The National Association of Catholic Families



This edition of CF NEWS No.2229 posted at 2.28 pm on Sunday, April 15th, 2018. VATICAN WATCH Cardinals can declare a heretical pope has 'lost his office' - Francis contradicts previous Popes - Cardinal Burke on the limits of papal power - Rome terror threat never been so high - Order of Malta members warned - Pope Francis issues Apostolic Letter - Rome Conference, 'Chiesa, Dove Vai? - St. John Paul II prophesied priests would suffer for opposing remarriage PARENTS AS PRIMARY EDUCATORS, PROTECTORS Passing on the Faith to your children - Government homeschooling crackdown HUMANAE VITAE Here's how Pope's teaching is being used to reject Humanae Vitae UNITED NATIONS Bureaucrats push full steam ahead for abortion EUROPE Europe's Civilizational Exhaustion CHINA SUPPLEMENT Cardinal Zen NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD GERMANY Prelate explains why bishops asked Rome for 'clarification' - UK Sunday schools protected - UK Praying for an end to abortion - UK Police block Alfie Evans' parents from taking him out of hospital 1 - USA Cardinal Wuerl calls for obedience to Peter - USA Professor on probation for mentioning Christian faith in front of Muslim - INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news - INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week INTERNATIONAL The Prophet Voris - INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo NEWMAN Fr.Ian Ker: Newman on Conscience EVENT Humanae Vitae and the Sanctity of Life BOOK REVIEW Cheap Sex MEDIA Film review: Chappaquiddick - Facebook censorship of conservatives COMMENT FROM THE INTERNET Synod on Young People, Libera Nos Domine - 'Catholic Church, where are you going'? - The Bergoglian Tango - A new Borgia pope? - A 'Difficult Word' announced in Saint Peter's Square - Resisting Peter: Cardinal Bergoglio knows exactly how that works - It's time for Catholics to face the truth about the papal confusion





Vatican watch

Cardinals can declare a heretical pope has 'lost his office' CONTINUE READING
Francis contradicts previous Popes CONTINUE READING
Cardinal Burke on the limits of papal power CONTINUE READING
Rome terror threat never been so high
Order of Malta members warned CONTINUE READING
Pope Francis issues Apostolic Letter CONTINUE READING
Rome Conference, 'Chiesa, Dove Vai? CONTINUE READING
St. John Paul II prophesied priests would suffer for opposing remarriage CONTINUE READING

Parents as primary educators, protectors

Passing on the Faith to Your Children   VIDEO CONTINUE READING
Government homeschooling crackdown CONTINUE READING

Humanae Vitae

Here’s how Pope’s teaching is being used to reject Humanae Vitae CONTINUE READING

United Nations

Bureaucrats push full steam ahead for abortion CONTINUE READING


Europe's Civilizational Exhaustion CONTINUE READING

China Supplement


News from around the world

GERMANY Prelate explains why bishops asked Rome for ‘clarification' CONTINUE READING  
Sunday schools protected CONTINUE READING
UK Praying for an end to abortion CONTINUE READING CONTINUE READING
UK Police block Alfie Evans’ parents from taking him out of hospital CONTINUE READING 1
USA Cardinal Wuerl calls for obedience to Peter CONTINUE READING
USA Professor on probation for mentioning Christian faith in front of Muslim CONTINUE READING
INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news
INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week CONTINUE READING
INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo


Fr.Ian Ker: Newman on Conscience   VIDEO CONTINUE READING


Humanae Vitae and the Sanctity of Life CONTINUE READING

Book review



Film review: Chappaquiddick CONTINUE READING
Facebook censorship of conservatives CONTINUE READING

Comment from the internet

Synod on Young People, Libera Nos Domine   VIDEO CONTINUE READING
'Catholic Church, where are you going'? CONTINUE READING
The Bergoglian Tango CONTINUE READING
The new Borgia pope? CONTINUE READING
A 'Difficult Word' announced in Saint Peter's Square CONTINUE READING
Resisting Peter: Cardinal Bergoglio knows exactly how that works CONTINUE READING
It’s time for Catholics to face the truth about the papal confusion CONTINUE READING

Our Catholic Heritage

Site of the day : Temple Belwood CONTINUE READING






To TRANSLATE this bulletin,Click here and then enter the URL
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News 2225.htm

Recent editions

For last edition of CF News click here

EWTN live television coverage

For UK / Ireland click here
For Asia / Pacific click here
For Africa / Asia click here


For podcasts click here






















Vatican watch




Cardinals can declare that a heretical pope has 'lost his office'

STEPHEN KOKX reports for LifeSiteNews: 'True devotion to the Chair of St. Peter is essential to a Christian spiritual life, but today there exists a 'false devotion' to the Pope that claims he 'must always be obeyed, no matter what,' renowned Church historian Roberto de Mattei told a gathering of Catholics just outside Chicago this past weekend.

Speaking at the 2018 Catholic Family News conference, de Mattei called on laity and clergy alike to oppose the 'theological error' of 'papolatry' and to live out a 'true devotion' to the papacy.

'True devotion to the Chair of Peter is not the worship of the man who occupies this Cathedra, but is the love and veneration for the mission which Jesus Christ gave to Peter and his successors.'

Professor de Mattei's talk - delivered to approximately 100 Catholics hailing from multiple continents - touched on a variety of topics, including collegiality, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and the claim that Pope Francis has fallen into heresy and is no longer pope.

Obedience to God first

Central to de Mattei's hour-long address was an urgent request for Catholics to expose by name the pastors who contradict perennial Church teaching.

Opposing errors is not enough, Professor de Mattei said. 'We need to have the courage to say: 'Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the confusion which exists today in the Church. Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the heresies which are circulating in the Church today.''

Papolatry views the Pope as a 'new Christ.' It takes the position that 'there is no need to worry about anything' and that the pope 'perfects the doctrine of his predecessors, adapting it to the changing of the times.'

Papolatrists 'deceive themselves' and 'tranquilize' their conscience by thinking the pope is 'always right, even when he contradicts himself or his predecessors.'

In reality, 'Tradition remains the criterion for discerning that which is Catholic and that which is not.' 'Tradition comes before the Pope and not the Pope before Tradition.' Otherwise the Church's perennial magisterium is replaced with a 'living' magisterium that has 'its rule of faith in the subject of the authority and not in the object of the transmitted truth.'

Obedience to the Pope 'has its limits in the natural and Divine Laws, and in the Tradition of the Church, of which the Pope is guardian and not creator.'

Catholics cannot remain silent

Professor de Mattei, who will be speaking at LifeSiteNews' Roman Life Forum in May 2018, also pointed out that Catholics cannot succumb to a 'catacombist' mentality in response to the crisis in the Church.

Catholics cannot 'retreat from the battlefield' and think they can 'survive without fighting.' It is not permitted for a Christian to leave behind their militant attitude. 'To make silence a rule of behavior...would be an error.' It would be to commit a guilty silence.

Who then must speak up and what must they do? Professor de Mattei said the responsibility falls not only on ordinary Catholics but also on Cardinals who in their silence 'don't fulfill their duty.' It also falls on the shoulders of Pope Emeritus Benedict.

'The politics of silence has become a jail which imprisons many conservatives.' 'Today is the moment to speak.' There has been a 'modernist infiltration inside the Church' that is 'wreaking havoc' in Rome. Catholics must oppose this infiltration with filial resistance, not with sarcasm, irreverence, bitter zeal, or pride.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Professor de Mattei then shared his thoughts on the historic resignation of Pope Benedict.

It is 'incorrect' for Benedict to refer to himself as Pope Emeritus. Quoting Cardinal Brandmüller, de Mattei said 'Canon Law doesn't recognize the figure of a Pope Emeritus.' For Benedict to still dress in the white papal vestments and to still live in the Vatican 'creates confusion,' de Mattei told LifeSiteNews. Benedict 'seems to be convinced of still being Pope.' But 'it is impossible that two Popes can exist. The Papacy is not dismountable: there can be only one Vicar of Christ.'

Professor de Mattei also addressed the increasingly relevant, and increasingly important, question of whether Pope Francis is still the pope.

After citing others scholars who have suggested Francis has fallen into heresy, de Mattei said 'we must admit that the Pope himself promotes and propagates errors and heresies in the Church.' But, 'as a tree can live for a certain time after its roots have been severed, so can jurisdiction be maintained...even after a fall into heresy. Jesus Christ maintains the person of the heretical Pontiff in his jurisdiction provisionally, until the Church recognizes the deposition.'

Speaking to LifeSiteNews, de Mattei said 'nobody can depose the pope' but the Cardinals, can, in principle, 'declare and recognize that being a heretic, [the pope] has lost his office.'

Until such a time comes, de Mattei added, Catholics must 'clarify to people that unfortunately [Pope Francis] propagates heresy.' However, Francis 'does not lose his office until his heresy becomes manifest' and widespread. This 'has not yet happened.'

Occupying powers in Rome

Professor de Mattei proceeded to issue what appeared to be a warning to Catholics concerned with the direction Francis is leading the Church.

'We need to be careful of speaking of the 'Bergoglian church,' or of 'the new Church.' The Church today is occupied by churchmen who betray or deform the message of Christ, but it has not been substituted by another church. There is only one Catholic Church, in which they cohabitate in a confused and fragmentary way, different and counterpoised theologies and philosophies. It is more correct to speak of a 'Bergoglian theology,' of a 'Bergoglian philosophy,' and, if one wishes, of a 'Bergoglian religion' or 'irreligion.''

There are not two Churches, but one Church, he continued. It is, to be sure, a Church where bad tendencies have been introduced but it is a Church still governed visibly by its Vicar Pope Francis, whose election has not been contested by any Cardinal.

Professor de Mattei urged Catholics to unite themselves to 'the good priests' inside of the one Church.

Assisting the auto-demolition of the Church

Drawing on his vast knowledge of Church history, Professor de Mattei explained how Pope Francis' support for decentralization and collegiality is undermining the papacy.

Reminding his listeners of how ultramontanists were victorious at Vatican I, Professor de Mattei noted that the real protagonists of Vatican II were Liberal Catholics, and that among other things Liberal Catholics seek to transform the 'monarchical and hierarchical constitution of the Church into a democratic and parliamentary structure.'

Professor de Mattei pointed out that this is precisely what Francis is attempting to do. He wants to usher in a 'polycentric or multi-sided church' where the papacy is 'conceived as a form of ministry at the service of the other churches, renouncing the juridical Primacy or government of Peter.'

But, de Mattei continued, such a view of the papacy runs counter to what has been handed down through the ages. The Pope is not an equal with the other Bishops. 'Jesus Christ entrusted the mission of governing to Peter, after the Resurrection.' To democratize the Church and to 'reduce her to a purely-sacramental dimension' is to 'transition from a juridical Church to a sacramental Church, a Church of communion.'

Moreover, Professor de Mattei added, to destroy the Primacy of Peter is to accomplish what the enemies of Christ have been attempting to do for centuries because 'they have understood that it comprises the visible foundation of the Mystical Body [of Christ].'

[Editor's note: Read the full text of Professor de Mattei's talk here]


[LSN] 2229.1




















Francis contradicts previous Popes: immigration issue just as important as abortion

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN reports for LifeSiteNews: 'In his lengthy exhortation, Pope Francis chastised those who would see abortion as a more important issue than migration. 'Some Catholics consider (immigration) a secondary issue compared to the 'grave' bioethical questions,' he said. 'That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian.'

The Pope decries the 'harmful ideological error' of those who dismiss the importance of the 'social engagement of others,' such as in immigration or service of the poor.

He criticizes those who 'relativize' these issues, 'as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend.'

'Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate,' he said, but should not supercede the defense of the poor or migrants.

The contrast with Pope Benedict XVI is evident from Benedict's 2006 remarks to members of the European People's Party. 'As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable,' he said.

He added:

Among these the following emerge clearly::

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

Pope Saint John Paul II wrote similarly in his 1988 apostolic exhortation, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici). 'The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination . . . '

Pope Francis' remarks on the issue appear in paragraphs 101-102 of the exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate reproduced in full below:

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the 'grave' bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have 'complicated' the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed 'like Christ', with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with 'the greatest care and solicitude'.

[LSN] 2229.2





















Cardinal Burke on the limits of papal power

WHAT is the extent of papal power? Are there any limits, and if so how is the violation of those limits judged and corrected?

These and other questions were addressed by Cardinal Raymond Burke last Saturday, April 7, at a conference in Rome titled ‘Catholic Church: Where are you heading?’

The afternoon symposium, sponsored by the ‘Friends of Cardinal Caffarra Community’, was convened in honor of the recently deceased dubia cardinal, amid growing concern that Pope Francis is leading the Church in a direction not always in keeping with the Church’s nature and teaching.

Drawing on the Church’s Tradition, Magisterium and canonical legislation, Cardinal Burke explained the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff does not mean that a pope’s authority is “magical, but derives from his obedience to the Lord.”

The prefect emeritus of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura also explained that popes must safeguard and promote Church unity, and that if a Roman Pontiff fails to act in conformity with Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, such actions “must be rejected by the faithful.”

“Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults … unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith,” Cardinal Burke said, quoting the 12th century canon lawyer and Camaldolese monk Gratian.

In his speech, Cardinal Burke also outlined how abuses of the Pope’s fullness of power could be corrected (see text below), though time did not allow him to go into detail about how a formal correction might be offered, he said.

Following last Saturday’s conference, LifeSiteNews published an English translation of Cardinal Walter Brandmüller’s address on Blessed John Henry Newman’s 1859 essay On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Faith, and the definitive English text of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s talk on ‘The Apostolic See as the cathedra of truth.’

For the full text of the speech go here

[LSN] 2229.2a




















Rome in crosshairs of ISIS: Italy's terror threat has never been so high

JOSHUA CULLEN reports for Voice of Europe: 'In a large scale anti-terror operation several jihadists were arrested throughout Italy. Although the police successfully intervened, Italy's terror threat has never been so high, says the country's interior minister in an interview with an Italian news broadcaster.

The news programme, with the interview and the anti-terror operation, was translated and posted on YouTube:



Three Tunisians were arrested in the town of Caserta and another in Naples. A Palestinian, who is considered the most dangerous, was already in prison in Rome for drug trafficking. He has a direct relation to ISIS.

All of them were connected to Anis Amri, the attacker of the Berlin Christmas market. His terror network could be tracked by analysing his phone.

Italy's ministry of the interior sounds the alarm, as 'Rome is in the crosshairs of ISIS'. In the last few months there were 432 ISIS references to Italy and to Rome in particular. The department's minister says 'Italy's terror threat has never been so high'.

[voiceofeurope.com] 2229.3



















Order of Malta members warned not to insult Pope online

NICK HALLETT reports for The Catholic Herald: 'Members of the Order of Malta have been warned not to defend the Dictator Pope book or its author on social media, or make statements 'offensive to the Holy Father'.

In an email seen by the Catholic Herald, members are warned that they face disciplinary action if they fail to comply, referring to Articles 119 to 125 of the Code of the Order. These articles state that members can face sanctions ranging from warnings to expulsion if they act in an unworthy manner.

It also tells members to 'swiftly' report anyone not complying.

The email, which was sent to British members on Holy Saturday, states that the President of the British Association has asked that the message be circulated to all members 'especially those who use social media'.

'We ask that you to pay the utmost attention to avoid exposing the Order to any further damage and to swiftly report any behaviour which is not in line with that envisaged by membership in the Order,' it concludes.

A spokesperson said the email was sent to all Order of Malta members worldwide.

The Order suspended Henry Sire last month after he was revealed as the author of The Dictator Pope, a book that caused a considerable stir when it appeared in December. The book tells the story of Francis's pontificate, as well as his life before becoming Pope, comparing his style of governance with that of Argentine dictator Juan Perón.

The Order of Malta described the book as a 'vile attack' on the Pontiff, and said it was launching an investigation into Sire.

Henry Sire has hinted that he will challenge the suspension.

[CH] 2229.4





















Pope Francis issues Apostolic Letter s Gaudete et Exultate, on universal call to holiness

FOLLOWING the publication of Pope Francis' third apostolic exhortation, Gaudete et Exultate, a number bishops in the English-speaking world have applauded it for challenging Catholics to strive for holiness. Not all comments have, however, been favourable.

SANDRO MAGISTER blogs from Rome: 'The official presentation at the Vatican press office, on Monday April 9, of Gaudete et Exsultate - the third apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis after 'Evangelii Gaudium' and 'Amoris Laetitia' - was a completely useless exercise, in terms both of the worthlessness of the things said, which were not even put into the routine bulletin, and of the insignificance of those who said them: the vicar of the diocese of Rome, Angelo De Donatis, the former president of the Italian branch of Catholic Action, Paola Bignardi, and the journalist Gianni Valente, the latter a close friend of Jorge Mario Bergoglio since before he was elected pope. All three with the air of having done no more than to read in advance the document they had to illustrate, without knowing anything else about it.

To make up for this, however, the director of 'La Civiltà Cattolica,' the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, stepped in immediately to fill in the blanks of the official presentation.

Fr. Spadaro, in fact, posted online that same day, on the website of his magazine - which is printed with the pope's imprimatur - a presentation of his own, in four languages, of Gaudete et Exsultate that right from the title proclaims that it will reveal its 'roots, structure, and significance.' And he did so with such abundance and precision of information as to make one think that if the initial compilation of the papal document was not his work, it wasn't far from it.

In Gaudete et Exsultate there is nothing that Bergoglio has not already said and written, even long ago. And Spadaro furnishes the index of this:

• the first big interview of Pope Francis with 'La Civiltà Cattolica' in August of 2013;

• the idea of the 'holiness of the door just down the way,' borrowed from the French writer Joseph Malègue, dear to Bergoglio;

• some passages of 'Evangelii Gaudium,' the agenda-setting text of this pontificate;

• the 'Reflexiones sobre la vida apostolica' written by Bergoglio in 1987;

• the presentation made by Bergoglio in 1989 of the book 'My ideal of sanctity' by the Argentine Jesuit Ismael Quiles, who was his professor;

• the maxim 'simul in actione contemplativus' of the Jesuit Jerónimo Nadal, one of the first companions of Saint Ignatius of Loyola;

• the book 'Discernimiento y lucha espiritual' by the Jesuit Miguel Ángel Fiorito, the spiritual father of the young Bergoglio, who wrote the preface to this in 1985;

• the maxim of Saint Ignatius that is so precious to Francis: 'Non coerceri a maximo, contineri tamen a minimo divinum est' (Not to be constrained by that which is greatest, to be contained in that which is smallest, this is divine);

• the concluding document of the general conference of the Latin American episcopate in Aparecida in 2007, of which Bergoglio was the main architect;

• and finally, various morning homilies of Francis at Santa Marta.

But on this basic backdrop, with the general theme of the 'call of everyone to holiness,' Pope Francis arranged to weave in a bunch of his invectives - these too recurring in many of his previous writings and talks - against his critics and their objections.

On his objectors within the Church, Francis sketches in Gaudete et Exsultate a profile that is prejudicially dismissive.

They are those with the 'funeral faces' who have an 'obsession with the law, ostentation in the treatment of the liturgy, the doctrine, and the prestige of the Church.'

They are those who bend religion 'to the service of their own psychological and mental lucubrations.'

They are those who conceive of doctrine as 'a closed system, devoid of dynamics capable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives.'

They are those who close themselves off in a 'tranquil and anesthetizing mediocrity,' made up of 'individualism, spiritualism, becoming closed off in little worlds, dependence, systematization, repetition of prearranged frameworks, dogmatism, nostalgia, pessimism, taking refuge in the norms.'

They are those who love 'to get teary-eyed in a presumed ecstasy' and assert 'a 'dry cleaner's' sanctity, everything beautiful, everything just right,' but in reality 'fake.'

They are, in two words, the modern 'Gnostics' and 'Pelagians,' a current version of these two ancient heresies.

In these invectives of Pope Francis against his objectors, is it possible to recognize any reference 'ad personam'?

According to what Fr. Spadaro writes, the answer would be yes.

There is one passage, in paragraph 26 of 'Gaudete et Exsultate,' that seems to wipe out two millennia of contemplative monasticism, male and female:

'It is not healthy to love silence and avoid the encounter with the other, to desire repose and reject activity, to seek prayer and underestimate service. We are called to live contemplation even in the midst of action.'

And this is what Spadaro writes, in making his exegesis of this passage:

'This is the Ignatian ideal, in fact, according to the famous formula of one of his first companions, Fr. Jerónimo Nadal: to be 'simul in actione contemplativus.' Alternatives like 'either God or the world' or 'either God or nothing' are erroneous.'

Attention. 'God or Nothing' and 'The Power of Silence' are precisely the titles of the two main books by Cardinal Robert Sarah, the most authoritative representative of a vision of the Catholic Church alternative to the one advocated by Pope Francis.

In addition to the invectives against his opponents, in Gaudete et Exsultate Francis also inserted some responses to criticisms made against him.

For example, in paragraphs 101 and 102, the criticisms of his way of handling the question of migrants:

'Some Catholics affirm that it is a secondary issue with respect to the 'serious' issues of bioethics. That such things should be said by a politician preoccupied with his success is understandable, but not by a Christian.'

Another example. In paragraph 115 the pope goes after those 'Catholic media' that try 'to compensate for their own dissatisfactions' by violating the eighth commandment: 'Do not bear false witness,' just to 'destroy the image of others without pity.'

Curiously, however, the day on which Francis put his signature to Gaudete et Exsultate was March 19.

Which was the feast of Saint Joseph. But it was also the final day of the 'Viganò saga,' the most colossal piece of 'fake news' fabricated so far by the pontificate of Francis, and moreover at the expense of his innocent predecessor, Benedict XVI.


Additional comment

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA comments for The Remnant: ' Gaudete et Exsultate is exactly what we have come to expect from this drearily predictable pontificate. To quote Carl Olsen in Catholic World Report: “many good qualities and substantive passages… often overshadowed, or even undermined, by straw men, dubious arguments, and cheap shots.”

Bergoglian pronouncements in general are precisely vehicles for the delivery of straw men, dubious arguments and cheap shots, all invariably directed against orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Expressions of piety are wrapped around crass ecclesiastical demagoguery, a velvet glove for the clenched fist of militant humility so typical of the boorish cant of leftist Latin American clerics.

The document’s call for a living relationship with God animated by charity is belied by its repeated descent into the uncharitable caricature and outright calumny of those members of the faithful Bergoglio perceives as impediments to his maniacal designs. Herewith a sampling of the invective interwoven into the pious passages of the document:

1) Contemplative orders apart from the world are unhealthy:

“It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service. Everything can be accepted and integrated into our life in this world, and become a part of our path to holiness. We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action, and to grow in holiness by responsibly and generously carrying out our proper mission.

2) The Church does not have all the answers and should not tell people how to live (unless it is Bergoglio speaking):

When somebody has an answer for every question, it is a sign that they are not on the right road. They may well be false prophets, who use religion for their own purposes, to promote their own psychological or intellectual theories…. So we cannot claim that our way of understanding this truth authorizes us to exercise a strict supervision over others’ lives.

3) Catholic doctrine is subject to different interpretations depending on circumstances:

“Here I would note that in the Church there legitimately coexist different ways of interpreting many aspects of doctrine and Christian life; in their variety, they ‘help to express more clearly the immense riches of God’s word.’”

4) Catholic doctrine is not monolithic, but rather is open to doubt:

“It is true that “for those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion”…. [D]octrine, or better, our understanding and expression of it, ‘is not a closed system, devoid of the dynamic capacity to pose questions, doubts, inquiries…’”

5) Strong attachment to Catholic doctrine and discipline is Pelagianism:

“Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, ‘ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.’”

6) Those who resist change—i.e, whatever Francis wants—have succumbed to the forces of evil:

“This is all the more important when some novelty presents itself in our lives. Then we have to decide whether it is new wine brought by God or an illusion created by the spirit of this world or the spirit of the devil. At other times, the opposite can happen, when the forces of evil induce us not to change, to leave things as they are, to opt for a rigid resistance to change….”

7) Those who say all things are possible with grace are really Pelagians:

“When some of them tell the weak that all things can be accomplished with God’s grace, deep down they tend to give the idea that all things are possible by the human will, as if it were something pure, perfect, all-powerful, to which grace is then added.”

8) Even with the aid of grace it is impossible for “the weak” to keep the moral law given their “concrete” limits; only gradual progress is possible (thus exalting the frailty of human will over grace in precisely the Pelagian manner Francis condemns):

“They [imaginary Pelagian Catholics] fail to realize that ‘not everyone can do everything’, and that in this life human weaknesses are not healed completely and once for all by grace….”

“Grace, precisely because it builds on nature, does not make us superhuman all at once. That kind of thinking would show too much confidence in our own abilities. Underneath our orthodoxy, our attitudes might not correspond to our talk about the need for grace, and in specific situations we can end up putting little trust in it.

“Unless we can acknowledge our concrete and limited situation, we will not be able to see the real and possible steps that the Lord demands of us at every moment, once we are attracted and empowered by his gift. Grace acts in history; ordinarily it takes hold of us and transforms us progressively.”

9) Attachment to Catholic doctrine and discipline is Pelagian aridity that rejects “the Spirit”:

“Still, some Christians insist on taking another path, that of justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities…. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting: an obsession with the law, an absorption with social and political advantages, a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige…

“Some Christians spend their time and energy on these things, rather than letting themselves be led by the Spirit in the way of love, rather than being passionate about communicating the beauty and the joy of the Gospel and seeking out the lost among the immense crowds that thirst for Christ.”

10) Observant Catholics are heartless Pelagian curators of a religious museum who reject “the Spirit”:

“Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few. This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. The Gospel then tends to be reduced and constricted, deprived of its simplicity, allure and savour. This may well be a subtle form of pelagianism, for it appears to subject the life of grace to certain human structures. It can affect groups, movements and communities, and it explains why so often they begin with an intense life in the Spirit, only to end up fossilized… or corrupt.”

11) Attempts to limit mass Muslim migration (primarily military-age males) are morally equivalent to murder in the womb:

“Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development….

“We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the ‘grave’ bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children.”

12) Any public opposition by the faithful to Bergoglian designs is defamation inspired by the devil (whose dwelling place is unclear given the interviews with Scalfari):

“Christians too can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned….

“It is striking that at times, in claiming to uphold the other commandments, they [the defenders of orthodoxy against Bergoglio] completely ignore the eighth, which forbids bearing false witness or lying, and ruthlessly vilify others. Here we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6).”

13) The defenders of orthodoxy are heartless judges who look down on others (says Bergoglio who constantly judges and looks down on others):

“It is not good when we look down on others like heartless judges, lording it over them and always trying to teach them lessons.”

14) God demands that we accept Bergoglio’s “magisterium” of “today” and see the Gospel in a new light rather than simply following what the Church (including all prior Popes) has always taught; all else is rigid dogmatism:

“Like the prophet Jonah, we are constantly tempted to flee to a safe haven. It can have many names: … the rejection of new ideas and approaches, dogmatism, nostalgia… hiding behind rules and regulations….

“It is not a matter of applying rules or repeating what was done in the past, since the same solutions are not valid in all circumstances and what was useful in one context may not prove so in another.

“The discernment of spirits liberates us from rigidity, which has no place before the perennial “today” of the risen Lord. The Spirit alone can penetrate what is obscure and hidden in every situation, and grasp its every nuance, so that the newness of the Gospel can emerge in another light.”

The media are of course delighted with this latest example of Bergoglian backstabbing of believing Catholics. Particularly delightful is his declaration of a moral equivalence between mass murder in the womb and attempts to limit the mass migration of Muslims, most of whom are military-age males with cellphones, ludicrously depicted as “helpless refugees.” CNN exulted over this “pointed rebuke to Catholic anti-abortion activists who focus on the issue to the exclusion of all others.”

But we have heard it all before—over and over again, incessantly, for the past five years. At this point, the matter has moved beyond an analysis of Bergoglian pronouncements in order to uncover the poison pills that are always there. There is no need to continue the exercise in verification of the problem when even an atheist like Marcello Pera can see that Bergoglio is “little or not at all interested in Christianity as doctrine, in its theological aspect,” that “[h]is statements appear to be based on Scripture, [but] actually they are strongly secularist,” and that his pontificate represents a “rupture with doctrine and tradition.”

Now the question being raised by the faithful, both clergy and laity, is whether there is any mechanism by which the Church can be freed from Bergoglio’s clutches before he inflicts still more damage upon her. Thus, we see commentary in this regard at major Catholic news sources under such titles as “Cardinals can declare that a heretical pope has ‘lost his office’: Church historian.” And even the retired Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, René Henry Gracida, openly speculates in his blog on the prospect of an imperfect council of cardinals declaring Bergoglio’s election invalid and proceeding to a new conclave.

For starters, to quote Roberto de Mattei, “We need to have the courage to say: “Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the confusion which exists today in the Church. Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the heresies which are circulating in the Church today.’” But more than this, clergy and laity must unite wherever possible to do what Saint Robert Bellarmine said we must when confronted with the scenario—a hypothesis now become a reality—of a Pope who attempts to destroy the Church:

Therefore, just as it is lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands and by blocking him lest he should carry out his will…[De Controversiis: On the Roman Pontiff, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), Book II, Chapter 29, p. 303.

Moving beyond a mere diagnosis of “this disastrous papacy,” which has already been confirmed a hundred times over, we must directly oppose its designs in every field of action open to us. Incredibly enough, the faithful must defend the Catholic Church against a “Dictator Pope” who would destroy her and rebuild her according to his own vision, as he himself has made clear in his hubristic manifesto Evangelii Gaudium:

'More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe…

'I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.

May the good God deliver His Holy Church from the Pope who now afflicts her. And may the Blessed Virgin intercede soon in fulfillment of the divine plan for the Church’s inevitable restoration and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

[Settimo Cielo] / Remnant2229.5



















Rome Conference: 'Chiesa, Dove Vai?

A friend of OnePeterFive who attended Saturday's conference in Rome, 'Chiesa, Dove Vai? [Church, Where Are You Going?] in honour of the late Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, shares with us, apart from the content of the various talks which may be found elsewhere, her impressions of the tenor and tone of the conference

THE ATMOSPHERE in the conference room was electric! It was standing room only, every seat full, people standing along the walls on both sides. In attendance were clergy, students, lay people young and old, including a large contingency from the Italian pro-life movement. The room was completely attentive and highly responsive to every word spoken throughout the afternoon.

The meeting opened with a video of the late Cardinal Caffarra speaking about Humanae Vitae, in which Caffarra said that the prophecy of Pope Paul VI was that through the contraceptive mentality, in the end 'Man would have destroyed his own humanity.'

Cardinal Brandmüller arrived alone and walked very slowly with a cane. He seemed to me to be a metaphor for the state of the Church. He spoke clearly, forcefully, deliberately. He spoke about the confusion in the Church and denounced it strongly. There was a loud burst of applause when he asked, 'Where have we come to when the congregation applauds when the priest announces that he is getting married?' There was further applause when he said that 'the sensus fidelium requires sanctity.' He ended his presentation by referring to Canon 212 speaking about 'the duty of the laity to manifest their thought to their pastors' and received a long wave of applause.

When Cardinal Burke spoke, there was strong applause to almost every statement he made; His Eminence had trouble getting his speech across because there were so many interruptions for applause. For example, when he said that the authority of the Pope 'is not magic, but derives from his obedience to the Lord' there was an extended ovation. There was likewise a loud and long burst of applause for his statement that Pope's authority 'supra iuris' [over the law] is 'only for the purpose of serving the law and never for subverting it.' His teaching was clear and there seemed to be a new tone of urgency in his remarks. At a certain moment, just as Cardinal Burke was speaking about the definition of papal authority made by the First Vatican Council, one group in the room burst out into shouting, calling for the Cardinal to act, to do something further about the outrageous interview in which the Pope said 'Hell does not exist.' The crowd called out to Cardinal Burke, 'Stiamo aspettando' [We are waiting] several times. The room had to be quieted by the moderators. The atmosphere was quite frenetic!

As Cardinal Burke was completing his talk and quoting St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians, saying that 'if anyone preaches to you a Gospel other than the one I have proclaimed…' the entire room burst into shouting out loud, before Cardinal Burke could say it: 'Sia anatema! Sia anatema!' - 'Let him be anathema! Let him be anathema!' It reminded me of stories I have heard of the early ecumenical councils during the various controversies of the ancient Church; the Holy Spirit was speaking by acclamation through those assembled! What a built up sense of frustration and urgency was being released, begging the pastors of the Church to act to protect us!

Bishop Schneider spoke very loudly and with deliberate clarity in every single word; his speech had a sense of insistence and strength. His tone was rousing, perhaps even more so than that of Cardinal Burke! His emphasis was that the Pope is essentially a 'Vicar'. He recalled that, for over a millennium, every pope took an oath which read 'I promise not to diminish or change anything from what I have received from all my predecessors, but to conserve it with all my strength and my every duty…If I act differently, it will not go well for me at the Last Judgment.' Bishop Schneider recommended reinstating this oath, and the room went wild with applause! He then quoted at length from Pope Leo XIII about how 'the duty of the Pope is to defend the Church from confusion and error.' When he ended the quote, the applause was so strong that he started to laugh, and he said, 'But these are not my words! They are the words of Leo XIII!' He then said 'There will be victory with the help of God!' and the applause was once again so loud and long that he again had to clarify: 'These are the words of Pope Leo XIII' with a broad smile. He then quoted Pope John XXIII, 'Of all the evils that poison…the worst is the ignorance of the truth…and sometimes not ignorance but an ignoring of what is true.' He further quoted John XXIII's condemnation of 'the error that all religions are equal' to strong applause. He again had to clarify that the words were not his but those of the Popes. He continued quoting John XXIII: 'Satan continually attacks the Church, and especially the Chair of Peter.' Bishop Schneider also made reference to a prayer which Leo XIII had composed asking God to protect the Church, in response to a vision he had in 1884 in which he saw Satan going to St. Peter's Basilica to invade the See of Peter. Bishop Schneider noted that this prayer was discontinued so as not to scandalize the faithful, but Schneider said forcefully, 'It is no less important now, and greatly needed!' This concluding story was met with a rousing ovation.

All in all, the conference communicated an immense sense of urgency, that things cannot continue on as they are. The pastors of the Church must do something to protect their flock from the deceptive spirit of confusion and falsehood which has invaded the Magisterium of the Church. Their flock is demanding it! The salvation of souls demands it! May all the bishops of the Church hear their flock calling out to them to use the authority and power which has been given to them by Christ to act with clarity and conviction at this decisive moment for the future of the Church and of the world.

[1P5] 2229.6



















Saint John Paul II prophesied priests would suffer for opposing remarriage

LISA BOURNE reports for LifeSiteNews: 'Pope Saint John Paul II forewarned decades ago that priests, and indeed the Catholic Church herself, would pay a "high price" on account of remaining faithful to the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage and procreation.

The late pontiff said as well it would be a “very serious mistake” to presume that Catholic teaching on marriage is but an “ideal” in need of modification.

In his March 1984 address to Priests participating in a Seminar on “Responsible Procreation,” John Paul II spoke twice about the fact that men and women are entirely capable of grasping the Church’s teaching on marriage.

“Make no mistake: when your teaching is faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, you are not teaching something that men and women cannot understand. Even men and women today. Indeed, this teaching which you make resound in their ears is already written in their heart,” he said.

This teaching comes 32 years prior to Pope Francis’ suggestion that Catholic teaching on marriage is an “ideal” that is “too abstract, almost artificially constructed.” Critics have noted that Pope Francis’ 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia is pervaded by the notion that the Church’s teaching on marriage presents what the Pope calls an “artificial theological ideal” that is to be aimed at, rather than a reality that is binding on all.

Pope Francis’ teachings on marriage have caused numerous bishops and cardinals to champion practices contrary to Catholic teaching, such as welcoming so-called “second” marriages, supporting sexual activity (adultery) in such unions, and allowing such couples to receive Holy Communion.

Some of those who have spoken out against such novelties have been demoted, fired, or removed from prestigious posts.

John Paul II warned in his address about the cost of being faithful to the truth of marriage.

“You are well aware that often the fidelity of priests — indeed, let us say, of the Church — to this truth and to the consequent moral norms, those, I mean, taught by Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio, often must be paid for at a high price. One is often mocked, accused of misunderstanding and harshness, and more,” he said.

“This is the fate of every witness to the truth, as we know,” he added.

John Paul II explained to priests how they must convey the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, as prescribed by Christ, to the men and women in their care.

“When his contemporaries asked Christ if it was lawful for a husband to divorce his wife, he responded by referring ‘to the beginning,’ i.e., to the Creator’s original plan for marriage,” the pope said.

“You too, as priests working in the name of Christ, must show spouses that what the Church teaches about responsible procreation is nothing more than that original plan which the Creator has impressed on the humanity of the man and woman who enter into marriage, and which the Redeemer came to re-establish,” he added.

John Paul also said the moral norm taught by Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio is the “defense of the whole truth about conjugal love, since it expresses the essential demands of this love.”

[LSN] 2229.6a























Parents as primary
educators, protectors


Passing on the Faith to your children in the Domestic Church

Pierpaolo Finaldi, father of six, author editor and Formation Adviser at the Archdiocese of Southwark explores the origins of the Domestic Church and the methods families can use to pass on the Catholic Faith. Given at the inaugural Catholic Mothers Conference in Aylesford Priory UK.



[Catholic Mothers] 2229.7























Government crackdown on homeschooling

THE GOVERRNMENT is set to crack down on homeschooling amidst concerns that some out-of-school education settings are failing to promote its liberal definition of “British values”.

Parents who want to homeschool their children could be forced to register with local authorities and be made subject to inspection, according to a government report published on Tuesday raising the prospect of prosecution for families which failed to comply

Seeking views over the next 12 weeks with regards to strengthening regulation around homeschooling, the consultation was launched as part of the government’s “Counter-Extremism strategy to enable intervention in out of school settings”.

Under the proposed regulatory system, any family taking their child out of mainstream schooling in the UK would have to explain their decision and demonstrate that children were being given an appropriate education.

The government’s move to crack down on homeschooling comes after schools watchdog Ofsted described the fact that local authorities have no right to investigate whether children are being home-educated as a “loophole” which is exploited by Islamic extremists.

“The Government needs to have a really long serious hard look about how it can close that loophole,” Ofsted chief operating officer Matthew Coffey told The Telegraph, adding that the lack of a national database on children who are homeschooled is a “real source of frustration” for the schools regulator.

Along with issues such as unsafe premises and inappropriate forms of punishment, the report raised concern over the prospect that children would receive “inadequate preparation … for life in modern Britain” in out-of-school education settings.

Requirements that educators promote “British values” defined as “tolerance and respect for others”, and “prepare children for life in modern Britain” have caused some contention, with critics warning that the latter category is being used to penalise schools in rural areas which have been insufficiently ‘enriched’ with ethnic minority pupils.

Tens of Christian schools have been downgraded as a result of the new rules, which were conceived by neoliberal former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan who claimed such schools deny children “the opportunity to flourish in a modern multicultural Britain”.

Both requirements demand the promotion of LGBT lifestyles and that children be exposed to positive portrayals of homosexual relationships and transgender individuals from an early age, while Morgan has alleged that homophobic views are a sign of “radicalisation”.

Last year, a private Jewish school teaching girls up to the age of eight failed its third inspection for denying pupils “a full understanding of fundamental British values” by failing to teach about homosexuality and gender reassignment.

[Breitbart] 2229.7a





















Humanae Vitae


Here’s how Pope’s teaching is being used to reject Humanae Vitae

Janet SmithDOUG MAINWARING reports for LifeSiteNews: “If you insist upon the commandments, it’s like throwing stones at people.”

Famed Catholic author Janet Smith, speaking to a group gathered at The Catholic University of America (CUA), in Washington, DC on April 5, warned of new challenges to the Church’s teaching against contraception that will arise in coming years, centered around the concepts of conscience and discernment.

In particular, theologians who Smith identifies as “discerners” will focus not on the authority of conscience as it is traditionally understood, but on a “very different understanding of what the conscience is. This is what we very much have to catch.”

“In a general sense, the interpreters, the discerners of Amoris Laetitia say that the development in moral theology in Amoris Laetitia is pastoral, not doctrinal,” said Smith. This is key, because it frees them to say, “we’re not changing doctrine at all; we’re just changing how we apply doctrine. We’re not even applying doctrine. We’re just helping consciences discern.”

Humanae Vitae won’t be rejected head-on because they’ve found a way to do an end run around it based on passages in Amoris Laetitia. In essence, the discerners are saying, “So we don’t need to refute the arguments that defend Humanae Vitae because we’re not looking for a doctrinal change. We don’t have to question the authority of doctrine because it’s not a doctrinal matter that we’re pushing here; We’re pushing a pastoral approach to these issues.”

In other words, “substantive matters are now irrelevant,” because “they read Amoris Laetitia in light of a psychological view of conscience,” while putting aside the traditional view of conscience. Their view rejects “natural known moral norms.”

Smith cited passages of Amoris Laetitia that provide the basis for this new understanding of conscience.

She began with paragraph 37, which reads:

'We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not replace them.

This sets the stage for elevating the “primacy of conscience” over objective moral norms. Smith says that the theologian “discerners” interpret this to mean that “the individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis, in certain situations, which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.”

She then highlighted paragraph 303, which reads:

'Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while not yet fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

Smith said that from this, the discerners conclude:

• We must “accompany consciences;”

• We must not “impose” external norms;

• Objective norms are “ideals,” not “what God is asking” in all circumstances; 

• and Veritatis Splendor is passé - in Amoris Laetitia we have a “paradigm shift.”
Further, moral norms are problematic to the discerners, who dismiss them as coming from external sources such as parents, the state, the prevailing culture, and even the Church. “They impede, if not prevent, authenticity and moral maturation.”

She then commented on paragraph 305, which reads:

'A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to be thrown at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families.

“So if you insist upon the commandments, it’s ‘like throwing stones at people,’” said Smith.

Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions. (Amoris Laetitia 305)

In other words, “moral norms are not determinative of what you can and cannot do.” They are reduced to “inspiration that might guide your moral decisions.”

Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. (Amoris Laetitia 305)

In essence, the discerners are pushing the idea that there are no absolute moral norms. For them, natural law, “does not include universal, immutable norms” but instead is dynamic, experiential, historical, and cultural.” Natural law is “gradually discovered, and could change if the culture changes.”

The discerners believe that it is more important for believers to follow one’s own conscience, one’s own truth, than to be submissive or obedient to God’s laws. In fact, the discerners warn that to accept the imposition of outside norms over and above “the values to which one has committed one’s self,” is to risk doing violence to one’s self.

Smith contrasted the discerners’ view of natural law with what the Second Vatican Council taught in Gaudium et Spes:

'In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him in obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (Gaudium et Spes 16)

Wrapping up, Smith underscored the dangerous implications of the discerners’ view for pastoral practice: It steers pastors and mentors from asking people “to do big sacrificial things.”

“We’re not recognizing the force of the natural law we have inside of us. I thinks it’s cripples mentoring people,” she said.

Smith offered an example: “Many years ago at Notre Dame, a young man came to me. Prom night was coming up and he had reserved a hotel room to share with his date, which everyone was doing. Of course, they were going to have sex.”

Smith: “Am I right to conclude that you intend to have sex?”

Student: “Uhh, …. Yes.”

Smith: “You know that is wrong don’t you?”

Student [pause]: “Yes, I do. What do I do now?”

Smith: “Well, there’s a priest on every corner at Notre Dame. Go find one and go to confession. And call up the girl and tell the girl you’re getting a private room for her, and that you’re not having sex. And then call me and tell me you did that.” And he did.

[LSN] 2229.8




















United Nations

UN logo


UN bureaucrats push full steam ahead for abortion, slam breaks on euthanasia

STEFAN GENNARINI, J.D., reports for C-FAM: “Sexual and reproductive health and rights are integral to the dignity of women and girls,” said Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore at a gathering of UN experts and bureaucrats in Geneva last month.

Gilmore invited some thirty international experts of two UN human rights treaty monitoring committees to “confront” the UN General Assembly and “defy” UN member states which have repeatedly refused to recognize an international right to abortion.

“This is not a time for optimism. This is not a time for hope. This is a time for courage,” Gilmore said. Egging on the experts, she said that the limitations that member states had placed on their power and resources were a “pernicious intentional effort to counter your authority, to minimize the reach of your responsibilities, and dilute the authority with which you speak.”

The remarks came as Gilmore, the second highest ranking UN human rights official, kicked off the first-ever joint meeting of the UN committees that review the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, considered foundational UN human rights treaties.

Gilmore reminded experts of the “supreme value of the human person” as the animating principle behind the human rights project.

Later, during Easter week, the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the civil rights treaty, continued its review of a legal commentary that declares both a right to abortion and a right to die to be part of the right to life.

Citing comments on the draft commentary from Amnesty International and abortion groups, the experts agreed to find ways around, and to limit, the right to conscientious objection of medical providers and strengthen language on access abortion.

The committee members did not cite any of the comments of the United States, Poland, Egypt, Japan, and dozens of other states and pro-life groups insisting that abortion can in no way be considered a human right.

The discussion of the paragraphs on abortion and euthanasia began with congratulatory remarks for the Israeli law professor who is the main drafter of the commentary, and whose birthday was last week. In October he laughed off opposition to an international right to abortion.

“The gift I would want is having these paragraphs adopted as soon as possible,” he joked once again. And he turned to the subject of euthanasia with the same levity.

“Luckily paragraph ten does not deal with any controversial issue, only suicide and euthanasia,” he said.

After discussing the paragraph briefly, the experts stopped short of saying the treaty included a “right to die,” as in earlier drafts. They said it would be politically “safer” not to take that route. But they said the treaty did indeed permit euthanasia as an exercise of personal autonomy.

The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights also says women have a right to sexual and reproductive health under international law, including abortion. They insist this human right has evolved from UN treaties even though neither of the treaties’ they monitor mentions such obligations.

The UN staff Gilmore oversees prepares the opinions of both committees. Gilmore became an international abortion celebrity after flipping Amnesty International from being neutral on abortion to advocating for abortion as a human right. She was hired by the UN human rights office in 2016 after several years at the UN Population Fund.


[C-FAM] 2229.UN1























EU flag


Europe's Civilizational Exhaustion

GIULIO MEOTTI writes for The Gatestone Institute:

• Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes -- wrongly -- it has no enemies.

I• n Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim.

• The European mainstream mindset now seems to believe that 'evil' comes only from our own sins: racism, sexism, elitism, xenophobia, homophobia, the guilt of the heterosexual white Western male -- and never from non-European cultures. Europe now postulates an infinite idealization of the 'other', above all the migrant.

• A tiredness seems to be why these countries do not take meaningful measures to defeat jihadism, such as closing Salafist mosques or expelling radical imams.

Muslim extremists understand this advantage: so long as they avoid another enormous massacre like 9/11, they will be able to continue taking away human lives and undermining the West without awakening it from its inertia.

In a prophetic conference held in Vienna on May 7, 1935, the philosopher Edmund Husserl said, 'The greatest danger to Europe is tiredness'. Eighty years later, the same fatigue and passivity still dominate Western European societies.

It is the sort of exhaustion that we see in Europeans' falling birth rates, the mushrooming public debt, chaos in the streets, and Europe's refusal to invest resources in its security and military might. Last month, in a Paris suburb, the Basilica of Saint Denis, where France's Christian kings are buried, was occupied by 80 migrants and pro-illegal-immigration activists. The police had to intervene to free the site.

Pictured: French police eject some of the 80 migrants and pro-illegal-immigration activists who occupied the Basilica of Saint Denis, on March 18, 2018. (Image source: Video screenshot, YouTube/Kenyan News & Politics)

Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary's University in London, recently published a report, 'Europe's Young Adults and Religion':

'Christianity as a default, as a norm, is gone, and probably gone for good - or at least for the next 100 years,' Bullivant said.

According to Bullivant, many young Europeans 'will have been baptised and then never darken the door of a church again. Cultural religious identities just aren't being passed on from parents to children. It just washes straight off them... 'And we know the Muslim birthrate is higher than the general population, and they have much higher [religious] retention rates.'

Richard Dawkins, an atheist and the author of The God Delusion, responded to the study's release by tweeting to his millions of Twitter followers:

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let's not forget Hilaire Belloc's menacing rhyme:

'Always keep a-hold of nurse

For fear of finding something worse.'

Dawkins is apparently concerned that that after the demise of Christianity in Europe, there will not be an atheistic utopia, but a rising Islam.

That is the major point of what Philippe Bénéton in his book The Moral Disorder of the West ('Le dérèglement moral de l'Occident'): Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes -- wrongly -- it has no enemies.

According to Radio Sweden, fewer newborns in that country are being baptized due to the demographic shift. By 2050, almost one in three people in Sweden will be Muslim, according to a recent Pew report

The European mainstream mindset now seems to believe that 'evil' comes only from our own sins: racism, sexism, elitism, xenophobia, homophobia, the guilt of the heterosexual white Western male --and never from non-European cultures. So Europe now postulates an infinite idealization of the 'other', above all the migrant. The heritage and legacy of Western civilization gets sectioned off piece by piece so that nothing remains; our values are mocked and our survival instinct is inhibited. It is a process of decomposition that Europe's political authorities seem to have decided to mediate, as if it were inevitable. Now, the European Union waits to receive the next surge of migrants, from Africa.

In German Chancellor Angela Merkel's major speech in the Bundestag after the unprecedentedly long and difficult process of forming a new government, she struck a conciliatory tone on immigration while offering an inclusive message on Islam. 'With 4.5 million Muslims living with us, their religion, Islam, has also become a part of Germany', she said.

The most powerful politician in Europe capitulated: she evidently forgot (again) the difference between the civil rights of individuals, which Muslim citizens enjoy in Germany, and the sources of a national identity, on which Europe is based: humanistic, Judeo-Christian values. This realization may why a week earlier the new German Interior minister, Horst Seehofer, said that 'Germany has been shaped by Christianity' and not by Islam.

Europe's tiredness can also be seen in a generational conflict embodied in the alarming rise of public debt. In Italy, the political establishment was recently shaken up by the election of two major populist parties. It is a country with a public debt of 40,000 euros per capita, and a tax burden equal to 43.3% of GDP. The average age of the population is the third oldest in the world, together with one of the lowest birthrates on the planet, one of the lowest retirement ages in Europe and the highest social security spending-to-GDP ratio in the Western world. It is also a country where pensions account for one-third of all public spending and where the percentage of pensioners in proportion to workers will rise from 37% today to 65% in 2040 (from three workers who support one pensioner to three workers who support two pensioners).

An Islamist challenge to this tired and decaying society could be a decisive one. Only Europe's Christian population is barren and aging. The Muslim population is fertile and young. 'In most European countries-including England, Germany, Italy and Russia, Christian deaths outnumbered Christian births from 2010 to 2015,' writes the Wall Street Journal.

Terrorist attacks will continue in Europe. Recently, in Trèbes, southern France, a jihadist took hostages in a supermarket and claimed allegiance to ISIS. It seems that Europe's societies consider themselves so strong and their ability to absorb mass immigration so extensive, that nothing will prevent them from believing they can assimilate and manage terrorist acts as they have automobile fatalities or natural disasters. A tiredness also seems to be why these countries do not take meaningful measures to defeat jihadism, such as closing Salafist mosques or expelling radical imams.

Muslim extremists understand this advantage: so long as they avoid another enormous massacre like 9/11, they will be able to continue murdering people and undermining the West without awakening it from its inertia. The most likely scenario is that everything will continue: the internal fracture of Europe, two parallel societies and the debasement of Western culture. Piece by piece, European society seems to be coming irreparably apart.

[Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author].

[Gatestone Institute] 2229.9






















China supplement


Cardinal Zen – The man who does not follow Cardinal Parolin’s kowtow toward secular power

Cdl. ZenMATHIAS VON GERSDORFF writes for OnePeterFive: 'On Saturday, 7 April 2018, two important events took place which seemed, to a superficial observer, to be utterly unrelated:

In Rome, people gathered and discussed the topic “Catholic Church, where are you going?” Present were prominent prelates such as Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, and Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider. It was about the negative effects of the controversial passages in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia of Pope Francis. The German-American journalist Maike Hickson reported on this event here and here.

In Bonn, the former capital city of the Federal Republic of Germany, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun received the “Stephanus-Prize for Persecuted Christians” (“Stephanus-Preis für verfolgte Christen”). On this occasion, he spoke in detail about the persecution of Christians by the Communist regime of the People’s Republic of China, and about the attempts of the Vatican to “get along” with the Chinese Communist leaders.

Even though these two events are about two different topics, they did have numerous “common denominators.” In both events, it was about the Catholic Church’s acceptance of a revolution: in Rome, it was about the acceptance – and really even more, about an alliance of a part of the Catholic clergy with the sexual revolution. In Bonn, it was about the acceptance of, or the alliance with, a part of the Catholic clergy of the Communist revolution, in the form of the current Communist regime of the People’s Republic of China.

There exists an additional common denominator: in both maneuvers (not to speak about a betrayal of Catholic principles), the decisive personality is the current Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Concerning the sexual revolution, Cardinal Parolin preaches the slogan of a “moral paradigm shift in morality.” What he means with it is essentially the introduction of “situation ethics” in order to legitimize “irregular life situations” such as those of the “remarried” divorcees. In Germany, it is, of all people, Cardinal Reinhard Marx – the President of the German Bishops’ Conference – who is in the process of introducing this situation ethics in the form of “case-by-case examinations” on the level of the parishes. The lifestyles propagated by the sexual revolution thus receive a Catholic seal of approval.

But the sustained marching-through of progressivism does not limit itself to an ultra-liberal interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

For the Communist countries, Cardinal Parolin has figured out something special, namely the revival of the leftist Ostpolitik of the 1960s and 1970s, which consisted of coming to an arrangement with the Communist dictatorships. The Catholic Church was to give up criticism of Communism; as a reward, she would receive freedoms in the administration of the Sacraments. Thus, she received the golden cage, as it were, as long as she did not criticize the Communists and their atheistic doctrines.

Here, too, it was about an acceptance and an alliance with a revolution, in this case with the Communist revolution.

In the case of China, the Cardinal Secretary of State Parolin seems to have said to himself: the Chinese Catholics who suffer already for so long under persecution should first accept those bishops who have now been appointed by the (Communist) state, and then they may exercise their religion in peace.

A precondition for this policy is to get rid of the bishops of the so-called Underground Church. That would have been easy, had not Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun decided to climb onto the barricades. Since the beginning of the year, he does not talk about anything else than the Cardinal Secretary of State’s betrayal of the Catholics of the Underground Church.

Most recently, he did this on a trip to Germany, in order to receive the “Stephanus Prize for Persecuted Christians.” On this occasion, he repeated untiringly: the Vatican’s Secretariat of State – that is to say, Cardinal Pietro Parolin – wants to betray the legitimate Underground Church of China to the Communists, even though she has been persecuted by them for decades.

The power of the Church in such moments reveals itself in personalities like Cardinal Zen. For, he says: such an agreement with the Communists would be a betrayal and a shame; a surrender of the Church’s freedom to the Communist rulers. What Parolin is essentially doing is to hand over the loyal Catholics to the Communist rulers. Thus, a surrender to a worldly power.

Is this the purported paradigm of progressivism? Yes, because progressivism – in the West and the East – promotes nothing else than a capitulation toward the revolutionary Zeitgeist.

What are the weapons which Cardinal Zen uses against this progressivist attack?

To speak the truth. The truth about red-Chinese Communism. The truth about the persecution of the Catholic Church. The truth about the planned betrayal of legitimate Chinese Catholicism to red-Chinese Communism.

It is exactly this freedom of the word that will kill progressivism: in order to gain doubtful advantages, the Catholics of China are supposedly to give up rather than to insist upon their rightful freedom to speak the truth.

Cardinal Zen responds to this and says: No! Not with me! I will not be silent!

Let us follow his example – in the West as in the East – and let us bear witness that the unchangeable Catholic Faith must be proclaimed freely, always and everywhere. Because only in this way, we fulfill the mission of Jesus Christ: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

[1P5] 2229.C1





















News from around the world


Germany Prelate explains why seven bishops asked Rome for ‘clarification’ on intercommunion

LAST WEEK, seven German bishops raised their voices in opposition to a majority decision of the German Bishops’ Conference to allow, in individual cases and under certain conditions, Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion. These seven bishops sent a letter to Rome asking for clarification. Now Bishop Stefan Oster, of Passau (Bavaria), explains why.

In the April 15 issue of his diocesan weekly newspaper Passauer Bistumsblatt, Bishop Oster says that it is care for the Blessed Sacrament that prompted he and his six fellow bishops to resist the new German episcopal guidelines for intercommunion.

These guidelines are expected to be published soon; the German bishops have already quoted a draft. That draft is available to Bishop Oster, who revealed some details about it in his critique.

“The Eucharist is for us Catholics so important that it essentially expresses our whole understanding of the Faith and of the Church,” Bishop Oster now explains in his statement.

He insists that the letter from the seven bishops comes after an “intensive” and “controversial” discussion during the meeting of the German Bishops’ Conference itself, at which “it was already openly debated whether and how one should turn to Rome for a further clarification of open questions.”

With these words, the Bavarian bishop Oster also indirectly opposes Cardinal Reinhard Marx – the German bishops’ president – who showed himself, in a published letter, to be surprised at the seven bishops’ Letter. Cardinal Marx also then insisted that it is well possible for a national bishops’ conference to “formulate criteria which permit the reception of Communion on the side of Christians who are not in union with the Church.”

In his own statement, Bishop Oster points out that the draft of the German bishops’ new guidelines speaks about “grave spiritual emergency situations” in which Protestant spouses may receive the Holy Eucharist. These emergency situations are now applied to the very fact that the couple of a mixed marriage may not receive Communion together, a fact which, in the eyes of the German bishops, may thereby “endanger that marriage.”

“We wish to receive a clarification as to whether this expansion of the interpretation of grave emergency situations is correct,” Oster now explains. To him, it does not seem a “simple” thing to “share the full Catholic understanding of the Eucharist,” while at the same time remaining in another denomination; and “thus to preserve for oneself, at the same time, that confession's own understanding, let's say of the Last Supper.” Oster does not see how this inner contradiction could – or should – be preserved of holding two different, incommensurate understandings of Holy Communion at the same time.

The Bavarian bishop also points out another weak point in the episcopal draft, namely that, while Protestant spouses may receive Holy Communion, Catholic spouses are explicitly excluded from receiving Protestant communion. The reason for this decision is, according to the draft, that there exist two different understandings of communion. Oster comments: “One assumes that the Protestant spouse somehow is capable of holding both understandings of faith at the same time, but the Catholic spouse not, because they do not fit together. I consider this position to be very difficult to explain!”

Additionally, Bishop Oster raises the question of the “connection between the Eucharist and Confession,” which “has not yet been clarified.”

Pointing to the fact that every First Holy Communicant is required to go to Confession prior to First Holy Communion – “because there exists an inner connection” between these two Sacraments – the German prelate thus says “here we wish a deeper clarification which has not yet been given.” How could the Catholic Church deal “with those faithful of other confessions concerning the Catholic [sacramental] confession in preparation for the Eucharist?” asks Oster.

Bishop Oster also gives caution about the use of the “exception in an individual case” approach in the matter of intercommunion, saying that, in general, the less informed public understands such a rule as a “general permission.” He sees here a “danger of a superficial reception” of the sacramental message and he also wishes to “avoid a banalization of the Eucharist.”

“After all, we rightfully call the Eucharist the Blessed Sacrament,” Oster adds, and it is important in his view “to grapple about the question of how we deal with it in a good manner.”

In conclusion, Bishop Oster stresses that the letter of the seven German bishops – which they sent immediately also to Cardinal Marx for his information – was not about “discrediting other bishops,” but, rather, an urgent desire “to receive a deeper clarification from Rome.”

[LSN] 2229.F1

















United Kingdom Sunday schools protected in key religious freedom victory

THE GOVERNMENT has abandoned plans to register and inspect out-of-school education settings, announcing this in a report on their call for evidence released this week.

In so doing, they have taken an important step to protect religious freedom. In deciding not to pursue their proposals to register settings that teach for more than 6 to 8 hours a week, the Government have acknowledged the concerns in the 73 per cent of formal responses which rejected this proposal. Responses to the call for evidence also highlighted deep reservations about Ofsted having a role in investigating out-of-school settings: around 75 per cent of responses disagreed with this proposal. The Government noted that these responses 'expressed concerns about Ofsted's capacity, expertise and neutrality in dealing with such settings.'

The Evangelical Alliance spoke up when the call for evidence was made more than two years ago. We pointed out the unintended consequences of the initial proposals for civil society, such as many church activities like Sunday schools and youth groups being subjected to government regulation and inspection.

We welcome the Government's response, and the intention to make use of existing powers to tackle important concerns around safeguarding and health and safety, ensuring that children are protected and cared for. Importantly, these plans do not now immediately threaten civil liberties by creating a new regulatory regime of inspection.

Dr David Landrum, director of advocacy at the Evangelical Alliance, responded to the announcement: 'As we expected, the report shows how strongly faith groups, parents and others feel about proposals to register and regulate out-of-school settings, and in particular about the role of Ofsted. Indeed to many these proposals, which were launched by former education secretary Nicky Morgan, represented a classic example of religious illiteracy. These proposals would have had a profound effect on religious freedom and fundamental human rights, and consequently we welcome the news that the Government are listening to the concerns of those who responded.'

Freedom of religion or belief benefits both people of faith and no faith. Indeed, it is the litmus test for a free society. The Government has rightly seen that churches and the activities they provide are a positive force for society and not a threat they need to regulate. As an alternative, the Government is proposing targeted interventions, using existing powers as part of a multi-agency approach. However, the Evangelical Alliance will retain a watchful eye on other proposals concerning new powers or defined standards for those who operate out-of-school settings that may replicate these misconceived proposals that had the potential to create state-sanctioned religion.

Dr Landrum continued 'Christianity has been an incredible force for good throughout British society, and it still is today. Freedom of religion is essential for this vital work to continue and grow in the future, and also for the work of so many other groups and organisations in civil society.

'We also look forward to working with the Government to tackle radicalisation and violent extremism, especially through the role that local churches can play in building stronger communities.'

[ea.uk] 2229.9a



















United Kingdom Praying for an end to abortion

A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY in Gosportis launching a weekly international 'pro-life Holy Hour' on Thursdays to pray for the ending of abortion. The hour will be live-streamed globally on Radio Immaculata. www.radioimmaculata.0rg

'Our pro-life Holy Hour is an initiative aiming at creating a chain of people around the world to pray together for the sake of human life so that it might be acknowledged by everyone as a mystery, naturally and supernaturally, to be honored and respected,' said Father Serafino M. Lanzetta Superior of the Marian Franciscans to LifeSiteNews.

'Life is a mystery, a great mystery. It is the very beginning of everything. This is the reason why we must support it as best we can,' he added.

The live Holy Hour will take place every Thursday from 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM GMT. It's launch date was on April 12. The Friars have developed an app for both Android and Appledevices so people can more easily tune in for the Holy Hour.

The Franciscan friars say that prayer is needed more urgently than ever to end the estimated 1 million abortions that take place each week globally.

'As believers in Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord of Life, our pro-life vocation and mission becomes even more urgent and compelling. Through our pro-life activities and actions we wish to show everyone the love of the Lord of life who became Himself a Baby and laid in a Mother's womb,' said Father Lanzetta.

The friars say that Jesus asked his disciples to watch and pray with him for one hour.

'How can we respond to the attack on the dignity of human life, so prevalent in our times in the 'culture of death' in which we are immersed? St Maximilian Kolbe, Patron of the Pro-Life Movement, explained to his Friars that only Prayer can lay the foundation for the conversion of hearts,' the friars say about the Holy Hour.

'In many developed countries, such as those in North America and Europe, where the attack on the unborn is most pronounced and where the capacity to change this intrinsically evil legislation seems almost impossible, we must through God's mercy and Mary's intercession seek to make the notion of abortion unthinkable,' they add.

The friars say that abortion has made a mother's womb become the 'most dangerous place.'

'What can we do? Jesus Christ instituted the most holy Sacrament, Tradition tells us around 7.00pm on Maundy Thursday. Then he went to Gethsemane and Calvary. Then let us keep watch with Jesus Christ Our Saviour, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Heavenly Court in this hour. Were you there when they crucified your Lord? We can respond confidently, saying, 'Yes, Lord, we watched with you,'' the friars state.

The Franciscan friars are asking those who wish to become part of the Holy Hour to invite others to join in.

'Let us defeat this diabolical attack with the power of prayer so that our hearts will be one and we will be like the multitude of believers in Acts 4:32 who 'had but one heart and one soul.''

Ave Maria

Friar Philomeno James

[LSN] 2229.10





















United Kingdom Police block Alfie Evans’ parents from taking him out of hospital

DOROTHY CUMMINS McLEAN reports for LifeSiteNews: 'Parents of Baby Alfie Evans are saying that police are blocking them from leaving Alder Hey Children’s Hospital even though they have a legal document saying that their child is free to leave.

Dramatic moments of Alfie’s dad Tom trying to leave with his son were streamed on Facebook. A relative also used Facebook Live to show police guarding hospital exits.

While the drama unfolded at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, LifeSiteNews has obtained a letter to Alfie’s father Tom from a lawyer attached to the Christian Legal Centre.

Dear Tom,

You have asked me to clarify whether it would be legal for you to remove your son Alfie from Alder Hey Hospital without the Hospital’s consent. In Alfie’s situation, that would only be practical with the support of a team of medical professionals with the necessary life support equipment.

Subject to that, I can confirm that such a removal would be lawful under English law.

Alfie is only in hospital because you, his parents, voluntarily sought its healthcare services. Alfie retains the right to self-discharge from hospital. He is not imprisoned there. Because of his minority, it is for you, as his parents, to make a decision to self-discharge or to stay at hospital.

The effect of the declaratory orders made by Mr Justice Hayden in the High Court is to make it lawful for Alder Hey to withdraw his artificial ventilation treatment, and to protect Alder Hay and its staff from legal liability for that step. It is not the intention or effect of the order to circumvent Alfie’s personal liberty or your parental rights. It remains lawful for an alternative team of medical professionals, with your parental consent, to provide such medical treatment to Alfie as they professionally deem to be appropriate.

As you know, today Mr Justice Hayden made a further order scheduling the withdrawal of ventilation from Alfie for 12 noon this Friday 13 April. The legal position may arguably become more complicated if someone within the High Court’s jurisdiction continues to provide ventilation after that point. However, there is no doubt that, until that point in time, it remains entirely lawful to provide ventilation to Alfie; and that can be done by a medical service provider of your choice.

For these reasons, as a matter of law it is your right to come to Alder Hey Hospital with a team of medical professionals with their own life-support equipment, and move Alfie to such other place as you consider is best for him. You do not need any permission from Alder Hay Hospital or the Court to do so.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

Pavel Stroilov
Christian Legal Centre
Standing with Christians for Life



Politician to raise Alfie Evans’ case before EU Parliament Monday

A POLITICAN will raise the case of Alfie Evans in the EU parliament in Strasbourg tomorrow, Monday.

Wajid Khan, an MEP for Manchester, wrote to Alfie's parents today to offer his support and ask permission to show the child's photograph during his speech.

"My heart goes out to you and your family," he wrote. "I am devastated to read and watch the circumstances at the hospital."

The MEP's support comes as Alfie's parents Thomas and Kate battle to remove their son from a children's hospital in Liverpool that has been empowered by the courts to remove the boy's life support. Parents say their 23-month-old son remains undiagnosed and is not as sickly as the hospital makes him out to be. The parents have arranged a medical team to transfer their son to care in Italy, but the hospital has refused to let the boy go. Police were brought in yesterday to ensure that parents did not remove their son from the hospital.

Khan noted that he had previously promised to make a speech about Alfie at EU Parliament, and that now his speech has been accepted. It will take place on Monday, April 16, 2018 and streamed live over the EU parliamentary website some time between 9 and 10 AM.

"I want to dedicate this speech to Alfie for the courage and strength he has shown as well as raising awareness [of] his case internationally," Khan continued.

The MEP said that as a father of a boy about Alfie's age, he wouldn't want to imagine being in a similar situation, one he said was "deeply upsetting to witness."

I hope you accept my request of dedicating this speech of Alfie and having his picture displayed in the European parliament,” he wrote.

Earlier this week the MEP sent a letter to Alder Hey Hospital where Alfie is being held to express his “deep concerns” about the situation.

“As a parent I would not want my rights to be taken away from me and to be told my child should pass away especially when you are being offered alternative treatment in another country. I would personally explore every option available to find any routes that would be a possibility in keeping my son alive,” he wrote in the April 10 letter.

“I can only plead with your selves at Alder Hay [sic] to give Alfie a chance in life to be able to have that chance of living.”

“Please I sincerely plead with you to revisit this decision and allow Alfie the opportunity to be treated with hope that his illness is diagnosed and treated and is given the right to live,” he wrote.























United States Cardinal Wuerl calls for obedience to Peter

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA reports for OnePeterFive: 'Cardinal Donald Wuerl, close collaborator of Pope Francis in the project of admitting public adulterers to Holy Communion in contradiction of the teaching of John Paul II and all previous popes, now wants us to know how very important it is to respect 'the special and unique role of Peter' regarding the teaching of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (HV).

Does he mean that, given 'the special and unique role of Peter,' all Catholics should respect and be bound in conscience by that encyclical's declaration that no one may engage in 'any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation - whether as an end or as a means' because such actions are 'deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong' - that is, always wrong without exception? Anyone who has followed the slithery path of Wuerl's Modernist polemic will know that the answer is in the negative.

At a Catholic University of America symposium on the 50th anniversary of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, Wuerl did what anyone who knows his game would expect: he came to praise the encyclical in order to bury it. After remarking on how when HVfirst appeared, 'vehement' dissent from the document was addressed by the United States Catholic Conference (which later became the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Wuerl claimed to be 'impressed then with the alacrity of the response in defense of the teaching office of Saint Peter and therefore the validation of the teaching of Humanae Vitae.'

Of course, in typical Wuerlian style there would be a 'but.' And the 'but' was a sneaky switch from the truth of the teaching in HV on the intrinsic evil of contraception, which Paul VI merely defended in keeping with the divine and natural law, to 'the importance of the teaching role of Peter. The issue was not just what was said, but also who said it.'

Having stressed the transient person of the Pope rather than the timeless truth of his teaching, Wuerl delivered the poison fruit: 'One half century later, we continue to set forth the teaching of Blessed Pope Paul VI concerning the proper regulation of the propagation of offspring, and over these five decades we have learned that it is not sufficient simply to announce the teaching and repeat the words of the encyclical.'

I detect the sound of hissing. By focusing on the person of a particular Pope as opposed to the moral truth that any Pope must defend precisely and only because it is unchangingly true, Wuerl is introducing what he has reason to believe is on the way: the demand for false obedience to a 'pastoral rereading' of HV, approved by Francis with the usual wink and nod. This 'rereading' will not simply affirm an infallible moral teaching as not subject to change, but rather will open the way to the moral nonsense of 'discerning' how to apply the teaching in 'concrete circumstances' according to Amoris Laetita (AL), the 'apostolic exhortation' that attempts to impose situation ethics on the Church.

In like manner has AL opened the way to 'pastoral' applications of the Sixth Commandment to public adulterers in 'second marriages' depending on 'the concrete complexity of one's limits.' In short, the elimination of absolutely binding moral norms, which are nominally affirmed as they are practically negated. That development is nothing short of apocalyptic.

To Cardinal Wuerl I would say this: Your moves are transparent. We see you coming from a mile away. You may think you are clever, but you are merely obvious. You will not fool anyone who does not wish to be fooled. And you will not be able to convince Catholics who know their faith to ignore the diagnosis of this uniquely dysfunctional pontificate, which you are cynically exploiting. To quote Cardinal Burke on this score:

'The Pope, through the divine will, enjoys all the power necessary to safeguard and promote the true faith, true divine worship, and the requisite sound discipline. This power belongs not to his person but to his office as Successor of St. Peter….

'At present there is a dangerous and even harmful confusion between the person of the Pope and his office, that results in the obscuring of the Petrine Office and in a worldly and political idea of the service of the Roman Pontiff in the Church.'

'Any act of a Pope that undermines the salvific mission of Christ in the Church, whether it be a heretical act or an act that is in itself sinful, is simply void from the point of view of the Petrine Office. Thus also if any action of a Pope clearly causes grave harm to souls, it does not command the obedience of pastors and faithful.'

Prepare, then, for the next demand for 'obedience' to Peter in disobedience to the Truth. This is the devil's greatest trick in our epoch of diabolical disorientation in the Church: the use of false obedience to destroy true obedience. This is the evil against which Father Gruner never ceased to make public protest. And now we see the prophetic wisdom of his relentless opposition to this lie.

Keep the faith. And ignore the liars, no matter how high their office in the Church. We are indeed in the midst of 'the devil's final battle' - the one that he will lose when Our Lady crushes the head of the hissing snake.

[FP] 2229.11



















United States University of Washington professor put on probation for mentioning her Christian faith in front of Muslim student

ROBERT SPENCEER reports for Jihad Watch: 'This is how Islamic supremacist and Leftist students are shutting down free discourse all over the country: by claiming that it makes them feel “unsafe.” At Stanford University, fascist students and faculty whipped up hysteria on campus in advance of my visit by claiming that my telling the truth about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat would make Muslim students on campus feel “unsafe.” There was not a shred of evidence to support this claim, and of course no one was harmed in the aftermath of my appearance there, which was disrupted in any case by a planned and scripted walkout in which administrators made sure as few people as possible would hear me by preventing others who wanted to attend from entering after the walkout. This is life on university campuses today: American universities are no longer centers of higher learning, but are radioactive wastelands of hard-Left indoctrination. This holds true not just for huge universities such as Stanford, but also even for the smallest and ostensibly faith-based schools, such as Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Everywhere the hard-Left indoctrination is dominant, and there is little to no actual education going on.

“UW administrator: ‘Do you read your Bible on campus?!,’” Todd Herman Show, April 10

Susana Asberry has been a full-time instructor at the University of Washington since 2006. She teaches English as a second language. On Monday, she shared exclusively with us how she has been put on probation for daring to mention God in direct response to a question from a student.

Asberry also helped students in an argumentative essay writing class debate against gay marriage — a topic the students chose to address. As of Tuesday, she is being sent to what amounts to a re-education session. She is accused of being discriminatory and even racist. Asberry is white and married to a black man. Their children are bi-racial. She says she is being censored and feels threatened.

How did this all start? During a writing unit that involved American slang, the students learned about the phrase “bucket list” and submitted their own examples. A student asked Susana about her bucket list and Susana replied: “When I retire, I want to share the word of God with people.”

One student complained. As an observant Muslim, who covers her body as part of her faith, she said she was made to feel unsafe. According to Susana, that is when her career changed.

As she explained on the program, Susana says she was drawn into an investigative process where her Director, James C. Evans asked her in an angry, accusatory tone: “Do you read your Bible at on campus?”

That was just the beginning of her odyssey. I want you to hear Susana, who grew up in the former Czech Republic, describe how she was treated by the University of Washington. It reminds her of how her loved ones were abused by Russian authorities when the Soviet Union invaded her birth Country.

Susana spoke out because she is concerned for future generations of teachers and students.

You can listen to our interview here.

We have reached out to the University of Washington for a response. Through a spokesperson, the University said they will consider making a statement.

I am sharing, below, her letter to us.

In 2015, a female Muslim student filed a formal complaint against me stating that I had made comments about God during and after my class that were offensive to her and that I had not promoted a positive learning environment. Once during this class, I was teaching the term “bucket list” because it was in our textbook chapter, and students had to make a list of what would be on their bucket list and that is when a student wanted to know what would be on mine. I replied that I would like to tell people about God. Another time with this female Muslim student was outside my classroom when she was crying. She was very upset and disclosed to me that her husband was cheating on her. Trying to comfort her, I simply told her that during difficult times, I pray. Her complaint was made soon after she received a failing grade in this class at the end of that quarter. As a result of her complaint, I was summoned to a formal meeting with my Director, James C. Evans and Human Resources, and a warning letter was issued saying that I had violated the UW’s executive Order 31, a Nondiscrimination and Non-retaliation policy. Disregarding the fact that other Muslim students were in this class and that I had received high student evaluations at the end of that quarter. During this particular meeting, my Director asked me a question pertaining to my religion, “Do your read your Bible on campus?” In the final warning letter, the administration forbade me any mentioning of “God” or referencing to my religious belief such as praying. They concluded that my comments had harassed and discriminated against this female Muslim student. I disputed the incident with my union and only a copy of a letter of this incidence was placed into my employee personal file….

Due to discrimination and harassment because of my religion, my work place has become a hostile environment, and I am now afraid to teach. I did not, never have and do not discriminate against nor harass any of my students.


Susana Asberry

• 2229.11a




















International gloria.tv.news


[gloria.tv] 2229.12



















International Some jihad headlines of the week


France: Muslima screaming “Allahu akbar” threatens to blow herself up at Cannes Festival

France: Expert admits that it is 'Islam, not social factors driving We're not the

Germany: Muslims plot to knife spectators, participants at Berlin half-marathon

UK: 'We're not the Thought Police. That being said, what are you thinking'?

UK: Teachers blast 'racist' parents who pull children from Islam 'education' classes

UK: ISIS jihadi plot to murder soldiers and police in London in drive-by killings


[CF News] 2229.13




















International The Prophet Voris


[CMTV] 2229.14



















International The World Over with Raymond Arroyo



[EWTN] 2229.15























Newman on Conscience I (Part II next week)

Fr Ian Ker



[OfficialDiscern] 2229.16



















Clock face Event


Humanae Vitae and the Sanctity of Life

HUMANAE VITAE AND THE SANCTITY OF LIFE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, Sunday, May 13th, 2018, 9am - 6pm at the London Oratory.

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul's VI's last encyclical, is undoubtedly one of the 20th century's most prophetic documents. Rejected by modernity and even by many lay Catholics, priests and bishops, the predictions of the encyclical have all, nonetheless, been fulfilled, so that, within 50 years of its publication, our world, in many ways, differs little from the Biblical description of the time of Noah or of Sodom.

This year's Conference, by joining the dots, will show the connection between Our Lady's messages at Fatima and Akita with the rejection of Humanae vitae and the consequences for the 21st Century.

• Four prophesies and four sins, Fr Linus Clovis

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, where, with commendable clarity, he restated the Church's teaching, prophetically warning of grave consequences if not adhered to. The teaching was rejected and, within 50 years, those grave consequences have morphed into the near complete global institutionalization of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.

• Family: Key to Catholic restoration, Michael Matt

As the Catholic Church undergoes the worst crisis in her history, Michael will explain how the Catholic family can survive, keep the Faith, and contribute mightily to the worldwide Catholic restoration movement. From homeschooling and fighting the culture war to the Latin Mass and the Rosary-the Catholic family is absolutely key to Catholic counterrevolution.

• Canada silent no more, Denise Mountenay

Denise is the Founder/President of' Canada Silent No More'. For over 25 years she has been candidly sharing her experience of rape, teen pregnancy and abortion. She has spoken to audiences in Universities, High Schools, Churches, Conferences, Prisons, Radio and Television. Denise is the Founder/President of 'Canada Silent No More' (CSNM) a registered non-profit society offering hope and healing to people affected by abortion and pregnancy loss. Denise brings education as well as awareness to the forefront on this vital issue so prevalent in our generation. She also encourages youth and young adults to hang on to their hormones.

• Humanae Vitae and the mass media, Fr. Nicholas Grace

Fr Nicholas Grace is a priest in the Religious Order Institute of the Incarnate Word. His presentation will focus on the background and reasons why Humanae Vitae was written by Pope Paul VI and how a number of agents including some in the Church, the pharmaceutical industry and others galvanizing the mass media in order to persuade the Church to change its teaching concerning birth control.




[FLI] 2229.17





















Book review


Cheap sex

Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage and Monogamy Mark Regnerus, Oxford University Press, 2017, hb, 262pp, £19.99, ISBN 97801906736

Cheap SexTHE FAMILY EDUCATION TRUST writes: 'In this groundbreaking book, Dr Regnerus draws on several large, population-based surveys to provide a representative overview of what Americans think and do with regard to sexual relationships, supplemented by stories from in-depth interviews with 100 young adults aged 24-32 conducted by his research team in five different parts of the United States. The picture that emerges is one in which young Americans appear to be having more sexual experiences with more partners, and yet they are less stable in, and less content with, the relationship in front of them.

Dr Regnerus is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, specialising in the areas of sexual behaviour, family, marriage, and religion. Throughout this title, he interacts with the thinking of Anthony Giddens and his notions of 'the pure relationship' and `confluent love'. In Giddens' own words:

Unlike romantic love, confluent love is not necessarily monogamous, in the sense of sexual exclusiveness. What holds the pure relationship together is the acceptance on the part of each partner, 'until further notice', that each gains sufficient benefit from the relation to make its continuance worthwhile. Sexual exclusiveness here has a role in the relationship to the degree to which the partners mutually deem it desirable or essential. (p.178)

While Giddens was keen not to object to the changes in patterns of sexual behaviour that he perceived, Regnerus is not so complacent and highlights some of the adverse consequences that have flowed from the sexual revolution. In spite of their differences, Giddens welcomes this title as 'a magisterial study of the changing sexual landscape today' and predicts that it will become 'a standard work of reference in the field'.

The central message of the book is that sex has become cheap, both economically and socially. It is now more available and at a lower cost than ever before in human history. In previous generations, when intercourse carried a higher risk of conception, men had to prove themselves marriageable and demonstrate a capacity to support a wife and provide for a family in order to access sex. It is not so much the case that men today are afraid to 'man up' and commit; they simply don't need to. In the words of the social psychologist, Kathleen Vohs:

Nowadays young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualms for sex. Nor does he 'rave to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forgo other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that... Sex has become free and easy. (p.149)

Regnerus comments: 'Sex is cheap if women expect little in return for it and if men do not have to supply much time, attention, resources, recognition. or fidelity in order to experience it.' (p.28) The upshot of giving young men easy access to sexual satisfaction is that society is deprived of a way to motivate them_

Cheaper sex has been facilitated by three distinctive technological achievements:

• The wide uptake of the contraceptive pill and the mentality flowing from it that sex is 'naturally' infertile;

• Mass-produced pornography - the cheapest form of sex: accessible, affordable and anonymous;

• The advent and evolution of online dating services.

Together, these three factors have created a massive slow-down in the development of committed relationships, especially marriage, and they have put the fertility of increasing numbers of women at risk, subsequently driving up the demand for fertility treatments.
Now that conception can be avoided or artificially generated, Regnerus observes, heterosexuality is at risk of becoming 'one taste among others'. Women want men but don't need them, while men want sex but have more options. While cheap sex has made diverse sexual experiences more accessible, it has made other things more difficult, like sexual fidelity and getting and staying married, which Regnerus notes has long been 'a predictable pathway to greater economic, social and emotional flourishing'.

The sober truth is that those who self-report more than 20 sexual partners in their lifetime are:

• Twice as likely to have ever been divorced;

• Three times as likely to have cheated while married;

• Twice as likely to report having had an abortion;

• More likely to be on medication for depression or anxiety;

• Three times more likely to have been told they had a sexually transmitted infection;

• More likely to have tragic sexual histories. (p.89)

As Regnerus observes: 'Cheap sex is having a tough time creating lasting love.' (p.100)
Many people are continuing to marry because they are following the cultural practices of their parents and grandparents. However, with historically compelling reasons for marriage - like babies, financial and physical security, or the desire for a 'socially legitimate' sexual relationship - losing their hold, marriage is in the throes of deinstitutionalisation. Declining marriage rates suggest that `cultural lag' is nearing its end.

With the advent of increased economic egalitarianism, women no longer need what men historically offered in marriage. Some men have therefore concluded that 'marriage is a bad deal for them, and that cheap sex is a welcome shift from expensive promises that can, in the end, leave them alone and with a child-support tab to pay'. (p.163)

This is an insightful and illuminating volume. Policymakers would do well to heed Regnerus' call to acknowledge the reality of cheap sex and its consequences, instead of recasting it in a positive light. He warns that: 'Societies that disregard monogamous norms undermine their own long-term interests.' (p.182)

But the reader who comes to this book seeking solutions and a plan of action to change men's attitudes and behaviour, and to recover marriage and monogamy will be disappointed. That is not its purpose. Regnerus describes his book as 'a documentary, an assessment of where things stand and an argument about how we got here, with some space at the end donated to educated guesses about what happens next

[FET] 2229.FET234|ZXCVB NM,





















Film review: Chappaquiddick



BRAD MILLER writes for The Catholic Thing: 'Directed by John Curran with a script by Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan, Chappaquiddick - which opened last Friday - tells a story most people over the age of 60 will recall. Whether or not it will appeal to younger generations I can't say, although the studio has a hashtag for that: @/thisreallyhappened.

To jog your memory: In the early morning hours of July 18, 1969, the junior U.S. senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy (hereinafter, Teddy), left a party in the company of a former aide to his late brother Bobby, and - almost certainly under the influence of alcohol - drove his car off a wooden bridge and into a tidal pond. Teddy managed to escape from the sunken automobile; his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. It's unclear whether she drowned or suffocated inside the Oldsmobile Delmont 88, probably the latter (she may have survived for four hours).

What happened next is both unclear and yet damning. In the film, we see Teddy sitting on the bank of the pond in the immediate aftermath of the crash. Then we see him walking along the road that leads back to the beach-house party where six - now five - single women (the 'Boiler Room Girls' of RFK's '68 presidential campaign) and six - counting Teddy - married men continue their rather sad revels. Teddy (brilliantly and flawlessly played - with minimal but effective makeup - by Aussie actor Jason Clarke) tells an aide to fetch his cousin, Joey Gargan (superbly played by Ed Helms). Then Teddy climbs into the backseat of a waiting car. He says: 'I'm not going to be president.'

Together with a former U.S. Attorney, Paul F. Markham (Jim Gaffigan), the three return to the scene of the accident. Gargan and Markham strip down and dive into the dark water, fruitlessly attempting to save Mary Jo. Teddy then insists that they commandeer a rowboat to take him back to Edgartown on the mainland so he can return to his hotel. Gargan and Markham, both lawyers, urge him to call the police as soon as possible. Instead, Teddy calls his father, Kennedy patriarch Joe, who whispers one word of advice: 'Alibi.' Teddy's first contact with the police came nine hours later.

The timeline of events portrayed in the film is unclear: we don't know exactly when the car crashed (probably between 12:30 and 1:00) or when Teddy arrived back at the party. The film fails to note that he walked passed at least four houses on the way to reunite with his friends and - as they became - co-conspirators, or that each of these houses had telephones from which he could have called for help.

Instead - assuming that Mary Jo was dead - Teddy went into damage-control mode.

There follows a meeting back in the famous family compound in Hyannis Port in which veterans of the JFK Administration, the RFK campaign, and Teddy's own senatorial staff try to overcome Teddy's fecklessness in order to preserve his future and, above all, the Kennedy legacy. It isn't easy.

Teddy has recklessly instructed an aide to tell the New York Times' James Reston, one of the era's most astute reporters, that the senator is unavailable for comment due to the concussion he received in the accident and the sedatives prescribed to treat it. Reston knows you never give sedatives to a concussion victim. Then Teddy decides to attend Mary Jo's funeral wearing a neck brace, which he clearly didn't need.

In both cases, the press pounced.

As to the concussion claim itself: Teddy was never actually examined by a doctor.

The whole episode was one of cowardly dissembling. In his statement to the Edgartown police, Teddy claimed to have made multiple attempts to save Mary Jo, although it's unlikely he did, and there's no doubt that his principal concern had quickly become saving his reputation, which the Hyannis Port 'brain trust' did manage to do, thanks mostly to Robert McNamara and Ted Sorensen, via a nationally televised address by Teddy a week later, the content of which bore little resemblance to the facts of the Chappaquiddick incident.

This gathering at the Kennedy compound reminded me of one that had occurred there five years before, when a group of Catholic priests had strategized with the previously pro-life Kennedys about how they could, within the pro-abortion Democratic Party, have 'cover' from the Church via a . . . nuanced view of the politics of infanticide - the 'I'm personally opposed, but . . .' position.

I suppose it also provided the Kennedy men (and, later, some Kennedy women) with space in which they could justify serial adulteries, divorces, and remarriages, and in which they sometimes received the 'blessing' of the Roman Catholic Church. The term 'Kennedy annulments' fairly defines the sorry state into which the tribunal process has fallen when the rich and powerful seek what they do not deserve and are given it, despite the obvious scandal and, more importantly, the moral danger to all involved.

One cannot say that once the Kennedys made themselves amenable to adultery and abortion that Mary Jo Kopechne's fate was sealed. Still, what's the death of one woman set against the murders of children in the womb? When one has crossed that line, one must inevitably place personal ambition above honor and self-sacrifice.

When Teddy finally got around to running for president, which he did in 1980, hoping, one supposes, to emerge from what he often called the 'shadow' of his three older brothers (Joe Jr. had been killed in WWII), it was Chappaquiddick that stood in his way. Whether or not in unseating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, as he had hoped to do, he would have done better against Ronald Reagan is unlikely. But the people of Massachusetts re-elected him to the Senate after Chappaquiddick in '70, '76, '82, '88, '94, 2000, and 2006. But Mr. Curran's riveting film is not a political polemic. It's a portrait of personal hubris worthy of Euripides or Sophocles.

[The Catholic Thing] 2229.18




















Facebook’s censorship of conservatives

ROBERT SPENCER writes for Jihad Watch: 'Cruz did not ask Zuckerberg, but could have, about Facebook’s choking off of sites that oppose jihad terror. He could have asked him why Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February 2017, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered.

We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence, but Facebook is acting as judge, jury and executioner in all this. There is no appeal and no recourse. Facebook is implementing Sharia blasphemy laws, and also doing everything it can to muzzle all opposition to the Left before the 2018 elections, so as to ensure that they will turn out in a way that will make it easier to destroy Trump and stop the swamp-draining.

Will these hearings stop all that? Unlikely. But it is good that at least some light is being shed upon it.



Amber Athey reports for The Daily Caller: 'Sen. Ted Cruz clearly rattled Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg Tuesday by grilling him about Facebook’s well-documented censorship of conservatives.

Zuckerberg had a relatively easy time facing questioning during his Tuesday testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees until Cruz took over the helm.

Cruz noted the number of examples of Facebook censoring conservatives, including labeling conservative commentators Diamond and Silk as “unsafe,” hiding stories about the IRS targeting conservatives and blocking over two dozen Catholic pages.

“To a great many Americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias,” Cruz said. “Do you agree with that assessment?”

Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook’s location in the highly-liberal Silicon Valley could concern conservative users, but assured Cruz that the platform tries to be unbiased.

“Are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from Planned Parenthood?” Cruz shot at the tech billionaire….

[Jihad Watch] 2229.18a





















Comment from the internet


From the Synod on Young People, Libera Nos Domine



[Remnant] 2229.19




















'Catholic Church, where are you going'?

Renowned historian and scholar Professor Roberto de Mattei is currently in the United States, to address the 'Weapons of Our Warfare' Catholic Family News Conference (April 6-8) in Deerfield, Illinois. CFN Web Editor Brendan Young spoke with Professor de Mattei regarding the 'Catholic Church, Where Are You Going?' Conference held today (Saturday, April 7, 2018) in Rome.

BRENDAN YOUNG: Dr. de Mattei, today the 'Catholic Church, Where Are You Going' Conference was held in Rome, concerning the crisis in the Church. The conference saw the participation of several Cardinals. What can you say about this?

ROBERTO de MATTEI: Being in the United States this weekend, I could not participate in the Rome conference, but I appreciated the recent interview in which Raymond Cardinal Burke affirmed that we find ourselves in front of an intolerable situation, and it is licit to criticize the Pope when he propagates errors and heresies. It seems to me that this follows along the lines of the Filial Correction which many still wait for, but unfortunately has not come out of the Rome conference. I hold that this act of correction, on the part of the Cardinals is necessary, but we must not think that this gesture, by itself, will resolve the crisis in the Church. Pope Francis is not its cause, but the product of a process of auto-demolition which has its roots in modernism, in the Nouvelle théologie, in the Second Vatican Council, and in the post-conciliar era. Only a serious analysis of the nature of this crisis will allow us to find the right solution, without forgetting that the situation is so grave, that only an extraordinary intervention of Grace can resolve it.

Many think that at this point there's nothing left to do, but wait for this Divine intervention…

Certainly it is God, and He alone, Who guides and changes history. But God requires the cooperation of men and if men cease working, Divine Grace will also cease to act. In this sense, I consider one of the greatest dangers a certain 'catacombism' which is being diffused in Catholic circles.

BY: What do you mean by 'catacombism?'

RDM: As I explain in my talk today, 'Tu es Petrus: True Devotion to the Chair of Saint Peter,' catacombism is the attitude of those who retreat from the battlefield and hide themselves in the illusion of being able to survive without fighting. Catacombism is the refusal of the militant conception of Christianity. If one rejects this militant concept, one accepts the principle of irreversibility of the historic process and from catacombism one inevitably passes to progressivism and modernism. The catacombists oppose the Constantinian Church to the Minority and Persecuted Church of the first three centuries. But Pius XII in his address to Catholic Action on December 8, 1947, refutes this theory, explaining that the Catholics of the first three centuries were not catacombists, but conquerors.

There are vocations to silence, like those of many contemplative monks and nuns; but Catholics, from Pastors to the last of the faithful, have the duty of testifying to their Faith, with words and example. Saint Athanasius and Saint Hilary did not remain silent against the Arians, nor did Saint Peter Damian against the corrupt prelates of his time. Saint Catherine of Siena did not keep silent in front of the Popes of her time In recent times, these did not keep quiet but spoke: the bishop of Münster, Clemens August von Galen faced with Nazism, and Cardinal Josef Mindszenty, primate of Hungary, confronted by communism.

BY: You also speak of a strategy of silence…

RDM: Yes. Today there is a political strategy of silence, as an alternative to fighting. A silence which predisposes us for dissimulation, hypocrisy and final surrender. Day after day, month after month, year after year, the politics of silence has become a jail which imprisons many conservatives. In this sense, silence is not only a sin of today, but is also a chastisement for yesterday's sins. Today, those who for too many years remained silent, are prisoners of silence. However, he is free, who in the course of the last fifty years has not kept silent, but has spoken openly and without compromises, because only the Truth makes us free. (John 8:32).

BY: Then, how must we speak?

RDM: To speak means, above all, to witness publicly one's own fidelity to the Gospel and to the immutable Catholic truths, denouncing the errors which counteract it. In times of crisis, the rule is that which Benedict XV in the encyclical Ad beatissimi Apostolorum Principis of November 1, 1914 declared against the modernists: 'It is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: 'Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down' - nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est. Sacred Tradition remains the criterion for discerning that which is Catholic and that which is not, rendering resplendent the visible marks of the Church. Tradition is the faith of the Church that the Popes have maintained and transmitted throughout the course of the centuries. But Tradition comes before the Pope and not the Pope before Tradition.

Limiting ourselves, then, to a generic denunciation of the errors which oppose the Tradition of the Church, isn't enough. It is for us to call out by name, all those who inside the Church profess a theology, a philosophy, a morality, a spirituality, in contrast with the perennial Magisterium of the Church, no matter what office they may occupy. And today we must admit that the Pope himself promotes and propagates errors and heresies in the Church. We need to have the courage to say this, with all the veneration which is due to the Pope. True devotion to the Papacy expresses itself in an attitude of filial resistance, as happened in the Filial Correction addressed to Pope Francis in 2017.

In the crisis of our days, every profession of faith and declaration of fidelity which disregards the responsibility of Pope Francis, lacking strength, clarity and sincerity. We need to have the courage to say: Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the confusion which exists today in the Church; Holy Father, you are the first one responsible for the heresies which are circulating in the Church today. The first one, but not the only one who is responsible. The responsibility has to be extended to he who adorns himself with the title of Pope Emeritus, to he who claims continuity between this pontificate and the preceding one, to he who is the cause of this pontificate: Benedict XVI.

BY: What are your thoughts regarding the Pope Emeritus?

RDM: We need to thank Sandro Magister and other Vaticanistas for having unmasked the media manipulation carried out by Msgr. Dario Viganò to give credence to a non-existent endorsement of Pope Francis by Benedict XVI. An imbroglio in which the victim (Benedict XVI) is presented by some ultra-progressivist commentators as being guility of 'interference' in papal affairs. Graver still than the so-called 'Lettergate,' the fact that public opinion and the mass-media which molds it, accepts as a normal fact the paralell cohabitation of two Popes. The greater responsibility of this unprecedented situation, is, in my view, Josef Ratzinger who, as Cardinal Brandmuller oberved after the announcement of the resignation, should have renounced the name of Benedict XVI, the title of Pope emeritus, the white cassock, and living in the Vatican, which is presence has today created objective confusion, leading us to believe the existence of two simultaneous Popes possible, while only one can be the Vicar of Christ on earth. The choice of Benedict XVI was derived from the progressivist roots of his ecclesiology, what emphasizes the power of order, indelible in itself over that of jurisidction, which is instead, revocable. In reality, the Papacy does not represent the fourth level of [the Sacrament of the Holy] Major Orders (following the diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy), but an office of governing, the unitary nature of which, Jesus Christ Himself defined. Can we be surprised by the fact, that in this situation, Francis does not stake a strong claim to his munus, obliging Benedict to leave the Vatican, which he could very easily do? If this does not occur, the explanation is not found in the necessity of Francis receiving support on Benedict's part, but in the fact that Bergoglian ecclesiology goes a step further than Ratzingerian ecclesiology, because it desires the existence of a pontifical college formed by two Popes, perhaps three or four in the future, and these would dialectically carry out different functions. The inevitable consequence would be the disappearance of the Petrine Primacy. I fear that this is the 'conversion of the Papacy' wished for, by Pope Francis.

BY: What do you think we should we do, at this point?

RDM: As I say in my talk, I think that we must reduce to the indispensable minimum the ecclesiastical cohabitation with those Pastors who demolish, or favor the demolition of the Church, In my conference I give the example of matrimonial separation. If a father exercises illicit physical or moral violence toward his wife and children, the wife, although recognizing the validity of the marriage itself, and without requesting an annulment, to protect herself and her children, can request a separation. The Church permits it. Giving up living habitually together means distancing oneself from the teachings and practices of the evil Pastors, refusing to participate in the programs and activities promoted by them.

But we must not forget that the Church cannot disappear. Therefore, it is necessary to support the apostolate of Shepherds who remain faithful to the traditional teachings of the Church, participating in their initiatives and encouraging them to speak, to act and to guide the disoriented flock.

It is time to separate ourselves from evil Pastors, and to unite ourselves to the good ones, inside of the one Church in which also live, in the same field, the wheat and the cockle. (Matthew 13:24-30), remembering that the Church is visible, and cannot save herself, outside of her legitimate Pastors.

And yet, if the Vicar of Christ would betray his mission, the Holy Ghost would never cease to assist, not even for a moment, His Church, in which, even in times of defection from the Faith, a remnant, even a small one, of Pastors and faithful will continue to always keep and pass on Tradition, trusting in the Divine Promise: 'I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.' (Matthew 28:20).

(Catholic Family News USA) 2229.20


















The Bergoglian Tango

HILARY WHITE writes for The Remnant: 'The ancient Greek mathematical philosopher Zeno of Elea (c. 450 BC) proposed a kind of thought experiment in which, in order to complete a distance of, say, a hundred meters, a runner would have to first divide in half the distance between himself and the finish line. But to get to that fifty meter mark, he would first have to achieve half that distance, which would in turn require that he halve that 25 meters, and to get to that mark would have to halve that distance… Each iteration of the project of getting from here to there requires splitting the difference again and again, meaning it would require an infinite regression of smaller and smaller distances be crossed to get to the finish line.

Zeno’s Paradox popped into my mind again as yet another of Pope Francis’ apparently infinite supply of scandals burst forth when he again was reported to be uttering heresies. The secular English language newspapers burst forth in songs of gleeful praise as the pope – on Holy Thursday no less! – denied the entire point of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the Cross.

Unrepentant wicked souls, the pope is reported to have said, “do not go anywhere in punishment. Those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and go among the ranks of those who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and therefore cannot be forgiven vanish. Hell does not exist, only the disappearance of sinful souls.”

The take-away message of the pope to the Catholic faithful the day before Good Friday? “So really, there was no point at all to that whole crucifixion/resurrection business. It was all just a rather sad waste… Redemptive suffering? Uniting your own suffering to that of Christ on the Cross? Redemption from what?”

As always, it was done in a way that provided sufficient cover, by again allowing the nonagenarian, radical atheist and notorious anti-Catholic Eugenio Scalfari to report the pope’s words “from memory”. The method allows barely enough plausible deniability to encourage the usual suspects to issue their (increasingly absurd) excuses; Austen Ivereigh and other professional Francis-apologists suggested again that this was the “merciful” Francis trying to convert Scalfari. These claims were bolstered with yet another hasty “non-denial” issued by the Vatican. The fact that the Vatican message-controllers failed completely to either assert that the pope didn’t say that, or that the pope believes what the Church believes about the existence of Hell and the immortality of the human soul, seemed not to deter them a bit.

As Antonio Socci observed, the methodology here, that appears to be Francis’ favourite game, is two-tracked: first, to issue “vague and theologically ambiguous” messages intended to be heard by the Catholic world, meticulously avoiding “explicit statements” while “little by little demolishing” Catholic doctrine; and second, to send signals to the secular world, the non-Catholic readers of the extreme-left La Repubblica, that the pope’s real position is one of fashionable, radical doubt on central issues of Catholic teaching. Socci asserts that this radical doubt is the substance of Francis’ “true ideas” and these messages are being issued in this way “in order to build up his ‘revolution’ and to have popularity among non-Catholics and the media.”

In other words, he’s hiding behind Eugenio Scalfari specifically because of Scalfari’s lack of credibility; because Scalfari is a life-long bitter anti-Catholic crusader; because he’s in his 90s; because he admitted he doesn’t take notes or make recordings. This is the cover that Francis is using to get his message out for those with ears to hear, all while remaining with his toes barely on this side of the “formal heresy” line, the line that he knows we are all waiting for him to cross.

Given the regularity with which the Catholic world has had to endure this monotonous exercise in two-step subversion since the first days of this pontificate, it is difficult to argue against Socci’s thesis without ignoring much of what we can observe with our own eyes. From what his former victims in Argentina have reported, this is the patented game, the Bergoglian Tango, that he has used from the earliest days of his ecclesiastical career. Jorge Bergoglio was and remains known mainly for his skill at manipulation and his eagerness to cause division, strife and chaos in order to consolidate his own power. A classic Peronist.

Among the questions remaining at this astonishing pass is how fine is he going to be able to cut the remaining infinitesimal distance between himself and a formal declaration of heresy? And, perhaps even more to the point this month, as Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller were speaking at a Rome conference on the “confusion in the Church” over doctrine whilst never once actually calling Francis out by name to demand that he declare and defend Catholic truth: who is going to hold him to it? Who, among these “good” bishops and cardinals is going to say to him, to his face, “Holy Father, you’re a heretic and you will lose the papal office if you do not recant immediately.”? Who of our hierarchy is going to have the guts to call it?

While these two cardinals, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Zen by remote teleconferencing, are in Rome, where are the sitting bishops? All or nearly all of the bishops who have said anything thus far – as the Pope grows ever more bold, halving the distance again and again – are retired, having no see to govern, no seminarians to form. The ordinaries, the sitting bishops and archbishops are either hiding in studious silence or are currying the favour of this pope by ever-more open declarations opposing perennial Catholic doctrine.

I know we have been wondering all this time; how far are the “good bishops” going to let it go?

Of course, the now-normal fight over whether the pope “really said it” immediately broke out on social media, with precisely the same excuses being offered that we have seen trotted out for five years. I was told it was “common sense” that a pope would never say such things, and therefore “the media” were “blowing it out of proportion,” “taking him out of context,” “misquoting” and anyway – our old favourite – “it was probably a mistranslation.” With every one of these interview scandals being so much the same, both in what the pope says and the reaction to it, it can be difficult to keep track of it all, but someone I know dug around and made a count: this is the Qeighth time Francis has had one of these little “informal chats” with Eugenio Scalfari.

More than one Catholic news outlet asked the obvious question: “If, as the Vatican press office continues to insist, Scalfari either lies, misinterprets or otherwise misrepresents the Holy Father’s words in his ‘reconstructions’ of their conversations – and every single time causes a huge uproar in the Catholic world – why does Francis continue to go back to him?” The UK’s hapless Catholic Herald, still bravely trying to square the “conservative” circle, laments that this habit is causing “confusion” among the faithful.

Perhaps the Herald is doing that (aggravating) English thing of talking around the point in order to make it obvious. The point, of course, being that it is perfectly clear that Francis keeps going back to Scalfari specifically for the purpose of creating this confusion.

But how do we know this is the correct interpretation? How can we figure out what is really going on?

Easy; by eliminating everything that doesn’t fit.

There’s a technique in classical realist art called drawing the negative space. Drawing a portrait is among the most difficult tasks for an artist; everything, each feature, every curve and shadow has to be in absolutely perfect proportion and exactly accurate distances from each other in the complex system of a human face. The human eye is so well trained to recognise faces that even the tiniest inaccuracy in the placement of any element of the drawing will be spotted instantly. One of the tricks an artist will employ to place, for instance, the left eye exactly correctly in relation to the right eye, is to draw around it. My instructor called this “sneaking up on it”. If you are struggling to get the placement of the feature right, draw everything on the face that isn’t the left eye. Once you’ve done everything else with perfect accuracy, the only space left will be the precisely correct spot for the eye.

This idea, of identifying everything around a problem, was articulated by Arthur Conan Doyle who put it in the form of a logical axiom that was the operating system of his great investigator, Sherlock Holmes; “Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, however improbable it may be, must be the truth.” In some idealised reality, in a parallel universe in which, say, Scola was elected pope in 2013, it might very well have been “common sense” that a pope would never deny a dogmatically defined, de fide, portion of the Catholic faith. But since we are living in this universe, and we have this puzzle to examine, let’s do it rationally.

What Austen Ivereigh and his pals want us to do is to take every artefact produced by the Great Bergoglian Scandal Generator as a singular object without context. They want us only to look at the left eye, by itself, without reference to its position in the rest of the face. When he tells Eugenio Scalfari that there is no hell, this is to be examined in a kind of hermetically sealed mental “clean room,” where it will be examined exclusively on its own merits, with no reference to all the other times he has said this or something similar.

They want us to not remember that Bergoglio has said exactly this and other scandalous things to Scalfari, and not once but several times. They want us not to think about the fact that in every case, he has never once issued a clear, unequivocal statement that Scalfari’s claim was not true. They want us to ignore the fact that something very similar to this was inserted into the text of Amoris Laetitia – again with just enough of an ambiguous twist to provide a diaphanous veil of increasingly implausible deniability: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”

With each rotten bloom of scandal, we are expected to look only at this instance, and ignore the full context of all that we have learned in the last five years[1]. We are supposed to forget that Bergoglio’s longstanding habits have been reported by the Argentinians he worked with in the past and these reports are completely congruent with what we are seeing today. And we have ourselves heard and read the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times he has “accidentally” misquoted Scripture, endorsed homosexual activists, gender ideologues and abortionists, insulted faithful Catholics, lay and clerical; said that atheists can be redeemed through good works, said that Christ and His Blessed Mother were guilty of sins…

After five years of this constant stream of scandal, error, heresy, blasphemy and outright blatant lies, are we now really expected to believe that Francis didn’t tell Eugenio Scalfari what Scalfari said he did? It’s true that we don’t have a recording of the conversation, and yes, it’s true that Scalfari is an elderly communist and hater of the Church. But these are the only bits of negative space left in the drawing, and all that surrounds them pretty clearly tells us exactly what we’re looking at.

[Remnant] 2229.20a




















The new Borgia pope? Francis and the Maradiaga catastrophe

JOHN ZMIRAK writes for The Stream : 'Management gurus tell us, 'Personnel is policy.' Southern mothers say it differently. 'You can tell everything about someone from his friends.' Historians will look at the men Pope Francis promoted. They will draw interesting conclusions.

Meet one of the pope's closest aides. Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga. He faces appalling charges of financial corruption. They keep getting worse. Maradiaga's handpicked deputy stands accused of sex abuse.

We will deep-dive into the latest scoop about the 'Red cardinal.' But first let's review some other men Francis boosted. (Be sure to click on the links for more.)

Pope Francis's Renaissance Cardinals and Advisors

Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium. Pope John Paul II criticized him publicly. The reason? For allowing the complete collapse of faith in his country. Danneels waved on the legalization of abortion. And same sex marriage. He retired in disgrace. Danneels had bullied into silence a young man abused by a bishop. (The bullying turned up on audiotape.) The coverup led Belgian police to pry open a dead bishop's coffin. Why? To see if Daneels had hidden documents there. Pope Francis plucked Danneels out of obscurity. He asked him to address the 2014 Synod on the Family. (Fair's fair. Danneels had pushed Francis for pope in 2005.)

Bishop Marcel Sorondo. In 2015 he vaunted Pope Francis' statements on climate change. He claimed they're of equal weight to the Church's 2000-year stance on abortion. He recently praised church-smashing Red China. As a better example of 'Catholic social teaching' than the U.S. Sorondo serves Pope Francis as the highest church spokesman on both natural and social sciences.

Fr. Antonio Spadaro. He edits the quasi-official Vatican magazine La Civilta Cattolica. In 2016, he denounced Catholic pro-lifers and their Protestant allies. How? As advocates of 'theocracy.' He also smeared the Christian Right. He claimed it opposes civil rights for minorities.

Archbishop Víctor Manuel 'Tucho' Fernández. He's widely cited as the 'ghostwriter' for Francis' Amoris Laetitiae. (A part of the baffling statement apparently reverses 2,000 years of Catholic practice on divorce.) Fernández also wrote Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing. As Andrew Guernsey wrote, 'This book, filled with erotic poetry and images, and written by a priest, now an archbishop, who took a vow of celibacy, provides disconcerting insights into the bizarre mind of one of the world's most powerful theologians.'

Father James Martin, SJ, a gadfly media courtesan. He works to obscure the 6,000 year-old teaching on homosexual activity. Martin praised same-sex couples kissing during Mass. Martin encouraged priests to get ready for same-sex marriage prep. He called for bishops to condemn doctrinally faithful Catholic laymen for what they write online. Martin also twisted the teaching of his own order's founder, Ignatius of Loyola. The goal? To claim that Jesus 'wants' priests to apostasize in the face of persecution. Pope Francis made Martin a special adviser on communications to the Vatican.

The Court of the Red Cardinal

Now to the Red Cardinal. Many have called Maradiaga the 'vice-pope.' He was widely seen as a new broom. He would clean out decades-old financial corruption at places like the Vatican bank. Certainly, his frequently Leninist rhetoric fits someone driving out the money-changers. In a vaunting address at the University of Dallas, Maradiaga quoted Fidel Castro fanboy Jean Ziegler.

Maradiaga denounced the 'world dictatorship of finance capital. … The lords of financial capital wield over billions of human beings a power of life and death. Through their investment strategies, their stock market speculations, their alliances, they decide day to day who has the right to live on this planet and who is doomed to die.'

Speaking for himself, Maradiaga dismissed systems like America's. He damned 'neoliberal dictatorships that rule democracies.' He warned, 'To change the system, it would be necessary to destroy the power of the new feudal lords.'

But Maradiaga seems to have more in common with Marxist politicians than we thought. In socialist systems from Venezuela to Soviet Russia, the oligarchs might sound like ascetics. But in fact they live like Tsars. The only lubricant that can make a system as inhuman and pseudo-rational as socialism function at all is corruption. As socialists seek absolute power, they get corrupted absolutely. Or maybe a certain kind of envy-ridden, ruthless person craves socialism in the first place. So his palm is primed for grease.

The healing balm of hidden cash has been flowing. The centrist outlet Catholic News Agency cited Italian magazine L'Espresso. Apparently:

Maradiaga may have been involved in mismanaging Church funds, and may also have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Catholic University of Tegucigalpa.

The article said that Maradiaga is being accused of investing more than $1.2 million in some London financial companies, including Leman Wealth Management. Some of that money has now vanished, it said.

Casaretto's report was based on accounts from more than 50 witnesses, including diocesan staff members and priests, L'Espresso said.

That magazine kept digging. It turned up Martha Alegria Reichmann. She and her husband were longtime friends of the cardinal. She accuses him of fleecing her and her family of their savings. As Google translates the Italian text of that piece, Reichmann said of Maradiaga:

'In 2012, he pushed me and my husband to invest a lot of money into a London investment fund. Managed by a Muslim friend, Youssry Henien, who then disappeared into nothing with our money.

'We realized we were cheated. We did investigations, and found that this financier was already finished in the past in similar situations. I tried to contact Maradiaga, but was denied for months and months. I went to the Tegucigalpa cathedral when he celebrated mass, and I managed to exchange a few words. He told me that he was an injured party like us, that he too had lost money from the diocese, but he asked me for discretion.'

Tell the Vatican: Stop censoring faithful Catholic journalists. Sign petition here!

Molested Seminarians

Then there's Juan José Pineda Fasquelle. Maradiaga handpicked him to manage his home archdiocese in Honduras. He's also now accused of molesting his own seminarians. The eminently mainstream National Catholic Register reports:

According to the first former seminarian's testimony to Bishop Casaretto, Bishop Pineda 'attempted to have sexual relations … without my authorization, during the period I was in service with him. In the night he came close to me and touched my intimate parts and chest. I tried to stop him. …'

The second former archdiocesan seminarian testified that he witnessed firsthand an improper relationship between Bishop Pineda and a third seminarian, during a period when all three men were undertaking pastoral work together.

Subsequently, according to the second former seminarian's testimony, Bishop Pineda undertook a series of punitive actions against him that defamed his reputation and culminated with his expulsion from the archdiocesan seminary.

A Jewish Plot

These alleged events occurred under Maradiaga's nose. However, the Cardinal denied that a sexual abuse scandal even exists in the church. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out, in 2002 Maradiaga dismissed the epidemic of sex-abuse cover-ups. How? As the invention of Jews in the media.

They allegedly targeted the church because of its advocacy for the Palestinians.

Pope Francis seems to have launched a new Renaissance in the Vatican. It has all the corruption, hubris, sodomy and worldliness of the original. But none of the art.


[Published by LifeSiteNews with permission from The Stream].

[LSN] 2229.21



















A 'Difficult Word' announced in Saint Peter's Square

NOTE FROM MAIKE HICKSON for OnePeterFive: : Mr. Paul Badde - who has worked as a well-respected journalist for many years in Rome as a Correspondent (today for EWTN and CNA) - has just published on the German bishops' website Katholisch.de a short commentary on the recent words of Pope Francis concerning Our Lord's Resurrection. Thus, I reached out to him and asked him whether he would have a slightly longer commentary for us to translate and publish in English. He has therefore kindly provided us with the following enlarged text which I have translated below.

THE CHRISTIAN CREED is a challenge, starting with the claim that God became Man, up to the belief in the fact of His Resurrection from the Dead from the sepulcher. It is no surprise that ecclesiastical heretics, from the very beginning, have tried to soften this affirmation and to attenuate it.

It was not the heretics though, but, rather, some equivocating modern theologians who finally succeeded in adapting the full imposition of the Creed to our small minds. The Greek notion of Kerygma plays a key role - a difficult word it is - which nevertheless has remained largely unknown to the general faithful. Kerygma means 'proclamation,' 'announcement,' also 'homily.' It was this notion which essentially helped some to re-interpret the old Easter Faith in such a way that Christ did not, after all, resurrect in a bodily way from the dead, but, rather, He resurrected in the proclamation of the Resurrection as exercised and spread by His disciples. The Resurrection from the dead by the Incarnate Son of God then becomes, in truth, a resurrection in and through the Christian homily. The difference is extremely fine and gauzy, and certainly this speculation was not only an uncommonly foolish idea. For it must not be overlooked that those same fearful Apostles - all of whom (except for St. John himself, finally) had all fled before Jesus' death - should start somehow three days after His death to speak, very unexpectedly and suddenly, with much courage about Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.

Therefore, should someone ever come to find the 'bones of Jesus' somewhere in Jerusalem, it would not shake in the least the 'Easter Faith' of the great Protestant theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, as he himself had even once said. Afterwards, the Kerygma became the kernel of a dogma of modern theology, in Protestant and in Catholic theology alike, in a sort of ecumenical fulfillment. It did not even help that Romano Guardini, already in 1937 in his major work The Lord, had sharply rejected this claim. Today, however, there is barely any priest or bishop who is not at least slightly infected with this grave claim, if he does not wish to be ridiculed by his fellow brethren because of his purportedly childish and unenlightened faith.

This pervasive kerygmatic claim has led, especially in Germany, to a situation such that the few faithful who still go to Church have a hard time realizing that priests and bishops, in effect, do not completely believe anymore what the profession of Faith of Nicea in the year 325 explicitly affirmed. St. Paul, however, most probably would consider this denial to be the greatest heresy of all, not outside, but, rather, inside the Church. And now it appears to have arrived in St. Peter's Square.

How so? Because on Wednesday, 28 March, 2018, Pope Francis in a fine introduction to the Easter Triduum with its celebrations where he casually instructed pilgrims from all over the world also that - speaking without manuscript - Easter itself 'does not end' with the common customs of that particular Sunday. For, 'This is where the journey begins, that of the mission, of the announcement: Christ has risen. And this announcement [proclamation], to which the Triduum leads, preparing us to welcome him, is the center of our faith and of our hope; it is the core; it is the message; it is - a difficult word, but it says it all - it is the kerygma which continually evangelizes the Church and [with] which she in her turn is invited to evangelize.'

Thus spoke the pope. God bless him. But we do not have to believe that. Thanks be to God. We may still confidently believe, like little children, that it is not the verbal proclamation, but the fact of Jesus' own bodily Resurrection which is indeed the center and the kernel of our Faith and of our hope.

[1P5] 2229.22























Resisting Peter: Cardinal Bergoglio knows exactly how that works

JAMES CANTRELL writes for The Remnant
: 'Pope Benedict's mercy toward Cardinal Bergoglio -- who rallied people to oppose him, and who then boycotted the synod called by Benedict -- allowed Bergoglio to retrench and get full backing to replace Benedict...

If Pope Benedict had been less a nice man of the old style academic type, the type in which conservatives continued to be gracious to liberals and even to frothing-at-the-mouth leftists until they took over and virtually exterminated even moderately conservative thought, we would have been spared Pope Francis.

Alexander Baverstock writes in The Telegraph that when the Islamic world reacted with typical extreme violence to Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg Lecture, then Cardinal Bergoglio took the opportunity to declare his opposition to Benedict having quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos to the effect that whatever was new in Mohammedan teaching was bad and inhumane, such as forced conversion.

Baverstock writes: 'Reacting within days to the statements, speaking through a spokesman in Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his 'unhappiness' with the statements made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same" (my emphasis).

Cardinal Bergoglio, in immediate defense of rioting Moslems, not merely undermined Pope Benedict, but encouraged other churchmen to do likewise.

That surely was the moment when the most liberal faction of Cardinals and other churchmen - such as the 'St. Gallen mafia' - decided that Bergoglio was probably their man.

There are a number of things I think we should take away from this article and the aftermath for the Church. One is that while Pope Francis is heavy handed and intolerant of anything that fails to ape his whims, he made himself a leader in undermining the Papacy of Benedict XVI.

A key characteristic of rebels against Christendom from Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer down to our day is that when they are not holding major power, they speak and act to disrupt things, usually while presenting themselves as persecuted truth tellers who simply want to be heard. When they acquire major power, they are revealed to be nastily authoritarian, even murderous, in their iconoclasm.

Another thing we should see from this story is that Bergoglio's rise began with his opposing a scholarly Pope who was quoting a Byzantine Emperor who has seen Turks slaughtering his people in increasing numbers, forcing the survivors to convert. Bergoglio in so doing not merely excused the rioting Moslems - whose violence more than proved the Emperor's assertions about Islam to be valid; Bergoglio effectively declared that the Church's role was to oppose anyone to say or write anything that would lead to Moslem rioting, for that is the only way to have dialogue with Moslems.

A Pope who so thinks will not tend his flock first and foremost. He will be much more interested in pleasing Moslems than in telling truths about Islam and its advances into new lands. Such a Pope will not want the Church to try to convert Moslems using reason and facts, because that would offend them and cause them to riot. Such a Pope likely will blame at least Western Catholics for Moslems blowing up churches and slaughtering churchmen and Christians generally.