

As if to remind us that the persecution of the FI is just one of the many horrible games Bergoglio is playing to institutionalize his wreckovation of the one true Church into his very own church of Bergoglio, he struck two blows today on two fronts. Antonio Socci sums up today's double-whammy from Bergoglio:

---

January 29, 2018
Every day, a hatchet blow (or two) on the Church. Today, [the pope] first attacked Catholic universities and ecclesiastical instruction,
and then reaffirmed the Bergoglian doctrine on [quick, easy and free] marriage annulments.

---

The instruction to Catholic universities comes in the form of an Apostolic Constitution, no less, which Bergoglio has entitled Veritatis Gaudium (The joy of truth) - a supreme irony for someone who daily exemplifies all the moral turpitude that John Paul II condemns in VERITATIS SPLENDOR and who has made lying and deception standard tactics to advancing his agenda.You may read about this new Bergoglio text from Andrea Tornielli:
http://www.lastampa.it/2018/01/29/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/the-pope-asks-catholic-universities-for-a-cultural-revolution-Yktf3rHxCR10bKNrbj9uyH/pagina.html

And all that doublespeak about conscience was contained in an address to the Roman Rota, the Church's highest appellate tribunal whose case load is largely to make the final decision on 'problematic' requests for marriage annulments. I swear the doublespeak on conscience and discernment is truly revolting...Judge for yourself:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/01/29/180129b.html

You might like to read Mundabor's short but merciless reaction to Veritatis gaudium (I gag even just to write out that blasted title!)
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2018/01/29/veritatis-gaudium-francis-war-against-catholicism-rages-on/

I suspect most Catholics are like the frogs who get used to the 'warmth' of Bergoglio and the changes he is bringing to 'the Church', and quite a few are like the frog who notices what's happening. Then, the analogy fails because those who notice won't jump
out of the pot in the sense of leaving the one true Church. In a cartoon world, the frog(s) who jump(s) out would probably overpower the man controlling the fire (Bergoglio as Satan surrogate) and push him into the boiling kettle or maybe directly into the flames
where he belongs...

Grrrrr... You know that story about the boiling frog? You can't put a frog into boiling water because he will simply jump out. But if you put it into warm water which is then brought to
a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. If I may alter the analogy I used in the caption above: That's what Bergoglio is doing to the articles of
Catholic faith, but with a major difference - he is making little incremental steps on many different issues (i.e., he has several pots simmering, each with a different article of
faith, for which he awaits the right time to bring each one to a boil and) and then, wham!, as at the time of the Arian crisis, the Catholic world will awake one day to find
that 'the Church' is suddenly Bergoglian and secular (not even Christian) - because 'the Church' led and governed by the man who was elected to lead and govern the Roman
Catholic Church in March 2013 would have institutionalized the church of Bergoglio in place of the one true Church of Christ. If Sandro Magister is right, then the end to the
Catholic ban on artificial contraception may be about to end. I'd like to think Magister may be sounding a false alarm here, but given Bergoglio's record, I wouldn't be surprised.

Goodbye, 'Humanae Vitae':
Bergoglio about to liberalize the pill

January 30, 2018

Goodbye, “Humanae Vitae.” Half a century later, the encyclical against artificial methods of birth control that marked the most dramatic moment of the pontificate of Paul VI - rejected by entire episcopates, contested by countless theologians, disobeyed by myriads of faithful - is now giving way to a radical reinterpretation, to a “paradigm shift” undoubtedly desired and encouraged by Pope Francis himself.

Paradox would have it that Paul VI should be the pope whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio admires and praises the most. And precisely - his own words - for the “prophetic brilliance” with which he wrote that encyclical and for his “courage in standing up against the majority, in defending moral discipline, in applying a cultural brake, in opposing neo-Malthusianism present and future.”

But the reality is that “everything depends on how ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted,” as Pope Francis never fails to comment. Because “the question is not that of changing doctrine, but of digging deep and making sure that pastoral practice takes into account the situations and what persons are able to do.” [i.e. Bergoglio's right hand giveth, pro forma, then yanks back everything with his left.]

His wish becomes command. An authoritative guise has now been given to the new interpretive paradigm of HV, with an explicit go-ahead for artificial contraception, by one of the pope’s most respected theologians, Maurizio Chiodi, professor of moral theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy and a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, already the author of a book published in 2006, Etica della vita, that upheld the legitimacy of artificial procreation.

The authoritativeness of his position is confirmed by two connected facts.

The first is the context in which Chiodi laid down the new interpretation of hv: a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University on December 14, in the course of a round of meetings dedicated to that encyclical ON the fiftieth anniversary of its publication, organized by the university’s faculty of moral theology, directed by the Argentine Jesuit Humberto Miguel Yáñez, a protege of Bergoglio’s.

A detailed account of this conference was provided by the American journalist Diane Montagna on LifeSite News on January 8, followed by lively reactions from defenders of the contested encyclical:

But now there’s more. On Sunday, January 28, Chiodi’s lecture was prominently featured by the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, Avvenire, in its monthly supplement “Noi, Famiglia & Vita,” (We, family and life), introduced with a commentary entitled “From Pope Montini to Francis, development in fidelity,” which states:
“It is a position [that of Chiodi] that authoritatively takes its place in the debate underway, and that must not be understood as an overrun or critique of ‘Humanae Vitae,’ a text that is and remains the fruit of a prophetic and courageous decision for the time and historical situation in which pope Montini conceived of it, not without torment and not without having clarified that this was a matter of a magisterium that was neither infallible nor irreformable. [Bergoglio's working premise, in short, for overturning HV.]

In this perspective, the theologian’s reflection is to be understood as a proposal that is intended to represent the development of a tradition. And a tradition, in order to be alive and to continue to speak to the women and men of our time, must not be fossilized but rendered dynamic, which means to be in keeping with a society that is changing.

Fr. Chiodi has the courage to define the problem that is raised by some theologians and experts on pastoral practice. Are natural methods really to be understood as the only means possible for family planning?”