This edition of CF NEWS No.2283 posted at 12.32 pm on Sunday, June 2nd, 2019



Vatican watch

"I knew nothing, obviously, nothing . . . nothing". Yes, you did. VIDEO   read more >>>
Pope’s lack of clarity is a sign of the end times   VIDEO   read more >>>
Pope's new motu proprio has 'fatal flaw' of clericalism, says theologian   read more >>>
Theologian responds to criticisms of letter to bishops concerning F
rancis' heresies VIDEO   read more >>>
Top Vatican Cardinal urges “intervention” against climate change VIDEO   read more >>>
A warning from recent history about changes to the CDF
The plot to destroy the Catholic Church from within VIDEO   read more >>>

Humanae Vitae

The aftermath VIDEO   read more >>>

China supplement

China's 'horrific' organ harvesting program VIDEO   read more >>>
Miracles are rare in Rome and Beijing
   read more >>>


Europe's populist wave versus Pope Francis VIDEO   read more >>>
What is at stake after the European elections read more >>>

News from around the world

AUSTRALIA Cardinal Pell refutes report he'll not request a reduced sentence    read more >>>
CANADA MPs standing ovation to motion calling for abortion ‘for any reason’ VIDEO   read more >>>
Overwhelming vote to ease divorce restrictions
   read more >>>
ITALY Why does the Pope hate the Deputy Prime Minister?   read more >>>
SCANDANAVIA Two journalists explain how Europe could fall to Islam
VIDEO   read more >>>
USA 200 ex-LGBT men, women rally to show freedom in following Christ
VIDEO   read more >>>
USA Trump responds to Francis who claims he (Trump) is 'not Christian'
VIDEO   read more >>>
VIDEO   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news
VIDEO   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week
   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo
VIDEO   read more >>>


Blessed John Henry Newman and Our Lady VIDEO   read more >>>


Christopher Hitchens VIDEO   read more >>>

Comment from the internet

Islam: What every Infidel should know VIDEO   read more >>>
Professor John Rist: Why I signed the Papal Heresy Open Letter
   read more >>>
Jordan Peterson on Catholicism: 'That's as sane as people can get'
VIDEO   read more >>>
The Vatican II Revolution re-examined 21
   read more >>>

Our Catholic Heritage

Site of the day   read more >>>
Latin Mass of the Angels
VIDEO   read more >>>


Saint Padre Pio da Pietrelcina    read more >>>


By courtesy of LifeSiteNews




To TRANSLATE this bulletin,Click here and then enter the URL
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News 2283.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
































Vatican watch




''About McCarrick I knew nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing."  Yes, you did.

Archbishop Viganò says Pope is lying in latest denial about McCarrick

DIANE MONTAGNA reportd from Rome for LifeSiteNews ~ For what appears to be the first time, Pope Francis has openly denied that he knew anything of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's immoral activities, directly contradicting Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's account of their conversation on the subject.

'I didn't know anything ... nothing, nothing,' Pope Francis said in a new interview published on Tuesday in Vatican News.

In response, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States has directly accused Pope Francis of lying.

In comments to LifeSite following the release of the interview, Archbishop Viganò said: 'What the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie. [...] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick, and he pretends that it wasn't him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place.'

Both interviews coincide with the release of a leaked correspondence between Pope Francis, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, confirming that restrictions were placed on McCarrick by the Vatican in 2008, and that the former cardinal (who has now been laicized over charges of sexual abuse) travelled extensively during the Francis pontificate, playing a key diplomatic role in establishing the controversial Vatican accord with Communist China.

The new interview

In the May 28 interview with Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki, Pope Francis sought to explain why he has never openly denied Archbishop Vigano's original testimony, while issuing a denial seemingly for the first time.

Readers will recall that news of the former US nuncio's testimony broke last August 25, while Pope Francis was attending the World Meeting Families in Dublin. One day later, during an inflight press conference on his return to Rome, the Pope sidestepped questions about the explosive allegations that he knew of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's abuse.

'Read the [Viganò] statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this,' the Pope told journalists aboard the papal plane (see video here).

'You all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions,' he said.

'It is an act of trust,' the Holy Father added. 'When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it, but I would like your professional maturity to do this work. It will do you all good, really.'

In today's interview with Alazraki, the journalist and long-time friend of John Paul II candidly tells Pope Francis: 'That silence has been very burdensome, because for the press and for many people, when one is silent it is like a husband and wife, isn't it? You catch your husband and he doesn't answer you. And you say, 'There's something rotten here.''

'So why the silence?' Alazraki pointedly asks Pope Francis. 'The time has come to answer that question we asked you on the plane.'

'Yes,' Pope Francis responds. 'Those who have studied Roman law say that silence is a way of speaking.'

He continues:

'The Viganò case: I saw it, I hadn't read the whole letter. I saw a little and I already knew what it was, and I made a choice: I trust the honesty of journalists and I said to them, 'Look, here you have everything. Study it and draw your conclusions.' And that's what you did, because you did the work, that was great, and I was very careful to say things weren't there but then, three or four months later, a judge in Milan said them when he was convicted'.

'You're talking about his family,' Alazraki asks.

'Of course,' the Pope responds. 'I kept quiet, why should I make it worse. Let the journalists find out. And you found it, you found that whole world. It was a silence of trust towards you … And the result was good, it was better than if I had started to explain, to defend myself.'

Pope Francis is suggesting that Archbishop Viganò has been exposed as unreliable because of a legal conflict with his brother that was settled in a Milan court.

In comments to LifeSite, Archbishop Viganò dismissed the Pope's attempt to cast doubt on his reliability over a dispute with his brother concerning the management of their inheritance - a question he pointed out had 'no relevance to the allegations regarding Cardinal McCarrick.'

'What Pope Francis said regarding the Milan ruling and my family has nothing to do with anything, because it has been completely clarified. It was only a division of property between brothers. I accepted it to make peace. Neither me nor my brother appealed the ruling, so the story ended there. And it has nothing to do with McCarrick. It is one of the many stories that they raised to destroy my credibility.'

Archbishop Viganò's account of these proceedings has been extensively verified by LifeSite [see our report here].

In Oct. 2018, the Vatican announced that a 'thorough study' of all relevant documents on McCarrick housed in Vatican offices would be conducted. It's unclear however why Pope Francis would require an archival investigation to say whether he knew about Cardinal McCarrick's misdeeds.

In his comments to LifeSite, Archbishop Viganò noted:

'On the return flight from Dublin, the Pope told journalists: 'I trust in your professionalism.' He promised to provide documents and he doesn't provide the documents. Tell me how journalists are supposed to know the truth if you don't provide the documents. How much time has passed since the Vatican promised an investigation? It's all a contradiction. He completely contradicts himself.'

'The Pope pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick,' Archbishop Viganò added. 'He pretends that it wasn't him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place. And he pretends not to remember what I told him.'

The Pope even claimed during the interview that there have been allegations that Archbishop Viganò was bribed to make damaging claims about him [it is obscure to whom the Holy Father is referring], insinuating in the context a comparison of the former US nuncio to Judas Iscariot.

Pressing Pope Francis

In the May 28 interview, Alazraki presses Pope Francis further on whether or not he knew about former cardinal Theodore McCarrick's misdeeds.

'I didn't know anything about McCarrick, obviously, nothing, nothing,' he says. 'I've said that several times, that I didn't know, I had no idea.'

It's unclear as to what Pope Francis is referring to when he says that he denied knowledge of McCarrick's immoral activities on several occasions as his refusal to comment one way or another has been a particularly notable element of the scandal.

Pope Francis continues: 'When [Archbishop Viganò] says that he spoke to me that day [on June 23, 2013], that he came … I don't remember if he told me about this, whether it's true or not, no idea! But you know that I didn't know anything about McCarrick; otherwise I wouldn't have kept quiet, right?'

Archbishop Viganò observed of this remark: 'He tries to be clever, claiming that he doesn't remember what I told him, when he was the one who asked me about McCarrick.'

The Pope says in the interview that there was a twofold reason for his silence. 'First,' he tells Alazraki, 'because the evidence was there, you judge. It was really an act of trust.'

'Secondly,' he adds, 'because of the [example of Jesus], that in moments of viciousness it is better not to speak, because it makes it worse. Everything is going to go against you. The Lord taught use that path and I follow it.'

Leaked Correspondence

News of Pope Francis's comments about Archbishop Viganò coincide coincided with today's release of a correspondence between Theodore McCarrick, Pope Francis and Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

The correspondence, obtained by former aide to Theodore McCarrick, American Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo, confirms that restrictions were placed on Theodore McCarrick by the Vatican in 2008, and that the former cardinal, who was laicized over charges of sexual abuse, travelled extensively the Francis pontificate, playing a key diplomatic role in establishing a Vatican accord with China.

Asked today about the correspondence, Archbishop Viganò told LifeSite 'the letters sing.'

'Msgr. Figueiredo was McCarrick's personal secretary when he came to Rome,' the former US nuncio said. 'He has released these letters from McCarrick to Parolin and the Pope in which he reports on his trips to China, to Iran and other places. Therefore, they were all well informed about this.'

Archbishop Viganò also noted that the correspondence shows that the Vatican was informed about the fact that McCarrick was sharing a bed with seminarians. 'McCarrick admitted it,' he said.

'To defend himself with the Pope, McCarrick said he never had sexual relations with anyone, but that he slept in the same bed with seminarians and priests,' the former US nuncio said.

Archbishop Viganò explained:

'It's the same thing he said before the ruling from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The sentence to reduce him to the lay state him was based on abuse against adults, minors and also abuse in Confession. Either the sentence from the Holy Office [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] is irrelevant, or what McCarrick said, that he never had relations with anyone, is a lie - just like what the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie, just like what he said about not remembering what I told him is a lie, when he was the one who asked me'.

The former nuncio to the United States also noted that the letters confirm Cardinal Parolin's involvement in the McCarrick affair, adding that it's time for him to be investigated.

'As I wrote in my first testimony, in May 2014 - when the article came out in the Washington Times referring to McCarrick's trip to Central Africa - I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, asking him: Are the restrictions that were placed on McCarrick still valid or not?'

'Parolin never responded to me,' the archbishops said, adding that the Vatican Secretary of State should also be investigated. 'He never responded to my letter, because is a total yes-man, as we see with the China deal.'

[LSN] 2283.1






















Globe CF  News

The Pope’s lack of clarity is a sign of the end times

IN MAY of 2018, Cardinal William Eijk of the Netherlands, said the Pope's lack of clarity regarding intercommunion reminded him of "The Church's ultimate trial. Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 675).

Here John-Henry Westen discusses Cardinal Eijk's request for clarity from the Holy Father, akin to St. Paul's public rebuke of St. Peter.



























Globe CF  News

Pope's new motu proprio has 'fatal flaw' of clericalism, says theologian

DOROTHY CUMMINGS McLEAN reports for LifeSiteNews ~ Pope Francis' new guidelines on clerical sex abuse and episcopal accountability have not been met with universal acclaim.

Called Vos estis lux mundi, the new motu proprio was promulgated on May 9 and comes into effect on June 1. Many commentators note that it leaves bishops accountable only to other bishops.

Writing in First Things, Phil Lawler says that Vos estis lux mundi is an inadequate response 'to a burgeoning scandal.'

He does praise its strengths, however, saying that its insistence that every Catholic diocese and eparchy in the world have a reporting system for abuse complaints is a 'major advance.' The new motu proprio also decrees that victims are to be treated with respect and compassion and given both material and spiritual support. Above all, cover-up of abuse is now itself a canonical crime.

However, Lawler, too, doubts the document deals adequately with the problem of holding bishops accountable. He points out that, under the new rule, complaints about a bishop should be sent to the metropolitan archbishop of a region, but that the former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was himself a metropolitan archbishop. Complaints about metropolitan archbishops are to be sent to the Holy See, but complaints about McCarrick sent to the Vatican went unanswered.

'The sad history of the McCarrick scandal demonstrates that policies are only as reliable as the officials who enforce them,' Lawler wrote. 'If Catholics have lost confidence in their bishops, the procedures set forth in Vos Estis will not reassure them.'

In his opinion, other weaknesses in the new law include a lack of specified penalties.

'Vos Estis requires that abuse charges must be investigated thoroughly,' Lawler wrote.

'But the document does not say what penalties should be imposed if the charges are confirmed. Notice that when Pope Benedict XVI finally took disciplinary action against McCarrick, the penalty was mild; already retired, McCarrick was asked to withdraw from public life. More to the point, the ecclesiastical sanction was generally ignored-both by McCarrick, who continued to maintain a high public profile, and by his friends at the Vatican-and eventually overturned by Pope Francis,' he continued.

'Moreover, the penalty was imposed secretly, so that McCarrick's punishment (such as it was) could not have deterred other prelates from misconduct. Were it not for the dramatic testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal representative in Washington, we would not know that any sanction had ever been imposed.'

Lawler noted also that there was no condemnation of consensual homosexual relationships conducted by clergy. The editor and author believes that the latter are examples of 'grave misconduct' and give scandal to the faithful.

'In short, the motu proprio institutes different procedures, but does not guarantee different results,' Lawler stated.

'To restore confidence, the Vatican must show a willingness to identify not only the prelates who have sinned, but also the officials who have protected them,' he continued. 'Once again it is significant that Vos Estis, written in response to the McCarrick scandal, says not a word in response to the clamouring for an account of how a corrupt prelate advanced through the hierarchy and prospered despite his known misconduct.'

Lawler finishes his article with a knock-out punch, pointing out that under the provisions of the new law, all the Vatican officials who knew about the charges against McCarrick and yet did nothing would be 'subject to investigation' ? including Pope Francis.

'But if any such investigation has been made, we have not heard about it. So the crisis of credibility continues,' he wrote.

Theologian Adam A.J. DeVille, writing for Catholic World Report, believes that the Pope's new directives enable clericalism. 'This is their fatal flaw,' DeVille wrote. 'As the document's third paragraph says, 'this responsibility falls, above all, on the successors of the Apostles,' because, it claims, bishops are apparently the only ones to 'govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power,'' he continued, and called this claim 'dodgy':

'Given this dodgy claim, the provisions unfolded in the rest of the text rely on the local 'ordinary' (a bishop) to receive and transmit reports, usually to the relevant metropolitan (a bishop) or patriarch (a bishop); some reports can be sent to the papal nuncio (a bishop), or to Roman dicasteries headed by (you guessed it) a bishop-who operates on the authority of, and reports to, the bishop of Rome.'

DeVille believes that Catholics no longer trust bishops 'as a body' and, since Francis' process completely relies on them, his 'entire proposal must be regarded as dead in the water.'

The professor argued that there is no reason why bishops should have a monopoly over the governance of the Church and declares that 'nobody, in any organization, above all the Church, should be entrusted with a monopoly on power in any context for any reason.'

He suggested that the Church should be governed by bishops, clerics, and the laity ? or 'laics,' to use his preferred term. There is much 'theological justification' and 'historical precedent' for this 'tripartite' form of Church governance, he argued, and if adopted, it would be impossible for bishops to cover up for abusers.

This is radical departure from traditional Catholic ecclesiology, that holds that bishops are the appropriate governors of the Church. Although historically Catholic kings, queens, and landed gentry exerted influence over the governance of the Church at a local level, the tripartite form of Church government proposed by DeVille more resembles that currently used by the Anglican communion.

Dr. Alan Fimister, Assistant Professor of Theology at the St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, believes that the laity should not be saddled with the responsibility of clerical administration.

'Monarchical episcopacy is the system of government instituted by Christ,' he told LifeSiteNews.

'The ancient system whereby bishops are elected by the clergy and laity of the local church is certainly ideal but in order to restore it one would have to restore the routine excommunication of notorious public sinners and heretics which it assumes (and I am all in favour of that),' he continued.

'On the other hand, the function of the laity is to conform the temporal order to Christ [,] not to supervise the minutiae of clerical administration. To assign them this role is the last word in clericalism.'

Fimister quoted Vatican II in saying: 'the effort to infuse a Christian spirit into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives, is so much the duty and responsibility of the laity that it can never be performed properly by others.'

'The attempt to turn the laity into little clerics is often associated by those who have so utterly abandoned the social Kingship of Christ that they can't think of anything else for the laity to do than be extraordinary ministers or sit on committees with the clergy,' Fimister concluded.

'Pope Francis has given the Church a tool for investigating and disciplining clerics that is very much to be wielded by other clerics'

Journalist Christopher Altieri, also writing for Catholic World Report, wondered if the new law will work. He noted that the 'old law' for judging and removing bishops, called 'As a Loving Mother' and established by Pope Francis in 2016 to cut through a lengthy juridical process, hasn't been used very often. Altieri was perturbed by the pontiff's claim that 'rather many bishops have been judged,' as he can think of only two.

'Without meaningful transparency in these and other regards, it is difficult to imagine any paper guarantee capable of restoring confidence in the Church's ability to administer justice,' Altieri wrote.

'One wonders, as well, why Church leaders should be more eager to use a new law providing a framework for criminal investigation, when they were apparently so reticent to use the law that made it possible to deal with wayward bishops without having to try them.'

Altieri notes that, although Buffalo diocese whistleblower Siobhan O'Connor is out of a job, Bishop Malone and his auxiliary Bishop Edward Grosz are still in office and, despite their mishandling of the Buffalo sex abuse crisis, there seems to be no ecclesiastical will to oust them.

Like DeVille, Altieri is concerned by the lack of lay involvement in decision-making. Although the new motu proprio allows for 'willing and qualified lay' assistance, it does not require lay involvement in reporting cases, investigating them, and disclosing the findings to the public. The journalist suggested that this is a form of clericalism.

'For all his talk of clericalism being the root of the crisis in the Church - he's not wrong - and his constant reminders that we're all in this together, Pope Francis has given the Church a tool for investigating and disciplining clerics that is very much to be wielded by other clerics,' Altieri wrote.

[LSN] 2283.2






















Globe CF  News

Theologian responds to criticisms of letter to bishops concerning heresies of Pope Francis

JOHN LAMONT writes for LifeSiteNews ~ In the recent 'Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church,' a number of Catholics accused Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy and asked the bishops to take action to address this situation. The letter has not surprisingly been the target of a number of criticisms.

These criticisms are not always easy for the general Catholic reader to assess, because the document is long, precisely rather than accessibly formulated, and sometimes technical in its language. These features of the letter are required by its purpose; a legal accusation against a Pope must be careful, detailed, and sometimes technical in its facts and arguments. It may, therefore, be helpful to offer an explanation of some of the aspects of the letter that its critics have attacked. As a signatory of the letter, and a theologian who had some input into its drafting, I offer the remarks below with the intention of indicating why these criticisms lack any force.

A) What is the crime that Pope Francis is being accused of?

The letter accuses Pope Francis of having committed the canonical delict of heresy. A delict is a crime in canon law; an external violation of a law or precept that is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence. The canonical delict of heresy is not the same as the personal sin of heresy. A Catholic can commit the personal sin of heresy by deliberate, obstinate, but purely internal doubt or disbelief of a truth of the Catholic faith. If this doubt or disbelief is never shown by word or deed, the canonical crime of heresy is not committed. Canon law deals only with sins that are outwardly manifested and that can be established through publicly available evidence. The canonical crime of heresy requires public manifestation of doubt or disbelief in some teaching of the Catholic faith, in circumstances where it is clear that the person expressing disbelief knows that the teaching he is rejecting is a part of the Catholic faith. One can reasonably suppose that when the canonical crime of heresy is committed, the personal sin of heresy has been committed as well; but a condemnation for the canonical crime of heresy is not in itself a condemnation for the personal sin of heresy. The two offenses are dealt with by different tribunals. The canonical crime of heresy is judged by a canonical, non-sacramental act of ecclesiastical authority; the personal sin of heresy is judged (if it is ever presented for judgment) in the sacrament of penance.

B) Are the views that Pope Francis is accused of maintaining really heresies?

Some opponents of the letter have denied that the positions listed as heretical are in fact heresies. The letter's explanation of the canonical crime of heresy contains an account of the nature of heresy:

For the canonical delict of heresy to be committed, two things must occur: the person in question must doubt or deny, by public words and/or actions, some divinely revealed truth of the Catholic faith that must be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith; and this doubt or denial must be pertinacious, that is, it must be made with the knowledge that the truth being doubted or denied has been taught by the Catholic Church as a divinely revealed truth which must be believed with the assent of faith, and the doubt or denial must be persistent.

According to this passage, a heresy is a proposition that contradicts a truth that is divinely revealed, and that has been taught by the Catholic Church as a divinely revealed truth that must be believed with the assent of faith. This is the generally agreed definition of a heresy that is offered by canonists and theologians. The question is thus whether the propositions that are given in the letter as heresies satisfy this definition. These propositions are the following:

I. A justified person has not the strength with God's grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God's grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.

II. A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.

III. A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.

IV. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right, or requested or even commanded by God.

V. It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife.

VI. Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.

VII. God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

The only proposition in these seven that involves some sort of theological sophistication is the first one. It describes theses concerning justification that were asserted by some Protestants. It was condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent. All of the other six propositions concern fundamental aspects of Christian life and morals. They are denials of things that most adult Catholics need to explicitly grasp, believe, and practice in order to lead Christian lives and get to heaven.

So the fact that these propositions are false, and that they must be held to be false by Catholics, cannot reasonably be denied. The question is whether they are not just false, but heretical; that is, whether their contradictories are truths that have been taught by the Church as being divinely revealed, and as calling for the assent of faith. For each one of these propositions, the open letter provides texts of the divinely revealed Scriptures that condemn them, and magisterial texts that condemn them as contrary to the faith. They thus satisfy the conditions for being heresies.

There is a further point to be made about the Catholic teachings denied by I) to VII). They are so fundamental that if you accept IV) and V), you will be left with no true moral principles about sexual behavior at all; if you accept VI) you will be left with no true moral principles, full stop; if you accept I), II), and III) you will be left with no connection between acting rightly and eternal salvation; and if you accept VII), you will be left with no true worship of God, and no true religion. So if the claims described by the letter as heresies are accepted, every other teaching of divine revelation will be either falsified, or made pointless and powerless to redeem. As a result, if we hold that I) to VII) are not divinely revealed and proposed by the Church for belief, we will have to conclude that what is divinely revealed and taught as such by the Church is on its own useless for salvation. But this consequence is absurd.

C) Has Pope Francis in fact committed the crime of heresy?

The evidence for Pope Francis having maintained the heresies listed above is set out in the letter. It is not a complete description of the evidence for his heresy, and does not claim to be one. It simply claims to be sufficient to establish that he has publicly maintained these heresies. Catholics must judge for themselves in reading the letter whether this evidence is sufficient or not.

To assist Catholics in making this judgment, it can be pointed out that although much of the evidence consists of statements or actions that could individually be given a Catholic interpretation, for each of the numerous pieces of evidence a Catholic interpretation would be strained or improbable to a greater or lesser degree. From this it follows that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that all of this evidence taken together cannot be given a Catholic interpretation. One should keep in mind a principle of the probability calculus; if the probability of event A is .25 (25 percent), and the probability of event B is .25 (25 percent), then the probability of A and B together is .25 multiplied by .25 = .05 (5 percent). If the probability of event C is .25 (25 percent), then the probability of A, B, and C together is (.25 times .25 times .25) = 0125 (1.25 percent); and so on. So even if there is a 25 percent chance of a given word or action by Pope Francis not being heretical, the probability of three words or actions with this chance of being Catholic all having an orthodox meaning is 1.25 percent. Since he is the Pope, we should make every effort to understand the words and actions of Pope Francis in an orthodox sense. But even with the most strained, charitable and generous interpretation of the words and actions listed in the letter, after a certain point the weight of probability in favor of his being a heretic becomes overwhelming. Only a prior decision to never accept the conclusion that Pope Francis is a heretic can resist this weight of evidence.

We should therefore accept that Pope Francis has publicly and persistently upheld the heresies listed above. It cannot be seriously questioned that Pope Francis knows that these heresies are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. He is the Pope. The charism of office given to him as Pope has the specific purpose of ensuring that he knows what the Catholic faith contains. He has taught Catholic theology for many years, as the letter documents. The heresies are not arcane or remote ones - it is not a question of his advancing the Monothelite heresy, or the Christological positions of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The heresies in question have been at the heart of theological debate - a debate in which he has taken part - for decades.

At this point, the ambiguity of most of Pope Francis' heretical actions can be seen as a strategy rather than an excuse. Pope Francis is following the method of Arius, Nestorius, and other heretics in advancing his heretical views. He expresses himself in a plethora of words, confessing Catholic doctrine and the need for adherence to it in a general way, while undermining or denying it with other, more specific expressions and actions. Thus he will couch his heretical utterances in words which are naturally understood to express heresy, while admitting of an orthodox meaning if they are given a strained and non-natural interpretation. He will allow others to take the lead at times in promoting heresy and show his approval of their views without necessarily endorsing their statements explicitly. These tactical oscillations are a most effective way for him to promote the heresies in which he manifests his belief. If he were to repudiate the Catholic faith in an open and straightforward manner, he would lose the power and the opportunity to exercise influence that stems from his office; his ability to advance his heretical views would be largely eliminated.

D) Is the course of action that the bishops are requested to take a reasonable or legitimate one?

To address this question, we must specify what exactly is being requested of the bishops. When a crime is committed and then dealt with by the law, three things occur. There is the commission of the offense itself; the judgment that the offender is guilty of the offense; and the punishment imposed for the offense by a legal sentence.

The signatories of the letter are not attempting to pass a judgment or a sentence on the crime of heresy. They are reporting to the responsible authorities - the bishops of the Catholic Church - that a crime has been committed. They assert that there is sufficient evidence to show that the crime has been committed, but they are not asking these authorities to rule that Pope Francis is a heretic on the basis of this evidence alone, strong as it is. They ask the bishops to take further steps to determine with complete certainty whether or not Pope Francis is a heretic. This determination, following the canonical tradition of the Church, is to be done by the bishops formally requesting Pope Francis three times to abjure these heresies and withdraw the words and actions that indicate his belief in them.

If these steps are taken, and Pope Francis persists in his heresy, the bishops will then have both the right and the duty to judge that Pope Francis is a heretic, and to announce their judgment to the faithful. This judgment would not be an exercise of superior jurisdiction, but the recognition of a public fact. The role of this judgment would be to give the public fact a juridical force; it would not be an exercise of authority that would create this fact or its consequences.

The sentencing for this crime can only be done by Pope Francis' superior. This superior is God. We cannot expect a direct divine intervention to carry out this sentencing, but we do not need such an intervention, because God has made His will concerning heretics known to us through His law. The divine law concerning heretics is given in the Holy Scriptures. 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema' (Galatians 1:8-9). 'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment' (Titus 3:10-11). A heretic is thus separated from the Church, and a fortiori from any office in the Church. If Pope Francis chooses to persist in heresy in such as way as to make this persistence a juridical fact, through the decree of the divine law he separates himself from the Church and from the papal office. The letter is not intended to bring about this lamentable result. It is issued in the hope that the legal punishment that is due for the crime of Pope Francis will exercise its medicinal purpose of withdrawing a sinner from his sin through anticipation, rather than through actual infliction.

[LSN] 2283.3






















Globe CF  News

Imagine that! Top Vatican Cardinal urges “intervention” against climate change

MICHAEL J. MATT writes for The Remnant ~ In a dramatic message to the “scientific community” Friday, Cardinal Peter Turkson, the head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, said that the world is undergoing a veritable “climate crisis, caused by man’s interference in nature.”

“The climate crisis is reaching unprecedented proportions. Therefore, the urgency could not be greater,” the cardinal said.

Warning that “we have only around a decade to limit this global warming,” Turkson said that the nations of the world must limit temperature increases to 1.5°C, which he called “a critical physical threshold, inasmuch as it would still enable the avoidance of many destructive impacts of climate changes caused by man.”

“In particular, it would probably safeguard our common home from becoming a ‘greenhouse,’” he said.

We “are already witnessing the grave impact of climate changes on people, in terms of extreme meteorological conditions, such as drought, flooding, rising sea level, devastating storms and ferocious fires,” he said, and the climate crisis “is reaching unprecedented proportions.”

The natural world “is coming to pieces,” the cardinal said, "and adults must listen to young people whose future is threatened and who demand change. It's time for an intervention."

THE REMNANT COMMENTS: I couldn’t agree more, Your Eminence. And since I’m younger than you, may I suggest you stop talking and listen to this demand for change:

Catholics of the world have had enough! It is time to stage an intervention to stop infiltrators like you from further selling out the Church to globalist pro-aborts, hellbent on establishing a New World Order to replace the Kingdom of Christ on earth.

Clearly, the Vatican has been taken over by those whose utopian vision might have been lifted directly from the lyrics of Imagine -- John Lennon’s anthem to Marxist and Freemasonic principles.

At this point, Cardinal Turkson has much more in common with socialist, freshman congressman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez than with the vast majority of pro-life, pro-family Catholics throughout the world.




No wonder Breitbart News, which broke this story, warned their readers: "Marxists really have infiltrated the Church hierarchy to the very top. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholicism, and everything to do with politics."


Basta, Your Eminence!


As Amazon Synod approaches, Vatican’s claims about environment deserve scrutiny

STEVE MOSHER writes for LifeSiteNews ~ Preparations are in full swing for the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in the Amazon Basin, set to take place from October 6 to 27, 2019. The synod will reflect on the theme: “The Amazon: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology.”

That “new path,” the Preparatory Document for the Pan-Amazonian Synod says, involves “Listening to indigenous peoples and to all the communities living in the Amazonia ... [and] is of vital importance for the universal Church.”

But the real import of the upcoming synod, in the view of its organizers, extends well beyond the Amazon and even beyond the Church itself. As they put it, the synod will transcend “the strictly ecclesial-Amazonian sphere, because it focuses on ... the future of the entire planet.”

Now, a reasonable person might ask what 300,000 hunter-gatherers living a primitive existence in the vast Amazonian rain forest have to teach the Catholic Church. And how will this knowledge really play a decisive role in our planetary future, as the document suggests?

Fortunately for the curious, Cardinal Barreto of Huancayo has lately given us a detailed outline of how listening to the Amazonian indigenous will save not only the Catholic Church, but the planet itself.

Barreto’s expectations for the meeting presumably closely parallel those of Pope Francis. A Jesuit himself, Barreto is known to be close to the pope. Not only that, but as vice president of the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network (REPAM), he has played a leading role in organizing the synod.

So what does the cardinal have to tell us?

Sounding not very different from your typical left-leaning environmentalist, the cardinal advises us to listen to the “cries” of the land; to care for creation; and, specifically, to protect the Amazonian rainforest.

“It’s a very important region for the life of the planet and the future of humanity,” Barreto said. Already one-fifth of the rain forest has been lost to deforestation, he went on. This is the “green lung” of the planet, he explained, so called because it produces much of the world’s oxygen. The vitality of the region is being seriously threatened by “economic interests.”

The cardinal went on to suggest that the deforestation of the “world’s lung” would be equivalent to a human being losing a lung, comparing it to Pope Francis losing part of one lung as a young man. “What happened to the pope is happening to the Amazon,” he said, insisting that the stripping of the forest “must be stopped” if the Amazon is to survive.

Apocalyptic statements like the above — always couched in highly charged terms like “saving the rainforest” and “green lung of the planet” — are often bandied about by the environmentally “woke.” They are uncritically accepted by many. But are they true?

In other words, does Cardinal Barreto know what he is talking about?

It is true that, of the original 7.5 million square kilometers of rainforest, about 20 percent has been cleared of its original vegetation. The land is not simply clear-cut and abandoned, however. It is used for other productive purposes, like growing food crops and grazing animals.

Moreover, given the year-round growing season in the tropics, deforestation is hardly a one-way street. Indeed, any tract of farmland or grassland left untended immediately starts reverting to rainforest. This means there is a lot of re-forestation going on each year in the tropics as well.

How much re-forestation? The New York Times has reported, “By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics[.]”

In other words, someone needs to tell Barreto that the rainforests of the world are doing just fine.

His claim that much of the world’s oxygen comes from the Amazon is equally bogus. As a onetime marine biologist, I can say with relative certainly that 70% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by marine plants, particularly those single-celled plants we call phytoplankton.

So, if only 30% of the Earth’s oxygen is produced on land, what percentage of this is attributable to the Amazon? Hardly any, it turns out. Since any organic matter produced by old growth rainforest decays almost immediately, nearly all of the oxygen that the plants produce is reabsorbed.

That means that the Amazon is a kind of “sink” — in the scientific sense — for oxygen. While a great deal is produced there through photosynthesis, very little escapes the basin. Rainforests in general contribute little net oxygen to the atmosphere.

If you want to know what land areas contribute the most net oxygen to the atmosphere, look to the Russian taiga, the boreal forests of Canada, and the world’s grasslands.

These are the real “lungs of the earth,” not the Amazon. And they are in no danger of disappearing.

Breathless warnings about impending environmental collapse have long been a staple of radical green propaganda.

What is new is that leading prelates of the Catholic Church are joining the doomsday chorus.

I am merely a layman and a convert, but it seems to me that the leaders of the Catholic Church should expend their time and energy saving souls, rather than preaching what is patent scientific nonsense.

[Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s “Dream” is the New Threat to World Order].


[Remnant / LSN] 2282.3a






















Globe CF  News

A warning from recent history about changes to the CDF and notes about authentic and deficient “evangelization”

Il PrefettoFR. JOHN ZUHLSDORF blogs ~ A priest friend sent this around to a select group. I think more people should know about it.

'As we read about the proposed Curial “reforms” Ottaviani reminds us that the seeds for this were sown by Paul VI, another disastrous decision for the Church among so many others by Paul VI, and the price the Church will pay for this politicization of the Church

Msgr Simcic recalling: when in the reform of the Curia immediately after the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Office was recast and its title “Supreme Sacred Congregation” was taken away, Ottaviani commented on the fact before a group of his collaborators with these words (I am giving you their gist): “Remember this is a dark day for the history of the Church because we are not dealing with form with titles but with substance. [NB] Indeed, up to now, the supreme principle of governance for the Church was revealed doctrine, whose custody and right interpretation in the Church is entrusted in first place to the Pope, who makes use of this Congregation and that’s why it is ‘Supreme’. Now I don’t know what will be the critical inspiration for the governance of the Church, but I fear that the diplomatic and contingent will prevail. I foresee that the Church will suffer much damage from this but because assisted by the Holy Spirit, sooner or later, she will take up the standard of government inspired by Revelation and its essential contents…. [ Il Prefetto del Sant’Offizio Le opere e I giorni del Cardinale Ottaviani by Emilio Cavaterra p.85]

I remind the readership that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – if reports are accurate – is about to be knocked down a couple of levels of importance under some new “super dicastery” for Evangelization.

This is a Very Bad Idea, for the reasons that Card. Ottaviani mentioned at the time of the Pauline reforms.

There is another reason, too.

In the context of the “New” Evangelization we are supposed to be about, I have often wondered aloud about, “What about the ‘Old’ Evangelization? When did that stop? What can it teach us about the ‘New’? Is is substantively different, or is it mostly the same but with a different emphasis and audience? What’s ‘Evangelization’ anyway?”

Since this is the First Day of the Novena after Ascension and before Pentecost, let’s bring these mysteries into play.

Before His Ascension, in Luke 24, the Lord tells the disciples that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

He said that it was prophesied, as indeed it was in Is 52 & 53 about the Suffering Servant and in Jonah, when God’s servant preached to the Ninevites. What did Jonah (a type of Christ, a foreshadowing figure) preach? Repentance for sins.

Evangelization is about conversion – first and ongoing – metanoia. That means that bringing the “Good News” to people – whether baptized or not – MUST involve preaching repentance for sins. This is essential for any kind of evangelization according to the way the Lord intended it. Christ effectively says that there is no evangelization without repentance for sins. If we gloss over repentance for sin, whatever it is that we do we are not doing what Christ commanded. Repentance is a universal dimension of all evangelical practice. It was to start with the Jews and go to all nations.

I’m not making this up. “… repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached…”.

Some people very high in the hierarchy of the Church and some who are not so high are preaching that you don’t have to make changes, change your view of sin and your life. They talk about joy joy joy happy happy happy but they don’t mention repentance and true conversion.

Sure! Go to Communion without changing your life.

If you leave out sin and repentance, you don’t have any kind of authentic evangelization.

Evangelization does not have to dwell only on repentance, of course. Repentance and reconciliation results in joy. However, repentance for sins must be first at least logically if not chronologically. It also must probably be chronologically first, too.

But those who exclude or diminish repentance… FAIL.

[wdtprs.com] 2282.3b






















Globe CF  News

The plot to destroy the Catholic Church from within

DR. TAYLOR MARSHALL, with Timothy Gordon, discusses his new book Infiltration: the Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church from Within and discusses Alta Vendita, La Salette, St Michael Prayer, Modernism, etc.





[taylormarshall.com] 2283.3c























Globe CF  News


Humanae Vitae


The aftermath

PROFESSOR Janet Smith from Sacred Heart Major Seminary discusses the aftermath of Pope Paul VI's prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae.



[EWTN] 2283.4






















Globe CF  News


China supplement


China's 'horrific' organ harvesting program

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT is harvesting organs from prisoners while they are still alive to supply its lucrative organ transplant industry, a leading expert on China has told LifeSiteNews. He is therefore calling on the Vatican to speak out. Steven Mosher, founder and president of the Population Research Institute, sat down for an interview in Rome this week with LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen



[LSN] 2283.5






















Globe CF  News

Miracles are rare in Rome and Beijing

Fr. RutlerFR. GEORGE W. RUTLER writes ~ A chronic temptation of the historian is to play the 'Monday morning quarterback' who assumes that he would have made a correct decision in a past crisis. But the players at the time could only postulate consequences. The appeasers who signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 do not enjoy a happy legacy, but then the thought of repeating the carnage of the Great War was unspeakable. In his first use of the term, back in 1911, Churchill described 'une politique d'apaisement' as a wise strategy.

A magnanimous Churchill wept at the coffin of Neville Chamberlain and eulogized: 'The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.' But if blundering by innocence is forgivable, not learning from mistakes is unconscionable. That distinguishes innocence from naiveté. Experience has crafted the adage: 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'

Some future historian may impute a lack of probity to the Vatican agreement with Beijing in 2018, which conceded civil interference in the appointment of bishops. Though difficult to assess since the full text has not been published, this clearly contravenes the canonical stricture that 'In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.' (Code of Canon Law c. 377.5)

After Pope Pius XI realized that the Reichskonkordat of 1933 had been abused by Nazi Germany, he issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge - 'with burning indignation.' Damage had been done, just as the Yalta Agreement of 1945 put Poland on the chopping block, a betrayal never forgotten by a Polish pope (Centesimus Annus, n. 24). He denounced the fallacy of communism in Warsaw in 1979, and Reagan did the same in his Westminster speech in 1982. The New York Times displayed its propensity to be fooled more than twice, by editorializing that John Paul II 'does not threaten the political order of the nation or of Eastern Europe' and that Reagan was 'bordering on delusional.'

While the Holy See invokes two thousand years of diplomatic experience, China beats that by more than twice, and has treated the 2018 agreement as tissue, tearing down churches and persecuting faithful Catholics, not to mention banishing over a million Uighur Muslims and Falun Gong cultists to concentration camps. The issue is not theology but control. The Vatican Secretary of State said that 'an act of faith is needed' for the agreement to work, but the heroic Cardinal Zen replied that a 'miracle' is needed, and miracles are rare in Rome and Beijing.

Diplomacy is a delicate art, and there have been saints among Catholic emissaries, though few remember Eusebius of Murano, Conrad of Ascoli, Anastasius Apocrisarius, and Fulrad of Saint Denis. There remains the haunting spectre of the only diplomat among the Twelve Apostles, 'who by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place' (Acts 1:25).

[Fr. George William Rutler] 2283.6






















Globe CF  News




Europe's populist wave versus Pope Francis

REMNANT EDITOR Michael J. Matt takes a closer look at the ramifications of huge advances for the populist movement in the recent European elections. What does this tell us about the EU and the pontificate of Pope Francis?

Italian journalist Antonio Socci says the vote for Matteo Salvini—the populist leader who entrusted Italy the Mother of God recently in Milan—was in fact a vote against Pope Francis and his globalist open-borders friends. Is Socci right?

By the way, why does Francis, who has met with Bono, the abortionist Bonino and Joe Biden, refuse to meet with Salvini?

Plus, Michael tackles the accusation that the populist movement is a breeding ground for racists. Is there anything to the charge?

What are we to make of the fact that Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro, along with traditional Catholic Bishop Rifan, publicly took part in an Act of Consecration of Brazil to Jesus Christ through the Immaculate Heart of Mary? (Same thing happened in the Philippines, earlier this month.)

And finally, what should traditional Catholics think of nationalism and the populist movement? Is there a place there for the Kingship of Christ?





Cardinal Müller says the Church should engage with Salvini


MATTHEW CULLIAN HOFFMAN reports for LifeSiteNews ~ Italy’s rising political star, Matteo Salvini, has been refused audiences with Pope Francis and has been denounced as not being Christian by the pope’s allies for opposing free immigration to Italy. Paradoxically, he is also blasted by the Francis regime for using Christian symbolism during his rallies. However, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Pope Francis former doctrine chief, says the Church should engage with Salvini and those who reject free immigration and believes that the politician is returning to the “Christian roots” of the European Union in his use of religious symbols.

In an interview published following the landslide victory of Salvini’s party in E.U. parliamentary elections, Müller denounced the attacks against Salvini by Pope Francis’s partisans as “amateurish” and inappropriate.

“An ecclesiastical authority cannot speak about theological issues in an amateurish way,” said Müller to Italy’s Corriere della sera newspaper. “And above all he must not meddle in politics when there is a democratically legitimated parliament and government, as in Italy. It would be better to talk to Salvini, discuss, or correct it when necessary.”

Regarding Salvini’s use of religious imagery in his political activities, Müller told the newspaper that he “did not like it” and thought it “should be avoided.” However, he added, “it’s worse if the bishops confuse issues regarding faith with those regarding politics. You can criticize those who don’t accept principles, but don’t close the doors to them.”

Noting that “there are countries that want to de-Christianize Italy and Europe,” Müller added that “Salvini has gone back to the patrons of the European Union, to its Christian roots.”

“I prefer those who speak of the Christian tradition to those who remove it. It’s absurd for collaborators of the Pope like [Fr. Antonio] Spadaro to act like political judges.”

Pope Francis’s allies attack Salvini, question his Christianity

Müller is referring to Fr. Antonio Spadaro’s recent statements denouncing Salvini for holding up a rosary while entrusting the European Union elections to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the patron saints of Europe. Spadaro is editor-in-chief of the Jesuit newspaper La Civiltà Cattolica and a close ally of Pope Francis.

During a rally in Rome’s Piazza Duomo on May 18, just prior to the elections, Salvini, who is Italy’s deputy prime minister, declared, “We entrust ourselves to the six patrons of Europe: to Saint Benedict of Nursia, to Saint Bridget of Sweden, to Saint Catherine of Sienna, to Saint Cyril and Methodius, and to Saint Teresa Benedict of the Cross (Edith Stein).” He held up the rosary and invoked “the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which I am sure will bring us to victory.”

Spadaro responded on his Facebook page, “Rosaries and crucifixes are used as signs of political value, but now in reverse: if previously God was given what would have been good to remain in the hands of Caesar, now it is Caesar who holds and wields what belongs to God.”

In a follow-up to his Facebook post, Spadaro added, “‘Do not take the name of God in vain’ asks us not to use the name of God for our own purposes. Critical conscience and discernment should help us to understand that it is not a political rallies the place to make litanies (and in the name of values that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus).”

Spadaro continued, “However, it is clear that nationalist and sovereign identity must be based also on religion in order to impose itself. He [Salvini] found this method of religious instrumentalization (in Italy as elsewhere in the world, be clear: we are not original in this!) as suitable and uses it. The Christian conscience, in my opinion, should shake with indignation and humiliation in seeing itself trafficked and flattered in such a manner.”

Adding to the criticism by Francis proxies was the cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin, who told reporters, “I believe partisan politics divides, but God belongs to everyone. Invoking God for oneself is always very dangerous.”

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the European Bishops’ Conference, chimed in as well, telling La Stampa that particular groups cannot appropriate Christian values and that “acceptance and integration are essential values of the Gospel” and have “no color.” Bishop Domenico Mogavero, who leads the judicial affairs panel of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, said, “Those who are with him [Salvini] cannot call themselves Christian because they have reneged on the commandment of love,” claiming that Salvini’s views are “inhuman, anti-historic views, diametrically opposed to the Gospel message.”

Müller blasted Mogavero’s comments in the Corriere della sera interview. “One can’t say that those who don’t share the reception of immigrants are not Christian. Clearly we must welcome immigrants, but not identify ourselves with a single policy.”

Pope Francis talks to Christian-persecuting Chinese but won’t talk to Salvini, Müller says

“People don’t understand, they are disoriented. When Salvini criticizes the Pope at the rally in Piazza Duomo, Milan, and there’s applause, where did we end up?” asked Müller, adding. “It’s strange that the Pope receives most lay people, and not Salvini. He talks with the Venezuelan regime, or with China that puts millions of Christians in re-education camps, destroys churches, persecutes Christians. But here in Italy we are not in China. You must speak to everyone in a spirit of brotherhood.”

As LifeSite has previously reported, Pope Francis has declined to meet with Salvini despite multiple attempts on the part of the latter to obtain an audience with the pontiff. However, Francis has met twice with the infamous Italian abortionist and radical leftist politician Emma Bonino, who boasts she has personally killed unborn children in illegal abortion facilities and continues to defend the practice of abortion, and has praised her publicly as a “forgotten great” for her work with refugees. Francis also gave an audience to the pro-abortion rock star “Bono” and has welcomed into the Vatican many advocates of abortion and population control such as Paul Ehrlich, John Bongaarts, and Jeffrey Sachs.

While denying he was attacking the pope, Müller noted that “years ago the Pope said about the future U.S. president, Donald Trump, that it was not Christian to build walls to repel immigrants,” Müller noted. “I think it was a mistake, like that of some German bishops, who deal more with politics than with faith.”

“Perhaps it also depends on the fact that the role of the Church has changed. But the Church must reconcile, not divide. But today, anyone who criticizes it is branded as an enemy of the Pope, and lay people who say different things are defined as non-Christians,” said Müller.


[According to en.news, in a tweet about these remarks by Pope Francis's biographer Austen Ivereigh said he thought these remarks by Cardinal Müller showed that he was a Fascist who pined for Il Duce Benito Mussolini]


[Remnant / LSN] 2282.EU1






















Globe CF  News

What is at stake after the European elections

R de MatteiROBERTO de MATTEI writes for Rorate Caeli / Corrispondenza Romana ~
The elections of May 26th were an important episode in a conflict that goes way beyond the destiny of the European Parliament or any national government. In fact, a lobby exists that has as its aim, the destruction of Christian identity and the construction of cosmopolitan organisms that are assuming sovereign power of life and death over its European citizens. An example of this plan is what has just happened in France, where the Paris Court of Appeals handed over to the United Nations Organization, the ultimate decision on the life of Vincent Lambert, the French paraplegic condemned to death by his wife and the doctors at Rheims Hospital, where he is a patient.

It is clear that power of legislation on the life of Lambert does not pertain to the French judges, nor those of Europe or the United Nations. Positive laws, both national and international, do not have their source in the entities that emanate or apply them, but in a divine law that is preexistent to the laws of men and by the laws of men cannot be changed. Now, the natural and divine law prohibits the killing of the innocent and any human law claiming to establish the contrary must be considered a non-law, invalid and iniquitous. Further, inasmuch as the only guardian of the divine and natural law is the Catholic Church, it is first of all up to the men of the Church to proclaim the inalienable right to life. But today the voice of the men of the Church is gone. The only problem the leaders of the Church seem to be interested in is that of hospitality to migrants from outside of Europe. An absolute, unconditional, total hospitality. We are not dealing here with the ancient virtue, whether Christian or secular, of hospitality, but of an ideological choice, wherein the philosophy of hospitality is presented, in reality, as a theory of renouncing European identity, or rather, its replacement.

The concept of “the great replacement” introduced by Renaud Camus (Le Grand Remplacement, David Reinharc, Neuilly-sur-Seine 2011) was developed by Professor Renato Cristin in his book I padroni del caos [The Lords of Chaos] (Liberlibri, Macerata 2017). By way of a rigorous analysis, the author, who teaches philosophy at the University of Trieste, explains how this theory aims at substituting European populations with other populations (Africans, Arabians, Asians, for the most part Muslim) [thus] producing chaos as a concrete historical prospect. Cristin refers to the existence of a 2001 United Nations project in which “replacement migration” is explicitly addressed, in order to deal with the European demographic decline.

The flows of populations are not only an ethnic transplanting, but a toppling of civilization, a “counter-colonization”, in which migrants are seen as bringers of a hybrid civilization or mixed race, opposed to the Christian one which built Europe. The destruction of the national States passes thereby through a policy of replacement, whether it be ethnic or cultural. The cultural replacement consists in the negation of any identity rooted in European Christian tradition; the ethnic replacement occurs with the entry of a human mass of immigrants that substitute the European population, decimated by abortion and contraception. The anti-birth mentality is the biological expression of the cultural and moral suicide of the West.

The results of the European Elections rewarded the political parties that most openly invoke national identities. Of particular importance is the sweeping victory of Matteo Salvini’s Lega, which attained 34.3% of the votes in Italy. But Italy, however, has been the country where the push for immigration has been the strongest, with not only the Episcopal Conference entering the field, but even Pope Francis who has been presenting himself as the leader of the leftwing political spectrum. The front-cover of the weekly L’Espresso, May 26th, portrays Pope Francis with the mask of Zorro, the vigilante, and defines him as the voice of “the people’s protest” against Salvini. On May 27th,in his Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees”, Pope Francis affirmed that “the motto of the true Christian is ‘the last’ first’, reiterating: “ this is not only about migrants: it is about putting the ‘last’ first”. That same morning, the Pope met with the Chief of the Kayapo Indios of the Amazon, Raoni Metukire, to re-launch revolutionary indigenism, in view of the Synod on the Amazon in October.

The Bergoglian theology of the “last” represents open encouragement for the “replacement migration” strategy. It is not clear who ‘the last’ are, but it is clear who those that must be replaced are, in the new “preferential option.” The Gospel exhorts us to love our neighbor as ourselves: “there is no greater commandment than this” (Mark 12, 29-31). St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (question 26, part II-II), explains however, that love for our neighbor is not a generic and indiscriminate sentiment, but has a precise gradation, which he calls the ‘order of charity’, whereby love must progressively extend itself from those closest to those farthest away. God must be loved more than our neighbor (a.2) and more than ourselves (a.3). Man must love himself more than his neighbor (a.4) and among our neighbors, some are to be loved more than others (a.6). The closest to us are those who gave us life and those we gave it to: our parents and our children. It is from them that love for our neighbor begins.

It would make no sense, for example, to throw our parents out in the street in order to bring a couple of immigrants into their room. Further, the love that we owe our neighbor is primarily of a spiritual nature. What we must desire more than anything else, is the salvation of those we love. And loving means desiring their salvation. In the case of immigrants this consists in desiring their conversion to the true faith. But today there is no pastoral care of evangelization for immigrants underway, in Italy or in Europe. Multiculturalism is presented as a much higher value than the monocultural Christian identity.

The dogma of hospitality is being proclaimed furthermore, by a society that takes the life of innocent human beings, unborn babies and old people; the former condemned to death by abortion, the latter, by euthanasia, without any real opposition to these crimes by the men of the Church. In reality, those who are scandalized by the display of a crucifix in schools or by a rosary kissed by a political leader, not only want to extirpate every public expression of Christianity, but also expect to snuff out the light of the divine and natural law still existent in our consciences, compelling us to defend innocent human life. And those who still have a Christian conscience, cannot but reclaim the vivid presence of the Crucifix, not only in private life, but also in public life and in the collective identity of European nations.

Hence, we call upon the political parties in Italy, Hungary, France and many other countries that won the elections, thereby defeating “immigrationism”, not to limit themselves to a generic or superficial call to Christian roots, but to express this identity concretely in the institutions and laws of Europe, starting with the uncompromising defense of life and the family. The “Lambert case”, after that of Eluana Englaro and Alfie Evans, is the example of a battle that must be conducted in the upcoming months. This will perhaps raise the level of the conflict, but today we are battling for the life or death of our civilization. This battle, prior to being in parliament, is to be conducted in [our] culture and mentality. Yet, the electoral results have the function of revealing the deep tendencies of public opinion and in the case of May 26th, the electoral test demonstrates a European population that is not about to capitulate.


[RC] 2283.EU2























Globe CF  News



News from around the world


Australia Cardinal Pell source refutes reports that he will not request a reduced sentence

Cardinal Pell’s appeal will be broadcast live from the Victorian Supreme Court June 5.

EDWARD PENTIN reports for the National Catholic Register ~ A source close to Cardinal George Pell and his legal team said the cardinal has denied not requesting a reduced sentence if his appeal trial fails to overturn his conviction next week.

“Neither the cardinal nor his legal team have made any comment about his sentence or appealing the sentence,” a source close to the cardinal told the Register May 30. “The main and only focus at this time is the appeal next Tuesday and Wednesday against his conviction.”

The source added: “I am sure it is not by chance recent stories have been framed in such a way to cast doubt on the cardinal’s view of the trial decision, but there is no basis for it.”

Earlier this week, Australian Associated Press reported that Cardinal Pell, currently serving a six-year sentence for sexual abuse of minors, would not ask for a shorter sentence if his conviction was not overturned on appeal.

AAP said it “understands Pell’s lawyers won’t add an appeal against sentence to their conviction appeal, which has already been lodged,” adding that an appeal against the sentence “would likely have to argue the sentence was ‘manifestly excessive.’”

But the source close to the cardinal said “there has been, again, much conjecture prior to the appeal hearing next week.” The source also “expected more stories and commentary also between now and then by media to ‘keep the story live.’”

Asked why the cardinal’s team did not correct the false report earlier when it appeared, the source said the “last thing needed was to give more oxygen to the claim.”

Earlier Thursday, the court confirmed in a statement that Cardinal Pell’s appeal will be broadcast live from the Victorian Supreme Court Wednesday.

Pell and his lawyers are expecting a decision from the three appellate judges in around four to six weeks.

The Cardinal Pell Case

In March, County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd sentenced the former prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy to six years in prison.

The cardinal, who will turn 78 June 8, was ordered to serve at least three years and eight months of that sentence after being convicted by a jury in December of one charge of rape of a child and four charges of committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child.

The abuse is alleged to have taken place in the sacristy of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in 1996 when Pell was newly-installed as archbishop. The cardinal has always vigorously denied the charges.

His lawyers argue that the jury could not have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of Cardinal Pell’s guilt due to the presence of “unchallenged exculpatory evidence” from 20 witnesses.

A further challenge to the verdict is that only one of the victims is still alive, and the other, deceased, victim repeatedly denied prior to his death that he had ever been abused.

The cardinal’s lawyers have also said that a video, purportedly showing it was impossible for the abuse to have occurred as described, should have been allowed to be shown during closing arguments of the trial last year.

Lastly, Cardinal Pell’s lawyers have alluded to the “fundamental irregularity” of the cardinal not being properly arraigned in front of a jury.

The cardinal will win his appeal if the three appellate judges rule his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt, but if they only accept the second or third reasons for the appeal, he may have to face a new trial.

The cardinal’s attorneys have told Australian media he will not contest his sentence again if the appeal fails.

Persecution Not Prosecution?

Commentators and supporters have strongly defended Cardinal Pell, saying he is a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice and bearing the brunt of entrenched anti-Catholic prejudice in the country.

They point to lack of evidence for the conviction, contrary evidence from the witnesses brought by the prosecution, and a public trial by the media before charges were laid.

The National Civic Council, an Australian non-profit organization defending human dignity and religious freedom, said this made the process “a persecution not a prosecution.”

The source close to the cardinal said Cardinal Pell “has received an enormous amount of letters and cards of support and he is looking forward to attending the appeal next week.”

[NCRegister] 2283.SA1






















Globe CF  News

Canada MPs give standing ovation to motion calling for abortion ‘for any reason’

LIANNE LAURENCE reports for LifeSiteNews ~ All of Canada’s MPs except the Conservatives gave a rousing standing ovation to a motion affirming a woman’s “right” to unrestricted abortion.

Bloc Quebecois MP Monique Pauze presented a motion that “the House of Commons reiterate that a woman's body belongs to her and her alone and recognize her freedom of choice on abortion for any reason.”


[LSN] 2283.SA3
























Globe CF  News

Ireland Overwhelming vote to ease divorce restrictions

THE NEW YORK TIMES reports ~ Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to ease restrictions on divorce, taking another step toward liberalizing a Constitution that was once dominated by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Official figures released last weekend showed that 82 percent of voters in referendum on Friday approved the change, with all areas of the country voting strongly in favour.

The results come on the heels of other major social shifts in the country: a 2015 vote to legalize same-sex marriage - the word's first popular vote on marriage equality - and a referendum last year that repealed Ireland's ban on abortion in almost all circumstances, including rape and incest. In October, the nation voted overwhelmingly to remove a ban on blasphemy from the Constitution.

Divorce was banned in Ireland by a 1937 Constitution strongly influenced by the Catholic hierarchy, and an attempt to overturn the ban in a 1986 referendum was soundly defeated by a 3-to-2 margin. The country made divorce legal in 1995, after a referendum deciding the issue with just over 9,000 votes of 1.63 million cast

[NYT] 2283.7






















Globe CF  News

Italy Why does the Pope hate the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy? (Mainly because he’s winning).

HILARY WHITE writes for The Remnant ~ Very much like the “conservative” Catholics getting unpleasantly shocked out of their 50 years of enchanted Novusordoist sleep by the incredible spectacle of this pope, throughout the secular world people of Europe are also waking up. “There’s a proper reawakening across Europe going on,” a young Dutch politician said after late March elections swept much of the old leftist guard out of his country’s Parliament.

36 year-old Thierry Baudet was especially jubilant at the thought of the anguish of the Eurocrats in Brussels over the political sea change in the Netherlands and across Europe.

“We represent a political philosophy that is fundamentally opposed to the principles of the French Revolution,” said Baudet, adding, “I think there’s a movement going on across European countries, across individual party-lines. It’s the belief in a European renaissance.” Baudet is among those aiming to wrest the leadership of Europe away from the old guard.

As the results of this weekend’s European elections show us, the reality that they have been manipulated by an anti-natalist, anti-European agenda and led, with a warm friendly smile, to the brink of auto-genocide is finally starting to sink in to the European awareness. Keeping in mind that MEPs have absolutely no executive power and European parliamentary elections are mostly a very expensive and elaborate public opinion poll, as of this morning we see the that line in European politics has shifted again to the right, in some places, including Italy, significantly so.

The old bloc of socialist-globalists is losing public support. Not that this will deter them, of course – there’s a good reason the EU system has been set up to give MEPs no power and to ensure that the executive branch is free from disturbance by inconveniences like elections – and every national referendum that goes against them is re-played until the right answer emerges. If nothing else, however, our friends across the Atlantic can be more confident that Europeans in general are not such estrogen-laden, welfare-addicted rubes as they are often portrayed.

Summing up today’s results, Eric Kaufmann at the online “free speech” magazine Quillette, writes, “While not quite the populist surge some feared, right-populist momentum continues.” Kaufmann squarely blames the rise of extreme “progressivism” in Europe for the “populist” backlash from a European people weary of constant manipulation by apparently untouchable elites.

And this is the case especially in Italy:

“Right-wing populists have won an unprecedented 57 seats in elections to the European Union’s Parliament, up from 30 in 2014. In Hungary, Viktor Orban’s Fidesz won a majority of 52 percent. In Italy, Matteo Salvini’s Lega topped the poll at 30 percent…Meanwhile, the mainstream Social Democrats and Christian Democrats saw their combined total drop below a majority for the first time, from 56 percent in 2014 to 44 percent as Green and Liberal alternatives gained.” (Emphasis added.)

Understanding that the distinction is at best a matter of oversimplified journalistic shorthand, at worst a form of manipulative argument-framing, Italy’s towns and regions are roughly divided politically into two political categories: “fascist” and “communist”. We can look at my own neighbourhood in Umbria as an example: Perugia has long been understood to be “communist” or leftist stronghold. That is, until the 2018 elections that gave Italy the “Salvini earthquake”.

The “populist” Lega party – in a coalition with the difficult-to-define 5 Star movement – took the government in a landslide, much to the general panic of European leftist power blocs, including and perhaps especially in the Italian episcopate. And the change is penetrating even leftist strongholds like Perugia. [2] The numbers from this weekend must have been a shock: at the end of the weekend, 38.1% of Perugians had voted for the Lega, compared to 24.2% for the hard-left Partito Democratico (PD) [3].

With all of the above to provide some context and perspective, we can guess this morning that the Bergoglians are likely in a teeth-gnashing fury as an actual public voting process has proved the papal rhetoric of being on the side of “the people” to be a complete fabrication. The fury of the Italian public with the left’s immigrant campaign showed in the shock result of the 2018 national election. This weekend it was clear there has been no change of heart.

Who is Matteo Salvini, and why does Papa Bergoglio hate him so [4]?

The victory of the elections is most notably that of Matteo Salvini, Italy’s recently elected “populist” Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister – and the man the Bergoglian and Italian bishops most love to hate. Italian journalist Antonio Socci tweeted this morning that the “elections have a certain winner: Matteo Salvini.” The leader of the Lega has been bitterly and vociferously opposed by the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) led by the Bergoglian parachute archbishop of Perugia, the smiling socialist Gualtieri Bassetti.

Socci wrote, it’s a victory for Salvini, “Ma anche uno sconfitto clamoroso. Il popolo cattolico ha ‘sfiduciato’ Bergoglio e la Cei.” Some of the political journalistic language can be tricky to translate, but roughly it’s, “But also a resounding defeat for another.” The Catholic public, Socci said, “have ‘rejected’ Bergoglio and the CEI.”

But “Sfiduciato [5]” means more than just “rejected”. It means a resounding vote of utter lack of confidence or belief, total distrust, a violent and complete rejection. In brief, Italian Catholics didn’t so much vote for Salvini as they voted against Bergoglio and his aggressive migrantist political policy.

Formerly the “Lega Nord,” or Northern League, based in Veneto, Lombardy and Liguria, Salvini’s Lega party was for many years the only voice in the country, under the globalist, pro-European Union PD that dared to risk opposition to illegal mass-migration. Italy has undergone an unprecedented influx, that many are straight-up calling an invasion, of migrants – not refugees or immigrants according to all legal definitions – mainly from sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. This has been the leading political issue in this country since 2013 and in 2018 it boiled over for a massive national win for the formerly strictly regional Lega.

With this weekend’s results, given the poor showing by the 5 Star Movement, Salvini’s government coalition partner, it seems more possible than ever that his party will soon hold a ruling majority in Italy. They were voted in by an Italian public completely fed up with the no-win, Hobson’s choice between the immovable grip of globalist leftism or the right’s gross financial and moral corruption that has held Italy in a political stalemate through the whole post-war period.

A little perspective

The standard accusation of racism [6] is still casually flung at anyone who objects to the flood since 2013 of 1.5+ million illegal migrants [7]. Official statistics, dating from 2015, say that 1,036,653 are “officially residing in Italy”. The actual number, however, is unknowable, since previous governments not only took no steps to stem the tide, but paid NGOs to bring more in, many of whom since melted into the cities, and many have come since under “family reunification” provisions.

But, as Quillette’s Kaufmann pointed out, you can only shame and silence people so long when they’re afraid to let their daughters go to the beach.

Indeed, the outcome this weekend was long expected, and the globalist-socialist voices were loud and increasingly hysterical in their efforts to derail the Salvini train. On March 1st, the online outlet Euronews – that mainly produces nakedly propagandistic video “news” spots on Youtube – screeched that “Hate crimes in Italy rise ahead of European elections.” An Italian talking head pointed to the tribulations of a 20 year-old Senegalese man who was enduring being “attacked” by “racist insults” in his neighbourhood in Milan. “This racism issue,” said Salvatore Falco, “can influence the European vote more than terrorism.”

Perhaps it will help to clarify the way the left uses the term “attack” and the way the word is used by Salvini, if we compare a young man being “attacked” with “racist insults” and the case of Pamela Mastropietro, an 18 year-old girl from Rome who was murdered by a drug dealing Nigerian migrant in Macerata, Marche. A cause célèbre for the incredible brutality of the attack; her body was cut into pieces which were stuffed into a pair of suitcases and left in a ditch. Some of her body parts have not been recovered. Panorama reported that according to a medical examiner, “the torture inflicted on the body was carried out by an expert hand in order to hinder the investigation.” Mr. Falco, we do not think that word means what you think it means.

With media on the left and old European institutions like the London School of Economics insisting there is no correlation between the migrant influx and rising crime rates, it might be helpful to examine pre-2013 statistics of violent crime, prostitution, drug trafficking and rape. The crime statistics do show that, overall, crime in Italy has been on a significant downward trend from 1996 to 2018. Italy is still safer than many 1st world countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia, particularly for tourists.

The trouble starts to show, however, when you look more closely at specific kinds of crime and specific areas, cities and areas within cities and even services like Trenitalia, the national rail system. Train stations across the country have become dangerous, even in small towns linked to the national system, becoming the living rooms for groups of young African men who often use the public space for drug transactions, and authorities seem unwilling to do anything about it, perhaps being chary of opening cans of political worms.

The US State Department issued a warning to tourists about the dangers – mainly of petty crime, pick pocketing and purse-snatching – of the area around Termini train station in Rome. However, the reality is a bit darker. The streets around Termini, along with most urban train stations, has become a kind of dormitory where migrants sleep rough and the danger of violent attack is extreme. In one case that shocked Italians, a female reporter was assaulted on live national television – watched by millions of horrified viewers – as she was trying to interview migrants about their living conditions. She was rescued by a taxi driver.

The State Department does add that the risk of terrorist attacks in Rome is increasing, and the travel advisory note frankly states the reason:

“There is considerable risk from terrorism in Rome. ISIS, al-Qa’ida, their affiliated organizations, and other terrorist groups aspire to commit terrorist attacks against U.S. and Western interests in Europe. Local security authorities believe threats and attacks are likely to be a security concern as European members of ISIS return from Syria and Iraq.

“Italy’s concerns for terrorism are exacerbated by its proximity to North Africa and the Middle East. Additionally, Italy has figured prominently in the rhetoric of groups such as ISIS, al-Qa’ida, and al-Shabaab.” (Emphasis added.)

Part of the difficulty in finding out what is happening is the fact that Italian authorities do not usually report crimes committed by immigrants, migrants and refugee-applicants as a separate category, meaning that often the only available data is anecdotal and journalistic, making it easy for ideologues to dismiss. Police and local authorities know, however, that migrant criminals favour specific kinds of crime and those are up since 2015, particularly drug trafficking and rape. The especially revolting crime of gang-rape was almost unknown in Italy before 2015, and often seems to be committed spontaneously, as a kind of afterthought during break-ins or other crimes.

Additionally, the Sexual Revolution has made inroads in attitudes in this country too, and the new libertine spirit has had its effect on the convicting and sentencing of sexual criminals, blurring legal lines between consenting activity and rape. At the same time attitudes of some in police and judiciary towards rape, even violent “stranger-rape” seem to come from another century, causing a clash of “values” between authorities and “sexually liberated” younger people. One of the issues that has angered the Italian public has been light sentencing of such crimes. In 2013, the Constitutional Court struck down a law requiring pre-trial detention of those accused of rape, aiding or exploiting child prostitution and child-rape, a decision that caused anger even before the migrant crisis really started. One mayor of a town in Campagna caused outrage by calling the gang rape of a 16 year old girl “childishness,” implying it was nothing more than a boyish prank [8].

Social behaviour has changed significantly since the middle of the 20th century, with girls and young women now attending parties and nightclubs as a normal part of life, behaviour unknown to older generations. Rape victims are often assaulted at parties or while involved in buying drugs, as was the case of Pamela Mastropietro. Violent rapes, including gang rapes, are often committed by and on people attending nightclubs and other late-night entertainments [9]. And so far there has been little research or public education on the relationship between violent online pornography and sexual crimes.

Nevertheless, it is inarguable that rape is overwhelmingly a crime committed by non-Italians, particularly African migrants as a percentage of respective populations. One left-leaning journalist tried to claim in 2017 that Italians far outweighed foreigners in sexual assaults, with 1,638 offenses between January and June 2017 (65 percent of the total). This was followed by Romanians, 173, Moroccans, 140, and Nigerians, 62. But the assertion failed to include the percentage of these groups in the overall population, meaning that 1,638 offenses was out of a population of 55 million against 500 thousand Romanians, 420 thousand Moroccans and 88 thousand Nigerians, a result Il Giornale called, “Eloquent numbers on the ‘predisposition’ of the various nationalities to rape: for every Italian rape, there are 11 Moroccans.” The paper found that 37% of all rapes were committed by “foreigners” who represent less than 12% of the population, a finding implying that non-Italians were four times more likely to commit sexual crimes than Italians.

Moreover, violent crime is probably most often committed by non-Italians on other non-Italians, especially in the lawless environments of refugee centres and areas of cities where large groups of non-Italians are settled, and as such can easily slip past official statistics. Examples abound, including the case in 2015 in Palermo, in which a Romanian man, a migrant farm labourer, was killed when he tried to stop a gang of Tunisians raping his wife.

Reports on the ground in refugee and settlement centres say that in many cases open gang and tribal warfare is common and women, either Italian or non-Italian, are not safe in them. Police were able to indentify and arrest the Tunisian assailants with the wife’s testimony, but crimes of this kind can be difficult to resolve – or to record for statistics – with the high mobility of people involved in this kind of temporary work. Trains throughout the country have a constant population of migrants moving from place to place for temporary work or accommodation placements and it is impossible to know who is moving on to avoid the authorities.

What’s a little rape, murder, terrorism and sex trafficking between friends?

How did “immigration” become Europe’s number 1 political issue? Despite what the media has emphasised, the migrant wave from Africa started not with the war in Syria [10] but with the 2011 overthrow by NATO (the US) of Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddafi. This was a part of the “Arab Spring” strongly supported by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that also toppled the government of Egypt and, mercifully briefly, installed an Islamist regime there.

Gaddafi’s Libya and Berlusconi’s Italy had a longstanding relationship, including an agreement – that infuriated the European Union – that migrants rescued by the Italian coast guard could be returned to Libyan soil, an agreement that collapsed with Gaddafi’s death and the takeover of the region by violent Islamist militias. And it is certainly no coincidence that the European Central Bank triggered the “Italian debt crisis” that ousted Berlusconi and installed the EU-controlled, puppet “technocrat” government of the unelected, and unelectable Mario Monti, the same year. It is usually forgotten that it was because of direct intervention in the national politics of a sovereign nation by the EU that Italy had no democratically elected government for two years.

In 2011, on the eve of the NATO invasion of Libya, Gaddafi said, “You’re bombing a wall which stood in the way of African migration to Europe and in the way of al-Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You’re breaking it.” We have seen that Gaddafi’s death and Berlusconi’s political downfall did indeed uncork the migrant bottle.

No one is denying that the political swing away from the “traditional” mainstream parties has come in response to the invasion, but given that it also follows decades of outrageous interference in national politics by various outside forces, especially the European Union, a nationalist backlash should surprise no one. The motive for Italians rejecting the migrantist parties has more to do with their anger at the globalist left’s manipulation than “racism” against migrants themselves.

The immediate result of NATO interference in Libya has been the flooding of hundreds of thousands of foreign migrants – most unemployable – into a country already struggling to cope with serious social problems, including high rates of unemployment, chronically under-maintained infrastructure and precarious social welfare systems. The secondary result has been to significantly destabilise Italian politics.

The old Italian cultural tradition – dating from the Risorgimento – of distrust and ill-feeling toward politicians boiled over when Italians, objecting that their children were no longer safe, were lectured and accused of racism – with the old spectre of Mussolini fascism forever being thrown at them. And with the election of the immigrant-frenzied Jorge Bergoglio as pope, his never-ending stream of insults, and his programme of gerrymandering of Italian dioceses to pursue his agenda, much of this ill-feeling has been squarely directed at the Church.

The current president of the CEI is Gualtiero Bassetti, whom Bergoglio appointed to Perugia in 2009 and made a cardinal, though this was never traditionally a “red hat” see [11]. Bassetti has eagerly embraced his mandate to promote the pope’s immigration policy, one that corresponds point-for-point with the “no borders” ideology of George Soros and the Partito Democratico (PD). Bassetti has been a hardliner [12], pushing migrants-without-limits and authorising his subordinates to suggest, in surprisingly candid agreement with critics, that it really is about population replacement.

Perugia’s auxiliary bishop, Paolo Giulietti, [13] said at a Mass for migrants in 2017 that Italy needs unlimited numbers of migrants because it is a “dying nation.” He said, “In this Italy that does not have children, it is our duty to integrate them.” The papers declined to publish the full text, but it is doubtful the bishop mentioned contraception. Giulietti added, without trace of irony, “In an Italy plagued by a devastating demographic winter, the presence of young migrants represents a timid hope for the future.” [14]

All of which can given an idea why the “populist” Matteo Salvini – and particularly in the light of his extraordinary electoral successes – is being cast as the villain by the Italian, Bergoglian clique.

The papal song remains the same: welcome migrants, or you’re racist!

On May 17th, a few days before the EU elections, Il Fatto Quotidiano reported that the pope had said he would refuse to meet Salvini; “Until his language and politics changes, I can’t and I don’t want to shake his hand.”

Salvini responded tersely that he has never requested an audience with the pope.

And as luck, irony or Providence would have it, the pope today issued his official statement ahead of this year’s World Day of Migrants and Refugees, saying – again – that it’s entirely the fault of us callous, utilitarian and indifferent rich 1st world people that migrants suffer.

“The most economically advanced societies are witnessing a growing trend towards extreme individualism which, combined with a utilitarian mentality and reinforced by the media, is producing a ‘globalization of indifference’. In this scenario, migrants, refugees, displaced persons and victims of trafficking have become emblems of exclusion [15].”

The pope continues:

“The signs of meanness we see around us heighten our fear of ‘the other’, the unknown, the marginalized, the foreigner... [T]he problem is not that we have doubts and fears. The problem is when they condition our way of thinking and acting to the point of making us intolerant, closed and perhaps even – without realizing it – racist.”

no popeSo, it’s official; the pope has joined the Twitterverse chorus of SJWs slagging as “racist” anyone who thinks migration should be legal and limited. It’s not difficult to guess that this tirade was prepared well in advance, since pollsters had for some time been predicting the Salvini progress in this weekend’s vote.

With the pope continually lobbing accusations of callous indifference, greed, and even crass racism at anyone who wants national borders and the legal limitations on immigration to be respected, it can hardly surprise anyone that Italians worried about simple safety have rejected him. We can imagine how well his demand in 2017 went over that governments simply ignore threats to public safety, and prioritise “welcoming” all migrants over concerns for “national security.”

We have seen that Bergoglio’s main methodology for all contingencies is to create division and promote factionalism, to invent and then insult straw men, and now it is coming back to bite him. In October last year, on a visit to a Bologna refugee centre, the pope gave a speech that is typical:

“The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial. … We have become used to the suffering of others: It doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it's none of my business!”

In that speech he called the Mediterranean a “vast cemetery” where thousands have drowned trying to make it to Europe. The irony, as usual, went unnoticed. One of the loudest voices encouraging people to attempt the often-deadly crossing, said, “Has any one of us wept because of this situation and others like it? … Today has anyone wept in our world?” You go first, Holiness.

If comment threads are the new voice of the people, the messages under some of the articles in which these prelates are quoted constitute an online pitchforks and torches brigade.

Shortly after the 2018 election, Bassetti warned Salvini that the CEI intended to be the “critical conscience” of the government, especially on migrants. The responses were, to say the least, cutting: “But they don’t realize that nobody is obviously listening to them, but think about being priests, preaching the Gospel and saying Mass!” Another, referring to the multiple incidents of vandalism by migrants in Italian churches, said, “Ah, are you are also watching over those who enter Catholic churches and make massacres of crucifixes, statues, paintings and religious furnishings?”

Another: “Pope Francis wants a poor church ... poor of what? Apparently he is making her poor in faith, but rich in money from the migrant business, not to mention his heretical openings,” and “These priests are not at the service of God but of Bergoglio.”

Salvini’s real beef

In fact it is not the migrants themselves who receive Salvini’s strongest criticism but globalist ideologues. His main target is what he calls the “illegal occupation” of Italy and other European countries “organised by Brussels” – of which the immense increase in illegal migrants he says is nothing more than a symptom, and a deliberately wielded instrument of division.

Salvini doesn’t even want to abolish the EU, but dreams of a “new” European Parliament and Commission, in which democratic principles are respected and the socialist agenda is ousted. Today in a brief victory speech following the elections, Salvini pointed out that the Lega also came in first among voters in Lampedusa, the Mediterranean island where migrants first land in Italy. “It’s evidently a demand for immigration which is lawful, limited, controlled, qualified, positive,” he said.

“It’s not just Salvini’s caprice, but it is also the firm will of the Italians. And it is the first battle that we’ll placidly lead and win in the new European Parliament and European Commission.”

Are they just annoyed that Salvini is more Catholic than the pope?

Perhaps the pope and his friends are most irritated by Salvini’s appeal to faithful Catholics. This month, the month normally given over by the Church to Marian devotions, the pope was fulsome in his greetings to Italy’s Muslims – 2.3% of the population – with a Vatican message urging “universal fraternity” at the opening of the fasting month of Ramadan. The Italian bishops followed suit, setting up Islamic events at their cathedrals and churches, inviting Imams to speak at Mass and hosting Iftar [16] dinners [17]. The Caritas branch in Catania was apparently so worried that Muslims wouldn’t have enough to eat at the end of each day they organised food donations to be delivered to local mosques.

Meanwhile, Salvini [18] was “personally” entrusting himself and Italy to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and asking that she would lead his party to victory. At the May 18th rally at the Piazza del Duomo in Milan, featuring the presence of Dutch and French Euro-skeptic leaders, and holding a Rosary aloft he said, “We rely on women and men of good will. We entrust ourselves to the six patrons of this Europe: to St. Benedict of Norcia, to St. Brigid of Sweden, to St. Catherine of Siena, to Saints Cyril and Methodius, to St. Teresa Benedetta of the Cross. We rely on them. And we entrust to them the destiny, the future, the peace and prosperity of our peoples.”

As much as we might dismiss it as merely clever political manipulation, a more intelligent reading of public opinion than the CEI or Bergoglio has managed, it does confirm that the real Catholic religion still sells in this country, that rarely sees or hears it from their prelates.

And there are a multitude of small signs that Papa Bergoglio is hard put to maintain message control and discipline in the ranks. Indeed, Salvini himself claims he receives constant messages and emails from “friars, nuns, missionaries, bishops [and] cardinals” supporting him. Take this claim with as much salt as you like, but we must ask is it possible that Bergoglio’s very intransigence will drive even dedicated Novusordoist Italian bishops past their sticking point? Is it possible that the Bergoglian reign is crumbling from within and, particularly in Italy, losing support among bishops who are traditionally protective of their rights and prerogatives?

Il Foglio reports a conversation with an unknown, smiling Italian bishop who said the Bergoglian cabal has shocked some bishops by being more deeply ideological than any ruling faction seen in anyone’s memory. A pope who refuses for ideological, political reasons to meet with an Italian politician is something unheard of: “It’s a novelty, if you think about it,” he said. “We had governments that had everything in them, forces light years away from the principles dear to the Church and that even made war on the Church.”

The Italian episcopate is not a monolithic political bloc; “There are bishops for Salvini,” the anonymous prelate said. “The [CEI] president gives a line of input, but then we have our head eh,” he added. “And there are many who, although obviously not sharing whistles with the Holy Father - and we would miss something else - do not understand this preconceived hostility towards a particular political party.”

“Obviously,” he said, there is among the Italian bishops an equivalent of the “Lega” – a party or faction who do not support unlimited migration or the globalist, socialist aims. What good they imagine they can do for the nation by smiling phlegmatically and keeping quiet, however, is anyone’s guess.

What no one on the left is saying: migration is a bad deal for the migrants

As more information becomes public about the real situation of migrants trying to get into Europe – and the cozily lucrative relationship between the “rescue” NGOs and the traffickers – it becomes more clear that the ideological stance of the pope and his fellow travelers is aimed not at mercy for them, but ideological browbeating for us.

Much of the humanitarian argument against allowing this huge influx of African migrants into Europe is that it is doing nothing more than enriching human traffickers at the expense of immense loss of life and freedom. International law enforcement have said it is reviving sexual slavery, forced prostitution, of women and young girls, and causing the needless deaths of thousands of people by drowning.

The one thing that never gets mentioned in the papal tirades berating “rich” Europeans for their “racism” is the billions of Euros that continue to pour into the hands of the human traffickers. And the world will never know, until the Last Day, how many have died in the desert or the water, or disappeared forever into slavery, making the attempt to get to Europe, all while EU politicians and the Catholic hierarchy continue to encourage them to keep trying.

Nearly all the migrants “rescued” off the Libyan coast and taken to Sicily by NGOs have got there by paying thousands of Euros to traffickers to take them across the Mediterranean. These NGOs are currently the object of police scrutiny for suspected kick-backs, financial partnerships with the traffickers, with some being accused of laundering hundreds of millions of Euros.

The bishop of Trieste – a town sitting on the border between Italy and Slovenia – recently publicly challenged the concept of a “right to emigrate,” a foundational philosophical plank of Bergoglio’s immigration platform. Giampaolo Crepaldi, known for his outspoken “conservatism” on sexual issues as well as promoting Pope Benedict XVI’s idea of the “right not to emigrate,” told the paper La Verità earlier this year that those who are thinking of emigrating should be encouraged to find ways to stay in and “achieve a better condition” for their countries.

Crepaldi said that people should be able to leave intolerable situations like war, endemic poverty “or conditions of disproportionate suffering”. In such cases, “everyone has the duty to love their country, but no one has the obligation to become a slave to it. Expatriation is therefore a right that must be recognized.”

However, “emigration must not be forced, coerced or even planned.” He recalled there is a “duty of the international community to intervene on the causes rather than on the consequences, to face the problems that push or force people and families to leave in emigration countries.”

This is the line recently echoed by some bishops in Africa who called on young Africans to stay and “make your own country better.” In a pastoral statement following a meeting last week, the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of the Regional Episcopal Conference of West Africa, warned young people of the danger of “migration that especially affects young Africans attracted by the thirst for a better life but who suddenly stop in the waves of the Mediterranean or in the Libyan desert.”


[1] A European expression, sometimes given as “soixante huitards,” meaning those of the age to have participated in the student and social rebellions of 1968.

[2] Where violent crime, drug dealing in public parks and rooting out jihadist cells have increasingly occupied local and national police.

[3] Formed out of the officially and for-realsies Communist Party of Italy… I’m not kidding.

[4] Probably mainly because he’s winning, which tends to be rather a sticking point for Jorge Bergoglio, described by people who have had the misfortune to know him well as “a man sick with power.”

[5] One of those rather tricky pronunciations for us Anglos, it comes out as "sfee-doo-chah-toh"

[6] “racist,” “fascist,” and “populist” are used more or less interchangeably by the migrantists.

[7] Many of these migrants have moved on, finding Italy a less generous welfare state than they had been hoping for. The common method is to use the Italian refugee processing system to gain European residence cards and then use this to head north to states like Germany, Belgium, Sweden, France and Britain.

[8] The mayor, 73 year-old Michele Palummo, later convincingly apologised for the remark when the news went national, and after the parish priest of the town raked him publicly over the coals, saying “We are not a nation of brutes.”

[9] The story linked above in which a 25 year-old Senegalese migrant raped a 15 year-old girl after they met at a nightclub at a beach resort on the Adriatic coast was typical. Nearly every such news item involves a sentence like this: “A casual meeting in a nightclub on an August night had turned into a terrible nightmare of sexual violence by a 25-year-old man…” It might be politically incorrect, but maybe worth asking what a 15 year-old girl was doing at a beach nightclub in a notoriously dangerous town in the first place. Where were her parents? We also have to remember that these men come from a world where women are never unattended by a family member. The man in this case was caught easily and showed no indication he was aware of having committeed a crime. This is a common story across Europe, prompting some countries to initiate “values training lessons” for immigrants to teach them that in European countries rape is not only morally wrong but a criminal offense. The fact that these lessons, however morally incoherent and contradictory, are needed at all seems to have taught the ideologues nothing.

[10] The propaganda that the hundreds of thousands of Africans crossing the Mediterranean in rubber boats are “refugees from war” is in fact a brazen journalistic and political lie. These men – and they are nearly all men – are legally classified as “economic migrants”. An argument could be made that legal provisions should made to allow – and regulate – economic migration, but lying to the public to sell unlimited immigration for ideological purposes helps no one but the traffickers and the politicians banking on them.

[11] The notable exception being Vincenzo Cardinal Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, who went to Rome for the 1878 Conclave and stayed to rule as Pope Leo XIII

[12] To give him his due, Bassetti was among the rare members of the Italian episcopate to celebrate the traditional Mass after Summorum Pontificum, and Perugia is the home of a weekly diocesan TLM, an increasingly rare and endangered animal.

[13] This year, Giulietti – who had been made a bishop only in 2014 – was appointed archbishop of Lucca.

[14] Incidentally, this is the first time I have heard of an Italian bishop mentioning the looming auto-extinction of the Italian nation. It isn’t surprising he declined to mention it has largely been facilitated by the complete and early capitulation of the episcopate to the contraceptive juggernaut. In a conversation shortly after the first Synod on the Family, a well-known curial cardinal confirmed that in the entire proceedings the problem of Europe’s demographic crisis – especially marked in formerly Catholic countries like Italy – had never been mentioned. The conversation took place during a visit to Norcia where the cardinal was taking a brief break. He asked why I’d chosen to live in Norcia. I said it was in part because the rents were so cheap. He asked why that was. I responded, “No more people. Population’s been death-spiraling for 70 years.”

[15] “Exclusion” btw is one of the buzzwords popular among South American Marxists in their class-war rhetoric.

[16] The meal at sundown at which the daily fast is broken.

[17] The latest trendy Bergoglian episcopal fad is to host meals with the poor and migrants, eaten on folding tables set up inside the cathedrals. Pope Francis started it in 2017, having lunch with 1400 migrants in the nave of Bologna’s San Petronio Cathedral. La Stampa gushed, “The majestic Gothic vaults of the Basilica of San Petronio, a secular and religious symbol of the city of Bologna, frame the lunch that Pope Francis shares with 1400 ‘guests…’”

[18] Take it for what it’s worth: Salvini is divorced and co habiting with another “partner” but it is widely reported in Rome that though he goes to Mass he does not receive Holy Communion.























Globe CF  News

Scandinavia Two journalists explain how Europe could fall to Islam

RAYMOND IBRAHIM reports for the America Thinker ~ The following brief but highly informative interview, titled 'Europe: Deep Spiritual Crisis,' appeared earlier this year on Herland Report TV. The host, Hanne Nabintu Herland, a Norwegian historian of religions and a journalist, interviews Iben Thranholm, a Danish theologian and journalist.

Both women are to be commended for raising many important points - indeed, for getting to the heart of the West's problems, including vis-à-vis Islam - that are seldom acknowledged in American media, certainly not 'mainstream' media. Moreover, as both come from Scandinavia, arguably the most 'progressive' region in the world, they know what they speak of and offer a prognostication the U.S. can learn from.

The general theme of the episode is that Western values have become almost entirely materialistic in essence. Because pure materialism is ultimately dissatisfying - 'man shall not live on bread alone' - more and more Western people are turning to any number of metaphysical ideologies, from Islam to paganism - anything, as long as it's not Christianity. Because many of these ideologies are intrinsically hostile to Christianity, Western culture, which was founded on Christian principles, has become suicidal - hence the current situation, especially in Europe.

As Thranholm explains: 'You cannot understand the world only from a political viewpoint. We are in a spiritual warfare and not just a political struggle. ... It has become a taboo to speak about religion due to this anti-religious ideology that claims that religion has no value. As long as we remain in this spiritual crisis, I don't think Europe will be able to defeat Islam. The reason why Islam is so successful here is because we have a spiritual vacuum'.

Disturbing statistics validate this latter point. 'Thousands of Norwegians are rushing to Islam' every year, says Herland. 'A flood of ethnic Scandinavians are becoming Muslim,' precisely because Christianity has 'evaporated.'

It's especially refreshing to see that both women understand that whatever issues the West is having with Islam, these are almost entirely brought on by the West itself - a point I often make (here and here for example). As Thranholm, who refers to the current 'anti-Christian ideology' in the West as 'the second coming of Marxism,' says, 'a weak Christianity means a strong Islam.'

The brief video follows and is well worth watching:



[Published by :LifeSiteNews with permission from the American Thinker].

[American Thinker / LSN] 2283.8






















Globe CF  News

United States Two hundred ex-LGBT men and women rally, to show freedom they've found in following Christ

DOUG MAINWARING reports for LifeSiteNews - Ex-homosexual and ex-transgender men and women from around the country descended upon the Nation's Capital this weekend for the Second Annual 'Freedom March' where they proclaimed the freedom they've found in abandoning homosexual and transgender practices.

'Look at this! This is Amazing! They say we don't exist!' declared author and documentary producer M.J. Nixon, a March co-founder, as many gathered for a group picture. About 200 participated this year-a threefold increase over last year.



Former transwoman Jeffrey McCall kicked off the rally on the grounds of the Washington Monument, explaining that nobody here was forced to change; 'It was the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of Jesus Christ that fell on all of us.'

One testimony after another from the racially diverse group of mostly millennials spoke about their personal conversion to Jesus and the freedom they have found from lives dominated by active homosexuality or gender dysphoria.

Our identity is not in our sexuality; it is in Jesus Christ

Angel Colon, who survived the Pulse Nightclub massacre Orlando, Florida where 49 died, told his harrowing conversion story which began that night three years ago.

'As I lay on the ground shot multiple times -couldn't move- I said to the Lord, 'I am not leaving this building dead tonight,'' recounted Colon.

'You promised me I have a purpose in life. You promised my Mom that the baby inside of her womb was special and [You] had a purpose for his life,' he said. 'I am not leaving here dead, Lord; I am leaving here alive and when I do, I am going to worship you for the rest of my life.'

Colon has kept his promise to God, traveling the world preaching about the freedom he has found in Jesus Christ.

Colon explained that the true meaning of deliverance and freedom is being able to look at temptation in the eye and say, 'I don't want you, I want Jesus.'

'That's how you know you are free,' he added. 'Our identity is not in our sexuality; it is in Jesus Christ.'

'It wasn't a 'gay to straight' thing; It was a 'lost to saved' thing.'

A second Pulse Nightclub survivor, Luis Ruiz, said that like many of the people participating in the March the reason why he was there is ultimately because he had a 'mother and a father that never compromised the Gospel.'

'They prayed and prayed and believed not in my situation, but in my destiny, my identity found in Christ Jesus.'

'It wasn't a 'gay to straight' thing,' said Ruiz, 'It was a 'lost to saved' thing.'

'We were all born into sin, baby,' continued Ruiz. 'Even though I might be tempted every day, I choose Jesus.'

'He's the only man in my life,' he added. 'I chose 'Him' over 'him.''

'I thank God for this Freedom March. I thank God for what he is doing in our nation's capital. As a combat veteran of fifteen years in the United States Army, today I go to war with you guys,' said Ruiz pointing to the crowd.

'This is a new day, baby,' he exclaimed.

After the rally, the group marched around the Washington Monument, across the Constitution Avenue to the Ellipse, and back, chanting, 'The Lion of the God of Judah is roaring, he's roaring, to set the captives free.'

[LSN] 2283.9






















Globe CF  News

United States Trump responds to Pope Francis, who claims that he (Trump) is 'not Christian'

PRESIDENT Donald Trump lashed out last week after Pope Francis questioned his Christianity, saying the pontiff will 'wish and pray' he the real estate mogul were President 'if and when the Vatican is attacked.'



[ABC News] 2283.10






















Globe CF  News

International Michael Voris

Vade, propheta ad populum meum '. . flicking his whip at the Bishops, cutting them in tender places, throwing stones at Sacred Congregations, and discharging pea shooters at Cardinals' (Newman).



[CMTV] 2283.11






















Globe CF  News


International gloria.tv.news


[gloria.tv] 2283.12






















Globe CF  News

International A few headlines of the week


Burkina Faso : Four more dead in new attack on Christians

France: Lyon bomber confesses to jihad as documents are uncovered on computer

Germany: Islamic antisemitism rises ~ Jews warned to avoid wearing kippahs in public

Iran : Youth taught to shun fun; enjoy economic war and jihad against kaffirs

Mauritania : Cleric demands Muslims must "strive to obtain nuclear weapons" to stop zionists

Nigeria: Muslims murder 7 Christians on way from church, Christian homes burnt

USA : CAIR justifies synagogue attack and Muslim children singing about beheading Jews


[CF News] 2283.13






















Globe CF  News

International The World Over with Raymond Arroyo



[EWTN] 2283.14






















Globe CF  News




Blessed John Henry Newman and Our Lady

A HOMILY by Fr Richard Duffield Cong Orat. A Day With Mary, St Wilfrid's Catholic Church (Oratory), York, England. Saturday 14 march 2015.



[admwuk] 2283.15






















Globe CF  News




Atheist hero Christopher Hitchens, his Christian friends, and the rest of the story

C. HitchinsJONATHON VAN MAREN writes for LifeSiteNews ~ Christopher Hitchens would probably be pleased to know that nearly a decade after his death, people have not stopped talking about him. Beyond the endless speculation as to what the Hitch might have had to say about President Donald Trump (back in 2000 he wrote that Trump had 'worked out how to cover 90 percent of his skull with 30 percent of his hair'), he was recently the subject of a BBC Radio 4 documentary 'Remembering Christopher Hitchens,' and the filmmaker who followed Hitchens for the 2009 documentary Collision has been releasing short vignettes of behind-the-scenes footage featuring Hitchens' debates and interactions with Rev. Douglas Wilson of Christchurch, Idaho.

The revealing glimpses of Hitchens having jovial conversations with Wilson, whom Christopher's brother Peter once referred to as a 'purveyor of weapons-grade Calvinism,' reminded me of a 2016 book on a little-known aspect of the resolutely godless intellectual's life: His close friendships with many evangelical Christians. The Christian author Larry Taunton's memoir of his friendship with Hitchens, which he told me was a 'spiritual biography,' attracted outrage from many Hitchens sycophants before they even made it past the title: The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Famous Atheist. The founder of a Christian apologetics organization specializing in debate, Taunton not only debated Hitchens but actually took several road trips with him - and these experiences make up the body of his fascinating account. They also seem to contradict Hitchens' public declarations of contempt for all Christians.

'You are my enemy,' Hitchens once said evenly to a Christian radio host. And indeed, when Hitchens was moving in for the rhetorical kill, he rejoiced in savaging his opponents - he told Taunton that in debate he always first decided whether he was going to destroy the argument or the man. Indeed, Martin Amis wrote of his best friend Christopher that 'we grant that hatred is a stimulant, but it shouldn't become an intoxicant.' At times, that hatred seemed viscerally genuine. A journalist friend of mine once told me that she'd been introduced to Hitchens at his Washington, D.C. apartment some years ago to discuss religion - she was a recent convert to Catholicism and a secular friend wanted her to meet him. He'd downed half a bottle of whiskey by early afternoon, she recalled, and was so belligerent and angry when discussing Christianity that she quickly became uncomfortable and desperately wanted to leave.

But it was precisely these declarations of hatred for the faithful that won Hitchens so many devoted disciples, and it is because Taunton's short tome proves that Hitchens was 'keeping two sets of books' on that score that it triggered such vitriol from the atheist community. 'Christopher and I immediately got on with one another, we liked each other,' Taunton told me. That despite the fact that the two men could not have been more different: Taunton is an evangelical from the deep South, and Hitchens was a famously crude and bohemian hedonist who lived the raconteur writer's lifestyle to the hilt. He drank hard - the teetotalling Taunton recalls having to help Hitchens to bed after the consumption of an enormous amount of whiskey and noted that the tall tales of Christopher being impervious to the effects of liquor were obviously false. And yet it was Hitchens who suggested that he and Taunton travel together - and even told a TV interviewer that, 'If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton had, we'd be living in a much better society than we do.'

Taunton's title proved to be rather like waving a red cape in front of the atheist bull, despite the fact that he never once claims Hitchens had a deathbed conversion - Hitchens' wife Carol Blue said the subject never came up during his last days, and so we must leave it at that. But yet Taunton does say that Hitchens used his debating tours after the release of his anti-religious screed god is Not Great to engage with Christians in a manner that began to make his anti-theist friends very nervous indeed. After Christopher's cancer diagnosis, when God's existence suddenly became more than a matter of rhetorical debate, these discussions with his Christian friends took a more serious and urgent tone. As they studied the Bible together one afternoon driving through the Shenandoah, Taunton relates, Hitchens suddenly stopped reading and began quoting John 11:25 and 26 from memory:

'It's a great verse,' I add, sensing we have reached a defining moment.

'Yes, Dickens thought so,' (Hitchens) says, and then, taking his reading glasses off, he turns to me and asks: 'Do you 'believest thou this,' Larry Taunton?' His sarcasm is evident, but it lacks its customary force.

'I do. But you already knew that I did. The question is, 'Do you believest thou this,' Christopher Hitchens?'

As if searching for a clever riposte, he hesitates and speaks with unexpected transparency: 'I'll admit that it is not without appeal to a dying man.'

The diagnosis of stage four esophageal cancer, the disease that would eventually kill him on December 15, 2011, was a 'game changer for Christopher, as it would be for anyone,' Taunton told me by phone. 'Christopher knew that his cancer was a death sentence. He was staring eternity in the face. It changed the tenor of the conversations with Christopher … Suddenly it wasn't just intellectual banter, suddenly you had this sense of urgency with him. Christopher was thinking deeply on the question of whether or not the biblical claim that there was a God and that He stands to judge us in the next life for our actions in this one … (was true). Christopher and I would drive - after he was diagnosed with cancer - from his home in D.C. to my home in Birmingham, Alabama, a 751-mile drive in one day, 13 hours, and we would study the Gospel of John together. And then a month later, we would do it again, this time through Yellowstone National Park.'

These road trips were unorthodox, to be sure. 'How many Bible studies have you been to where there was whiskey on offer?' Taunton chuckled, recalling Hitchens' baritone voice reading Scripture with a tumbler of Johnny Walker Black clamped between his knees and a chain of cigarettes on the go. Does this mean that Hitchens was 'evaluating, contemplating conversion to Christianity,' a modern-day Nicodemus, as Taunton put it? His friendships with Taunton, Wilson, and the evangelical scientist Francis Collins (whom he called one of the 'greatest living Americans'), certainly indicate that he did not believe his own oft-repeated statement that Christianity 'cannot be believed by a thinking person.' His brother Peter, who is also a Christian, would be another example - Christopher's widow Carol kindly suggested that he read Philippians 4:8 at the memorial service, the same passage Christopher had once read at their father's funeral nearly 25 years before.

Although Taunton has been accused of posthumously claiming Hitchens for Christianity, he, in fact, emphasizes throughout his book that he is not making that claim. 'I am not saying Hitchens converted,' Taunton reiterated emphatically to me. 'I am only saying he contemplated it, based on what I saw. But atheists need Hitchens as a sort of god, the man who gave them all courage and strengthened their faith by looking eternity in the face and saying I will not yield.' The best evidence of this was the nauseating sycophancy of Richard Dawkins (ironically, Hitchens told Taunton that he found The God Delusion unreadable) when presenting Hitchens with an atheist award at the Texas Freethought Convention during his final public appearance eight weeks before he died. Ravaged by both disease and the treatments designed to fight it, shrunken was the only way to describe him, a still-living Ghost of the Hitch. He was envious, he said sadly to the riotous adulation of the crowd, of someone who was young, and 'just starting out in this fight.' He was wildly applauded for his courage in the face of death, but he looked forlorn - with nothing, by his own admission, either to fear or look forward to. Thousands of atheists were cheering him on his way, but this was a journey he would have to make alone.

I phoned Rev. Douglas Wilson, who toured with Christopher Hitchens and even co-authored a book (Is Christianity Good for the World?) with him to ask him what he thought of Taunton's memoir. Wilson had written that Peter Hitchens had once told him that 'the reason Christopher's city walls were so heavily armed, bristling with weaponry, was that if you ever got past those walls there were no defenses from there to the city center.' (Peter says as much in his own magnificent memoir, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me To Faith.) When I asked Wilson if he'd had similar conversations to Taunton's, he affirmed that he had: 'Yes, when we were talking over a meal with nobody else there, he could talk about these things on a serious level - when there wasn't an audience. He never opened up and said I'm seriously thinking about this myself, but there was generally no monkeyshines when it was just the two of us in a private setting. The show was not going on.'

Wilson agrees with Taunton that it was not Christians in general that Hitchens hated, it was hypocrites. Hitchens suspected that Al Sharpton was as much of an atheist as he was, for example, and once told Taunton prior to a debate with a religious huckster that Taunton was on his side for a change. 'Christopher was quite capable of respecting Christians,' Wilson told me. 'It was not I have contempt for you all. If you really believed it and were willing to defend challenges thrown up against it, he respected that and he liked it. I think his whole throwing out the challenge when he released his book was a way for him to come into contact with lots of believers without arousing the suspicions of his fanbase. If he started having lunch every Tuesday with the archbishop, tongues were going to wag. People were going to say what's going on over there. It (would) cause a commotion. In this way, he could be the adversary, he could be the enfant terrible and preserve his public persona, and yet find out an awful lot about the Christian faith by interacting with Christians directly.'

Hitchens' hatred for religious hypocrites had attracted attention before. Murray Kempton, in his review of Christopher's book condemning Mother Teresa in the New York Times Review of Books, noted that Hitchens seemed to be outraged at the Catholic missionary's perceived hypocrisies to such an extent that he appeared offended on behalf of the God she claimed to serve: 'Hitchens's stirrings are so far from blasphemous as almost to resonate with the severities of orthodoxy. He came to scoff, but the murmurings that recurrently rise from his place in the pew unmistakably imply the man who has remained to pray. Mockeries suffuse his tones; but their charms, seduce us though they may, cannot conceal the fierce purpose of their employment, not in God's despite but on His behalf.' As Wilson once said of Hitchens' fiery moral denunciations during one of their debates: 'Christopher would have made a very good Puritan.'

So what, I asked Wilson, are we to make of Taunton's claim that Hitchens considered Christianity seriously? 'When people are considering (Christianity), they go through three stages,' Wilson replied. 'The first is they announce: I'll never become a Christian. That tells you they've thought about it. It's crossed their mind, and they need to assure you. The second stage is: If I became a Christian. And the third stage is: When I become a Christian. I'm never going to; If I were to; and when I do. I know just on the basis of his public pronouncements, Christopher got to stage two. There were several times in interviews after his cancer diagnosis where he was asked: Any second thoughts on the God thing? And Christopher's answer wasn't simply: No, no second thoughts. His answer was: Well, if you hear that Christopher Hitchens has cried out to God on his deathbed, then you can be assured that the cancer got to my brain, or the medications got to me. He was saying if this were to happen, here's the story I want my fans to use. He was saying that because he was worried about it. There's no reason to bring that kind of thing up unless you're concerned you might let down the home team by doing something like that. He had a story prepared beforehand. I am not claiming that Christopher cried out to God. I am maintaining that Christopher himself was worried (that he would.)'

That alone, of course, is enough to ruffle the devout unbelievers who worshiped the Hitch. I wonder if any of them have seen a particularly poignant and fascinating scene at the very end of the documentary Collision, where Hitchens is chatting with Wilson about the Christian apologetics he and his atheist brethren find the most challenging. He then wanders abruptly off-script, relating a conversation he'd had with Richard Dawkins:

'At one point, I said, if I could convert everyone in the world - not convert, convince everyone - to be a non-believer, and I'd really done brilliantly and there's only one left; one more, and then it'd be done. There'd be no more religion in the world. No more deism, no more theism. I wouldn't do it.

'And Dawkins said, 'What do you mean you wouldn't do it?'

'I said, 'I don't quite know why I wouldn't do it. And it's not just because there'd be nothing left to argue with and no one left to argue with. It's not just that - though it would be that. Somehow, if I could drive it out of the world, I wouldn't.' And the incredulity with which (Dawkins) looked at me stays with me still, I've got to say'.

Christopher Hitchens is remembered by the godless as a man who truly hated Christians and wanted to utterly destroy Christianity. In public, in front of his admirers, he maintained that position even as the grave yawned at him. But as was always the case with Christopher Hitchens, there was quite a bit more to the story.

[LSN] 2283.16










































Globe CF  News


Comment from the internet


Islam: What every Infidel should know

STEVE RAY Ray delivered this talk, 'Islam: What Every Infidel Should Know', at the 2018 Steubenville Defending the Faith Conference.



[Franciscan University of Steubenville] 2283.18






















Globe CF  News

Professor John Rist: Why I signed the Papal Heresy Open Letter

EDWARD PENTIN writes for the National Catholic Register ~ An open letter accusing Pope Francis of heresy and calling the world's bishops to investigate has been signed by 86 people as of May 10, among them some prominent theologians and other academics.

One of the most notable of the initial 19 to sign the missive is professor John Rist, a respected British scholar of patristics best known for his contributions to the history of metaphysics and ethics.

The author of detailed studies on such subjects as Plato, Aristotle and St. Augustine of Hippo, Rist held the Father Kurt Pritzl, O.P., Chair in Philosophy at The Catholic University of America and is a life member of Clare Hall at the University of Cambridge, England.

He was also one of the contributors to Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book upholding the Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage published ahead of the 2014 Synod on the Family. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who was then serving as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was another contributor to that 2014 collection of essays.

In this May 13 email interview, professor Rist responds to a number of criticisms that the open letter has drawn, including that it is 'extreme, intemperate' and 'overstates' its case.

In response, he says he put his name to the initiative chiefly because he believes that what he sees as ambiguous statements from Pope Francis are designed to try to change the Church's doctrine 'by stealth.'

He says the letter is aimed at preventing 'further massive confusion among Catholics' and to 'expose papal double-talk,' which he believes is a deliberate effort by the Pope for 'evading charges of heresy.'

Professor Rist, what were your own motives for signing the open letter?E

My chief motive for signing was that I had come to the conclusion that so many vain attempts have been made to get the Pope to 'clarify' his ambiguities and correct his seeming errors that there was no useful alternative to an outright 'charge.' By his wholly unreasonable unwillingness, in particular to answer the dubia, Pope Francis has brought this upon himself.

How far has the letter achieved its goal?

I do not think the letter has achieved its goal - nor did I think there was much chance that it would, at least in the short run. That is because the Pope can always shelter behind silence, and there is a servile mentality among the episcopate (and many others, even conservative commentators), which is squeamish about criticizing a pope. Such commentators approximate too closely to reducing the sacred and unchallengeable dogmatic teachings of the Church to the utterances of a pope: the Father [Thomas] Rosica theory of the present papacy!

Why release the letter now, what prompted its publication, and how many people were asked to sign it?

I did not organize the letter so I cannot answer your questions. But I do know that there was considerable debate about the content. I was only involved relatively late on and agreed to sign because I thought the general approach was essential at this time. I doubt whether a document could be written in which everyone would agree with all the wording: that is, unless it were so bland as to be pointless.

What do you say to the various criticisms of the letter: that it represents an 'extreme' and 'intemperate' approach which 'overstates' the case - as some see it - and this makes further criticism of this pontificate harder?

Criticisms of intemperance, etc., whatever their intent, can only have the effect of diverting attention from the main concerns: that the Pope is deliberately using ambiguity to change doctrine and that the attitude he adopts over appointments indicates that he is out of sympathy (to put it mildly) with traditional Catholic teachings on a whole range of subjects. Fussing about 'extremism,' etc. seems like fiddling while Rome burns; what it shows is that even many conservatives do not want to grasp the gravity of a situation where the Pope seems bent on turning the Church into a vaguely spiritually flavored NGO.

Another criticism is that the signatories are not in a position to accuse the Pope of heresy, that only bishops can hold him to account for such a charge, and that the letter would have been better just calling on bishops to investigate the alleged heresies rather than accusing the Pope of them. What is your response to this view?

But calling on the bishops is precisely what the letter does! The signatories are not in a position to convict a pope of heresy; they are in a position to 'prosecute' the charge, and we judged it was our duty to do so. The letter is primarily and immediately a challenge to the bishops to act rather than ignore or wring hands only.

What is your view of the critique that it's not yet possible to accuse Pope Francis of specific formal heresy, but he can be accused of deliberate ambiguity and confusion, or 'drift' toward heresy, and that that might have made a better critique?

See my answer above. I am not a canonist, nor (see above) a judge. What I am is someone who believes he can recognize intended heresy in word [and] also how the words are confirmed by the actions.

Others have said it would have been better to omit aspects which they believe are not strictly suspected of being heretical, such as supposed dubious episcopal appointments, protecting bishops who have covered up or committed abuse, and the Pope's use of what some thought was a 'stang' for a staff. What do you say to the criticism, that these are too extraneous to the accusation of heresy?

The list of 'misdeeds' is cumulative. One or two could be ignored, but this number …? I fail to see how someone who, for example, calls abortion-activist (and abortionist) Emma Bonino a 'forgotten great' can possibly believe the truth of Catholic teaching (going back to the Didache) on such an important matter, involving the deaths of millions by abortion.

What is your response to Jimmy Akin's criticism that none of the signatories are specialists in ecclesiology and that the letter fails to show that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogmas?

Someone pointed out to me that Catherine of Siena has only an 'honorary' doctorate 'of the Church' and that, to the best of our knowledge, the apostles had no degrees at all!

Some of the criticism in this letter - including charges of syncretism, indifferentism and questionable appointments - has been raised to some extent about Pope St. John Paul II, as well. Are there any parallels here, and should his legacy be given greater scrutiny along these lines?

This is now a merely historical matter. John Paul's theatrical talents, and his comparative indifference to Curial reform, have not been helpful. The former encouraged the disastrous practice, which we now see in spades, of assuming that if you want the answer to any question, you go to the pope as talking oracle: The media took (and takes) advantage of that, often to the detriment of the Church.

Are you concerned that in accusing the Pope of heresy, and especially if this accusation goes unheeded, you might be leading others to a sedevacantist position and disunity?

Some may, unfortunately, resort to sedevacantism. That would be sad but cannot be advanced as an excuse for inaction. Francis' election does seem to have some uncanonical features (recognizable in the activities of the 'St. Gallen mafia'), but elections in the past have also been dodgy. That is no justification for sedevacantism.

Which period of Church history do the troubles of our own time most remind you of?

At first sight there might seem particular similarities between the present situation and the rebellion of Luther. In both cases we had an overemphasis on a tendentious version of traditional teaching. Luther talked misleadingly about sola fides (saved by faith alone) - rather than the traditional fides caritate formata (faith expressed through love) - while the present German and Roman theologians seem to deal in sola misericordia (saved by mercy alone) without attention to Jesus' call to reform one's ways. But in our present case, a deliberate disregard of the recorded teachings of Jesus over 'remarriage' while a spouse is still living implies either that Jesus did not really say what is reported of him or that his teachings have passed their sell-by date. This would accord with some Hegelian account of truth; however, that scenario implies a denial of his teaching authority and thus of his divinity. Which brings us to the most obvious parallel with the present situation: the Arian conflict of the fourth century.

Insofar as current German-Roman theology implies or suggests the diminished authority of Christ, it is Arian, not in the sense of a direct 'subordinationism,' since now the subordination arises not from dogmatic theologizing but indirectly out of moral theology. Furthermore, while Luther was soon expelled from the Church, in our case, as with the Arians, it is an internal matter: bishop against bishop, bishop against pope (as Liberius was for a while in Arian times). As [Cardinal John Henry] Newman observed, the world woke up and found itself Arian. What are we going to find when we wake up?

Some noted that the letter was released not only on the traditional feast of St. Catherine of Siena, famous for her criticism of a pope, but also on the (postponed because of Easter) feast of St. George, the Pope's name day. Do you see this letter not as a hostile attack on the Pope, as many have suggested, but as an act of fraternal charity? If so, do you think that could have been made clearer in the letter to avoid such criticism of hostility?

Some will see it as 'fraternal charity'; others as an attack on the Pope. My own sole concern is to act, after the failure of others to elicit responses from the Pope, to help to prevent any further massive confusion among Catholics. The job of a pope is to encourage unity, not to become the leader of a faction.

What other concerns do you have that prompted you to sign the letter?

I am concerned above all else to expose double-talk, which is how the present Pope has been evading charges of heresy. Uttering ambiguous and/or contradictory remarks on important issues must ultimately be viewed as a planned attempt to change doctrine by stealth. Had such ambiguities/contradictions been occasional, they could be attributed - in accord with the canonical principle of benignity - to 'mere' muddle. Prolonged ambiguity on this scale requires that a sadder conclusion be drawn: that there is a design to achieve by stealth what could not be achieved by openly and unambiguously un-Catholic decrees.

I end with a quotation from the greatest of Catholic doctors:

'We tend culpably to evade our responsibility when we ought to instruct and admonish [evildoers], sometimes even with sharp reproof and censure, either because the task is irksome or because we are afraid of giving offense, or it may be that we shrink from incurring their enmity, for fear that they may hinder and harm us in worldly matters, in respect either of what we eagerly seek to attain, or of what we weakly dread to lose' - Augustine: City of God, 1.9.


And for expressing these views? Rist is banned by Pontifical Universities

DOROTHY CUMMINGS McLEAN reports for LifeSiteNews that Professor Rist has been told he has been barred from all Pontifical Universities after he signed an Open Letter along with a number of prominent clergymen and scholars accusing Pope Francis of committing heresy.

Professor John Rist, 83, who converted to Catholicism from agnosticism in 1980, told LifeSiteNews that he had been refused entry into the Augustinian Patristic Institute in Rome where he had previously been doing academic work after a short absence.

A Pontifical university is an ecclesiastical school which has been established or approved by the Holy See.

“For years I have been allowed to leave a car at the Augustinianum where I am still doing [academic] work,” the scholar told LifeSiteNews by email.

“On May 18, I drove it out of their precinct, chatting in passing with an old priest friend in the Augustinian curia, telling him I would be away for a week. When I returned on the 25th I drove in through the gate and found the barrier down. I waited for the porter to open it, but nothing happened. So I got out and was told I could not enter the property. Apparently ... this was because some Vatican apparatchik had issued a decree that I [was] now [persona] non grata and … to be forbidden entry to all pontifical universities,” Rist continued.

“Since I had received no previous indication of it ? not even when I had collected the car ? this less than Christian response took me completely by surprise, not least since I had been there a week before and nothing was said about my being unable to return the car.”

The ban would be a sharp about-face for the pontifical universities: Professor Rist was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Pontifical institute Università della Santa Croce in 2002.

It is particularly worrisome to the professor because he was still supervising the PhD work of a student at the Institute, whose doctoral candidature is therefore now in doubt. Professor Rist told LifeSiteNews this morning that he has now been informed by the president of the Augustinianum, Fr. Giuseppe Caruso, O.S.A., that he may no longer supervise this student.

On April 30 Rist and eighteen others signed the Open Letter. The authors state in the letter that they based their charge of the Pope committing heresy on the many examples of the Pontiff embracing positions contrary to the faith, calling attention to seven in particular. The letter writers asked the bishops of the Catholic Church, to whom the open letter is addressed, to "take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation" of a pope committing this crime.

Rist suspects that he has been barred from the Pontifical Universities because he signed the Open Letter.

When Rist attempted to return the car to the Augustinianum, he exchanged “free and frank” views with priests there but did not succeed in budging the “bureaucratic brick wall,” he said.

“When I was told by one of the priests that he could do nothing about it, I replied that he could just open the barrier - that being greeted with a cynical smile and shaking head: one felt the man of God (an American) was enjoying it.”

After the scholar, who had taught part-time at the Augustinianum as a visiting scholar for 15 years, told his interlocutor that he had nowhere else to leave the car and a plane to catch in four hours, he was told: “That’s your problem, not mine, isn’t it?”

“In the upshot, I left the car in the long-stay car-park at Ciampino [airport] and shall have to return for it before the costs mount too high,” Rist told LifeSiteNews. So far they are estimated to be 400 Euros ($446).

“I feel I have been treated with grotesque discourtesy,” he said.

Another discourtesy to Rist and a number of scholars is the refusal of the Catholic University of America Press to publish his Festschrift, a traditional collection of essays by former students and academic colleagues published to celebrate the achievements of a notable scholar. A Professor Emeritus of the University of Toronto, Rist was the Kurt Pritzl, O.P. Professor of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America (CUA) from 2012 to 2014.

LifeSiteNews has seen a communication explaining that Catholic University of America Press had rejected the book because the CUA Committee and Press believed it is “imprudent, at this time, to publish a volume” in Rist’s honor.

Scholars who had contributed essays in the collection included Catholics and non-Catholics, philosophers, ethicists, and theologians, scholars hailing from the Catholic University of America; Ave Maria University; Trinity College, Dublin; Yale University; the University of Toronto; Boston College; the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas; the University of Georgia, and a number of Italian universities.

Dr. Trevor Lipscombe, the Director of the CUA Press, confirmed that the Festschrift had been rejected.

“I can confirm that it was indeed declined for publication by the Catholic University of America Press,” Lipscombe told LifeSiteNews by email.

“The deliberations of the editorial committee are confidential, so I am not at liberty to go into any further detail. But I will add that, at that same meeting, another project to which Professor Rist was a contributor was approved, and we are proud to be the publisher of his book Plato's Moral Realism: The Discovery of the Presupposition of Ethics." Rist’s acclaimed Plato’s Moral Realism was published in 2012.

Rist was one of the contributors to the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, a volume prepared prior to the Extraordinary Synod of the Family. Although it was sent to the members of the Synod through the Vatican Post Office, most of the copies never reached them, having been intercepted by the general secretary, Cardinal Baldisseri. Rist had contributed an essay on “Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church”.

Among Rist’s fellow essayists in the suppressed Remaining in the Truth of Christ were Cardinals Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra, and Müller, as well as Archbishop Cyril Vasil’, SJ. The other scholar of Rist’s stature who signed the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church was Fr. Aidan Nicholls, O.P.

To respectfully make your opinion known, please contact:

Rev. Giuseppe Caruso, O.S.A.
President, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum
Via Paolo VI, 25 - 00193 Roma
Tel: (+39)
Fax: (+39)
Email: segreteria@patristicum.org

[NCRegister / LSN] 2283.19






















Globe CF  News

Jordan Peterson on Catholicism: 'That's as sane as people can get'

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN reports for LifeSiteNews ~ Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question 'Do you believe in God?' Peterson said, 'I think that Catholicism - that's as sane as people can get.'

Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.

He explained, 'Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?'



'To believe, in a Christian sense,' he added, 'means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.'

Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:

'To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out and unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.'

See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.

[LSN] 2283.20






















Globe CF  News

The Vatican II Revolution re-examined

DAVID MARTIN writes for the Eponymous Flower ~ While the gale force of the post-conciliar tempest continues to uproot the Faith, dislodge morals, blow apart revered traditions, topple the Church's edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church, there are those who insist that the problem today isn't due to Vatican II but to a 'misinterpretation' of the Council.

Unfortunately, misinterpretation had nothing to do with this, for this revolution was the result of years of careful planning. We might see the conciliar documents as the blueprint for this plan. The ambiguities, omissions, and outright errors in the documents were deliberately calculated by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these errors in the text after the Council closed.

If we have lay people today assuming priestly functions as 'Eucharistic ministers,' it's because Vatican II defines the laity as a 'common priesthood.' (LG 10) If the Church today ecumenically dignifies other religions, it's because Vatican II says that 'Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.' (UR-3) Clearly, there was a plan for change in the works.

Protestants helped draft the documents

According to the preeminent Catholic writer and historian Michael Davies, the ensuing 'disease of ecumania' that spread throughout the Church after Vatican II was the 'direct result of the presence of Protestant observers at the Second Vatican Council.' In his book on the new Mass, Davies states, 'Six Protestant observers were invited to advise this Consilium. They played an active part in the preparation of the new Mass.' (Pope Paul's New Mass)

Far from being mere observers, these delegates were acting as an advisory board to the Second Vatican Council. Monsignor Baum (later Cardinal Baum) in an interview with the Detroit News on June 27, 1967, commented on the role of these six Protestant participants. 'They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on the Catholic liturgical renewal.'

According to Dr. Moorman who headed the Anglican delegation at Vatican II, these participants were able to 'make their views known at special weekly meetings of the Unity Secretariat and had personal contacts with the Council fathers.'

Professor Oscar Cullman of the Lutheran delegation summed it up on December 4, 1965: 'The hopes of the Protestants for Vatican II have not only been fulfilled, but… have gone far beyond what was believed possible.' (Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session)

In a book published by Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, one of the Protestant 'observers' at Vatican II, he praised the Council's decree on ecumenism because it acknowledges the ecclesial reality of Protestant assemblies and because it negates the need for non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church. (Dr. McAfee Brown, The Ecumenical Revolution)

Cardinal Augustin Bea S.J., who headed the Vatican's Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these Protestant advisors in formulating the conciliar decree on Ecumenism. 'I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result.'

Professor B. Mondin of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions stated that observers such as Dr. Cullman made 'a valid contribution' to drawing up the Council Documents.'

Is it any wonder that Vatican II was instrumental in setting into motion an unprecedented departure from Church tradition? The fact is that professed enemies of the Church were at the helm assisting in the drafting of documents for an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church!

This is not to suggest that the Second Vatican Council wasn't started with good intentions, but that it was infiltrated through the orchestration of Judases within the Vatican. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that Vatican II was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because Pope John XXIII had planned the Council without their advice and against their designs.

We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was part of this scheme to usurp Vatican II. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic and personal friend of Pope Paul VI, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, 'This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.' (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)

Council Hijacked

Let us diverge briefly to recall the turbulent opening session which deflected the course of the Council and set the Bark of Peter on a new and uncharted course that would eventually land it shipwreck onto secular coasts.

At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart's action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady's last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

In his February 14, 2013 address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d' etat at Vatican II: 'On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: 'No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.' Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so, it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates.'

The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original