Mean, Ugly Schnook Bergoglio, the Great Canceller, Strikes Again!

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one of the meanest, most vindictive and hateful men on the face of the earth, and I would dare say that his hatred of Catholic Faith, Morals and Worship exceeds that of the likes of Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Calvin, and even Oliver Cromwell as, hateful as Cromwell was of everything to do with even the trappings and vestigial remnants of Catholicism in the so-called Church of England, he at least had a hatred of vile sins in violation of Holy Purity that Jorge Mario Bergoglio lacks entirely.

The big, fat, mean ugly schnook of a heretic from Buenos Aires, Argentina, had the temerity to rightly condemn “cancel culture” (see Pray for Our Lord to Cancel Bergoglio's False Church and Its Baseless Doctrines) less than a month after approving further restrictions to the staging/offering of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (The Fight is for the Holy Faith, Which Jorge and His Band of Heretics Do Not Possess) and at the very same time and on the very same day that he was demoting an “archbishop,” Giacomo Morandi, who has served in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” in retribution for issuing a negative reply to a dubium about whether pastors in the conciliar structures could  “bless” the “unions” of those involved in unrepentant acts of perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments even though Bergoglio himself had approved the reply before undermining it almost immediately.

Here is a news story about the demotion, which shows that Jorge Mario Bergoglio hath no mercy on those who call sin by its proper name even in the anesthetized parlance of conciliarspeak and is determined to indemnify unrepentant sinners while using every epithet imaginable to condemn believing Catholics who worship in a “dead language”:

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis took the first step Monday to reorganize the Vatican’s powerful doctrine office, removing the No. 2 official widely believed responsible for a controversial document barring blessings for same-sex couples because God “cannot bless sin.”

Francis named Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, currently the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bishop of the Italian diocese of Reggio Emilia-Guastalla. The move amounts to a demotion since Morandi currently has the title of archbishop, yet is heading to a small diocese, not an archdiocese.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or CDF, is one of the most important Vatican offices, interpreting doctrine for the universal Catholic Church, sanctioning dissenters and handling cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Morandi joined the CDF as an under-secretary in 2015 and was promoted to secretary, or the No. 2, in 2017.

He was widely seen as being behind the March 2021 document that outraged the gay community, which Francis has made pains to welcome into the church fold. The document declared that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions because God “cannot bless sin.” The document said Francis had been informed of the document and “gave his assent” to its publication, but Francis was apparently taken by surprise by its impact.

Aside from Morandi, there are two “additional secretaries” in the CDF, including the American Archbishop Joseph Di Noia, who also is due to retire soon since he turns 79 in July. The other is Archbishop Charles Scicluna, but he has a full-time job as archbishop of Malta. (Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop who is believed to have banned same-sex blessings.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as transparent a hypocritical demagogue as is Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., who will come in for a bit of attention in the next original commentary to be published on this site in about four days. The Argentine Apostate seethes with abject hatred against his enemies that exceeds the hatred Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI had for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, and that is saying a whole lot.

Giacomo Morandi is not the first Vatican functionary to suffer at the hands of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s legendary wrath against those who interfere with his wicked agenda of false “mercy” and “accompaniment” of those steeped in unnatural actions that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

One might recall that it was on the evening of Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, that another Vatican functionary, one who served as the conciliar Holy See’s nuncio to the United States of America, unintentionally embarrassed the ever-inclusive “Pope Francis,” who got his revenge a few months later when he forced the nuncio’s resignation. Herewith is a reminder of the details:

The story “Pope Francis’s” top secret, behind closed doors meeting with Kim Davis is not about freedom of conscience or making a “statement” about the objective correctness of what she did by defying the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.

No, the story of the Argentine Apostate’s meeting with Kim Davis is about a false “pope” being pushed by a “conservative” Ratzingerite, Carlo Maria Vigano, whom Jorge is now feeding to the lions and throwing under the bus now that the “gaystapo” has shown once again that there can be no “toleration” extended to “homophobes” under the flag of the homo-rainbow.

Bergoglio freely offends God, doing so regularly, of course. However, he does not want to offend Talmudists, Mohammedans or other adherents of false religions. He does not want to offend pro-abortion politicians such as Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetro, and he does not want to offend practitioners of the sin of Sodom and all of its perverted variants. This is why Carlo Maria Vigano may be selling pizza in the Borgo Pio near Saint Peter’s Square.

There is no other force on earth other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio for giving permission for his underlings, “Father” Thomas Roscia (see  "Humanity" Has Come to "Teach Us to be More Human"), to “finger” Vigano and to throw him under the bus being driven by the gaystapo’s house organ, The New York Times:

Shortly after the election of Pope Francis, Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio to the United States, spoke effusively about his official reception by the pontiff in the library of the Apostolic Palace in Rome.

“That is a man you may talk to with an open heart,” Archbishop Viganò said in an interview at the time, calling his audience, “extremely nice, extremely warm.”

Archbishop Viganò could be in for a chillier reception the next time he returns to the Vatican.

The archbishop, who was exiled to the United States in 2011 after losing a high-altitude Vatican power struggle that became public in an infamous leaks scandal, now finds himself at the center of another papal controversy. This time, the Vatican is suggesting that Archbishop Viganò is responsible for giving papal face time to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples has made her a heroine to social conservatives.

The encounter struck a dissonant note in a papal visit that seemed designed to avoid the battlefields of the culture wars. News of the meeting has proved to be manna for conservatives frustrated by Francis’ de-emphasis of social issues and hungry for more of a papal focus on religious liberty and doctrinal opposition to same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Viganò, an amiable 74-year-old northern Italian with an appreciation for good red wine, declined to comment, though people close to him rejected the notion that the Vatican was blaming him.

But the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said on Friday that the office of Archbishop Viganò had extended the invitation to Ms. Davis and that the pope was probably not briefed about her case. And the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the chief Vatican spokesman, depicted the meeting as one meet-and-greet among many.

A lawyer for Ms. Davis, Mathew D. Staver, said in an interview that the Vatican’s version of events was “absolute nonsense” and that “somebody is trying to throw some people under the bus.”

The wronged party, several church observers and Mr. Staver suggested, was Archbishop Viganò.

Mr. Staver said his client’s meeting with the pope was indeed private and that “if there was a line or other people, they would not have been able to keep this quiet as long as they have.” He then detailed the choreography involved in setting up the meeting.

He said Archbishop Viganò personally contacted Ms. Davis late in the day on Sept. 14 suggesting a private meeting with Pope Francis on Sept. 24. On the eve of the meeting, he said Ms. Davis received a voice mail message on her cellphone confirming the meeting and instructing her to keep her noticeably long hair up.

“I told her this morning, ‘Do not delete those,’” said Mr. Staver. He said, “we were led to believe that the invitation did come directly from Pope Francis.”

Mr. Staver said a conservative deacon, Keith Fournier, introduced him to Archbishop Viganò back in April before speaking at a National Organization for Marriage rally on the Washington Mall in opposition to same-sex marriage. As Mr. Staver descended from the stage, Archbishop Viganò made a point to “thank me for my message,” the lawyer said.

Archbishop Viganò, a cultural conservative born into a wealthy family in Varese, received the title of archbishop from John Paul II in 1992. He later joined the church’s diplomatic corps, which is one of the traditional sources of power in the Vatican, and in 2009 was installed by Pope Benedict XVI as secretary of the governorate of Vatican City State, a position not unlike the mayor of Vatican City.

Benedict wanted the ambitious Italian to enact government reforms, but Archbishop Viganò’s efforts in that goal earned him powerful enemies. In early 2011, hostile anonymous articles attacking Archbishop Viganò began appearing in the Italian news media, the bulletin board of Vatican power politics. Archbishop Viganò appealed to Benedict’s second in command, Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who instead echoed the articles’ complaints about his rough management style and removed Archbishop Viganò from his post.

Those appeals and protests, later leaked by the pope’s butler, became the heart of the church scandal known as VatiLeaks, which many church observers say contributed to the resignation of Benedict XVI.

In one missive copied to the pope, Archbishop Viganò wrote to Cardinal Bertone accusing him of getting in the way of the pope’s reform mission, but also of failing to make good on a promise to elevate him to cardinal. When faced with a transfer to the United States, he protested that the move would give heart to those opposed to his efforts to “clean up” the “corruption and abuse of power” in the Vatican.

On July 7, 2011, he wrote to Benedict that on issues of malfeasance inside the Vatican, “the Holy Father has certainly been kept in the dark.”

The question now is did Archbishop Viganò, left to linger in the United States as a new administration has taken power in Rome, keep Pope Francis in the dark or simply underestimate the off-message media storm that a meeting with Ms. Davis would provoke. Or, after executing orders from Rome, has he once again found himself being hung out to dry at the end of his career. In January, Archbishop Viganò will turn 75, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments long after. It seems unlikely, church analysts say, that Archbishop Viganò will be one of them.

“Life is always in progress,” Archbishop Viganò said in the 2013 interview about the shifting power structure under Francis. He added that the church would emphasize the dimension of charity, “of pardon, of mercy. As Pope Francis has said, this is his own style.” (Jorge Throws Carlo Maria Vigano, Kim Davis, and Matthew D. Staver Under the Bus.)

In other words, the meeting with Kim Davis was engineered by Carlo Mario Vigano as a result of his friendship with her attorney, Matthew D. Staver, with whom Vigano had spoken at a rally held by the National Organization for Marriage in Washington, District of Columbia, six months ago. Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants it made known that he was forced into meeting Kim Davis. Thomas “I’ll Sue You If You Criticize Me” Rosica, was not speaking on his own authority. Jorge, in effect said, “Tom, take care of Vigano for me.” And thus the deed was done. For all of Bergoglio’s big, brave talk about the Italian Mafia, he acts like a complete Mafia chieftain when it comes to dealing with the Girondists/Mensheviks and/or restorationists within his ranks. Swim with sharks, “Archbishop” Vigano, and suffer the consequences.

It is now eminently clear that “Pope Francis” did not arrange the meeting with Kim Davis and that he was embarrassed for his “gay friends” after the fact of its becoming public, which is why the Press Office of the Holy See, ever quick to do “damage control” these days, let it be known that the “merciful” Argentine did initiate a meeting with a “gay couple” from Argentina that took place in the same Vatican Embassy on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, the day before he met with Kim Davis at the insistence of “Archbishop” Carlo Mario Vigano.

Kim Davis and small entourage, which included her Catholic mother (to whom she, an “Apostolic Christian,” handed the Rosary beads that Bergoglio had given her as a standard practice at such meetings) and Matthew D. Staver, were not permitted to take “selfie” photographs or to record any video of her meeting with “Pope Francis” at the Vatican Embassy. There were no such restrictions on the “gay couple,” which included one of Bergoglio’s former students from Argentina.

Here is a report on the meeting with that so-called “gay couple”:

VATICAN CITY — Ever since it became public that Pope Francis met in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the questions have been swirling: Why did he meet with her, and was it meant as a political statement?

As it turns out, the Vatican said on Friday, the pope did not mean to endorse Ms. Davis’s views. It also said he gave her no more than a typical brief greeting, despite what her lawyer described.

Instead, the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video.

The disclosure, after the Vatican’s unusual attempt to correct the impressions left by Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis, added to days of speculation about whether Francis intended to send a message on the place of gays in the church, or conscientious objection, and whether his advisers had fully briefed him on Ms. Davis, or had their own agenda.

The Vatican spokesman emphasized that the meeting with Ms. Davis was arranged by the office of the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington, not by anyone in Rome — including the pope.

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released Friday morning.

On the other hand, Mr. Grassi, a 67-year-old caterer, told The New York Times that he and the pontiff have known each other since the 1960s, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the future pope was then called, taught him literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción, a Jesuit high school in Santa Fe, Argentina.

Mr. Grassi said that he had resumed contact with the future pope years later, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He also visited the pope at the Vatican in September 2013, and later contacted his office to ask for an audience in Washington.

“Once I saw how busy and exhausting his schedule was in D.C., I wrote back to him saying perhaps it would be better to meet some other time,” Mr. Grassi said. “Then he called me on the phone and he told me that he would love to give me a hug in Washington.”

Mr. Grassi said that he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends, and that the meeting took place at the Vatican Embassy on Sept. 23 — a day before Ms. Davis met the pope.

Mr. Grassi said that Francis had told him to arrange the visit through the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio, or envoy, in Washington.

It was a private meeting, for about 15 to 20 minutes, in which I brought my boyfriend of 19 years,” Mr. Grassi said. His boyfriend, Mr. Bagus, worked on a video that was posted online that showed Francis hugging Mr. Grassi and the others.

Mr. Grassi said the meeting was purely personal. “I don’t think he was trying to say anything in particular,” Mr. Grassi said. “He was just meeting with his ex-student and a very close friend of his.”

Late on Friday, the Vatican confirmed the meeting. “Mr. Yayo Grassi, a former Argentine student of Pope Francis, who had already met other times in the past with the pope, asked to present his mother and several friends to the Pope during the Pope’s stay in Washington, D.C.,” Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement.

“As noted in the past, the pope, as pastor, has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue,” the statement added.

Earlier on Friday, the Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.

The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years.

For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.

For Francis, the timing of the Davis controversy is not ideal. Beginning Sunday the Vatican is staging a critical three-week meeting of bishops and laypeople to discuss whether to recommend changing their approach to contemporary issues related to the family, like gay couples, single parents or whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained annulments should be allowed to receive communion.

That meeting, known as a synod, could become a showdown between liberals and conservatives. Francis has spent nearly two years trying to gradually build consensus and has repeatedly stated his desire for a more welcoming, merciful outreach — even as he has not signaled any willingness to change church doctrine.

News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers.

It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. Francis has emphasized that he strongly believes in conscientious objection as a human right, a position he reaffirmed on his plane ride home.

On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. Father Lombardi’s statement said that the brief meeting “has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” and that he was providing clarification “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

The Vatican’s statement prompted reactions on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Staver said the meeting had been called by the Vatican.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

But at the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.

“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”

Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”

Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to Archbishop Viganò in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington against same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.

“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct some gross misrepresentations of what had happened. It shows that Pope Francis met with many people on the trip, and that she was simply another person who he tried to be kind to.”

Father Rosica’s statement seemed to square with that account.

Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”

A receptionist who answered the phone at the Vatican Embassy in Washington on Friday said, “The nuncio does not deny that the meeting took place, but would not make any further comment.”

She said the embassy did not have its own spokesman, and that no other officials there would comment.

Archbishop Viganò is turning 75 in January, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican asking for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments well past age 75. But if Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts.

“Nobody in the Catholic Church wants another Regensburg,” said Massimo Faggioli, an associate professor of theology and director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. He was referring to the backlash after Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’ predecessor, gave a speech in Regensburg, Germany, that appeared to denigrate Islam.

“This was not as serious as Regensburg, when Benedict read his own speech,” Dr. Faggioli said about the meeting attended by Ms. Davis. “But the pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”

The meeting with Ms. Davis was clearly a misstep, Dr. Faggioli said, “because the whole trip to the United States he very carefully didn’t want to give the impression that he was being politicized by any side.”

He added, “And this thing is the most politicized thing that you can imagine.” (Before Clerk, an Antipapal Hug for a Gay Friend.)

I quoted this entire story to give readers a full appreciation of how far from the sensus Catholicus Bergoglio and his fellow travelers in the false religious sect of conciliarism are in the practical course of daily events. These apostates are so bereft of the Catholic Faith that their very first instinct is to indemnify wanton sinners and leftist ideologues while vilifying those who dare to criticize or make life “uncomfortable” for such people.

Furthermore, the contention made by Dr. Massimo Faggioli that Jorge’s meeting with Kim Davis was not as bad as “Regensburg” is a remarkable concession that it was as “unacceptable” and “incendiary” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to state even an attenuated version of the truth of Mohammedanism as being an irrational religion prone to violence in an address he gave Regensburg, Germany, on September 12, 2006, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as it was for “Pope Francis” to have been put in the “untenable” position of meeting with the “toxic” Kim Davis. Any kind of opposition to the gaystapo agenda is considered to be an act of “violence” against a supposedly “legitimate” classification of human beings even though human identity is not based on one’s proclivity to commit any particular sin, less yet those that are unnatural and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The conciliar Vatican went to extraordinary lengths to throw Carlo Maria Vigano, Kim Davis and Matthew Staver under the bus while celebrating the fact that Bergoglio (a) invited his former student, Yayo Grassi, and his “partner” in unnatural vice, Iwan Bagus, and (b) the video shows the false “pontiff” hugging both men and kissing them on their cheeks!

Just an expression of Argentine “friendliness” for an old friend and his “partner”? Nonsense. Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows what he is doing, which is why there were no restrictions on the meeting with Yayo Grassi and Iwan Bagus, and anyone who is in “suspense” about what is going to happen as a result of the sideshow that takes place two days from now, Monday, October 5, 2015, when the “synod of bishops” starts its three-week farce of precooked deliberations designed to delight the masses is not thinking too clearly—and that is being about as charitable as a man can be who has not slept for two days now. 

Come on, Bergoglio made it clear throughout his journey to the United States of America that Catholics had to “go forward,” meaning that they have to forget about the “past” (not that too many of them at this point in the conciliar revolution know about that is true about the “past” as a result of fifty years of its misrepresentation by the revolutionaries). (From: Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part nine.)

Yes, cross Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s rainbow zone of “inclusiveness” and one will find himself excluded and cancelled in due course. Bergoglio is a man who remembers everything and who forgives nothing. Giacomi Morandi is simply one of so many conciliar functionaries whom Bergoglio has “cancelled” for not cleaving to his Jacobin/Bolshevik interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council and its warfare against the Catholic Faith.

As there is no further need to point out the obvious yet again, I simply want to paste below the entirety of Antipope Appoveth, Antipope Undermineth What He Approveth, which was published ten months ago when the conciliar sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its “nyet” to blessing “same-sex unions.” I will offer a reflection on the Baptism of Our Lord at the hands of Saint John the Baptism, which is the theme of the Sacred Liturgy today,  at the conclusion of the older article, which will be indented for purposes of clarification:

False Premises of the Conciliar Church’s Efforts to Deal with Sodomy and Sodomites

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false religious body, which is as hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, as any other false religious sect. While its officials control the institutions of the Catholic Church and use Catholic language now and again while even adhering to some “elements,” if you will, of true Catholic doctrine, one must remember that there is no such thing as “partial credit” Catholicism any more than there is “partial life” or “partial death.” It is all or nothing. Let me make this clear again for those who are unconvinced and/or who seek to use language in such as a way as to convey the falsehood, itself offensive to God, that the Catholic Church can be permeated with errors and/or that we have had heretical popes in the past as at present:

8. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."  (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

There is no such thing as “almost Catholic,” and there is certainly nothing called an “irreducible minima” of beliefs which one must hold to remain a member of the Catholic Church and thus to save his immortal soul. It is all or nothing. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from which no one may dissent legitimately. No one who is intellectually honest can claim that the six conciliar claimants to the papacy have held the doctrine of the Catholic Church wholly and inviolably. It is these false claimants to the papacy who have not held to the truth of salvation. Indeed, these men have led Catholics and non-Catholics alike away from the salvation.

It continues to baffle my little pea-brain how any of this is unclear, and it matters not that a certain archbishop never saw this as no archbishop is the standard of the Holy Faith nor the Principle of Unity for Holy Mother Church no matter how many of his followers put loyalty to a person rather to the truths of the Holy Faith.

Thus it is, good readers, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as a false religious body, can never “resolve” any moral problem as it continues to use one false premise after another to deal with evils that have arise and become institutionalized as a result of the very false premises of Modernity with it has made an “official reconciliation,” something that a certain “cardinal” wrote was the case in a very misnamed book called Principles of Catholic Theology:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

What happened in 1789?

Wasn't there some kind of anti-Theistic revolution in France, the elder daughter of the Church? What did Pope Leo XIII write about such reconciling with the principles of the revolution?

Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

This is why the conciliar revolutionaries continue to eclipse, undermine, and outright overturn the teaching of the Catholic Church while seeming to uphold doctrinal orthodoxy, which, as demonstrated just above, is the modus operandi by which Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI appeared to uphold Catholic teaching on Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage (not that he used those terms, of course!) while actually undermining it in an insidiously revolutionary manner.

The revolutionaries were at it again on Monday, March 15, 2021, Monday in the Fourth Week of Lent, when the Congregation for the Deformation, Deconstruction, and Destruction of the Faith (referred to as the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” by those who still continue to persist, despite all the empirical evidence that is plain for all to see that can be denied only by those who are afraid of what will happen to their reputations if they accept it and act courageously upon it, in the tragically mistaken notion that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church) publicly issued a response, approved by none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself on the Feast of Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch, Monday, February 22, 2021, to a “dubium” concerning whether it was “permissible” for conciliar “pastors” to “bless” the absurdity called “civil unions” that are claimed to “bind” two people of the same gender who are engaged in one or more of the perverse acts that flow from the sin of Sodom, which is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The aforementioned conciliar congregation replied in the negative, seemingly upholding what is so patently obvious while basing its reply upon various false premises, starting with the assertion that there is such a category of human beings called “homosexual persons” as opposed to human men and women who are steeped in perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The tendency to sin and/or a deliberate, willful persistence in it has never been the basis of human self-identification, and it is not so now even though the conciliar authorities have been using this false categorization for forty-six years, quite possibly because the second in the current line of antipopes was a practicing sodomite.

The text of the reply to the dubium will provided below, although I will, as usual, make interjections at various junctures:

In some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”[1]. (Reponse to Dubium, February 22, 2021.)

Comment Number One:

As noted just above, there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.” There are only human beings who have chosen to engage in acts of wanton perversity that bring down the wrath of God upon themselves and that are ruinous to the good of their own communities and nations.

Alas, though, the conciliar authorities have been chipping away at both supernatural and natural truth even while appearing to uphold Catholic doctrine. Consider the case of Persona Human, which was issued  by the so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” on December 29, 1975, that upheld Catholic teaching on the detestable nature of homosexual acts while stating quite insidiously that there are  some homosexuals who are prone to commit the sin of Sodom because of “innate tendencies,” meaning that they were “born that way,” thus undermining the document’s explanation that some sodomites are the victims of a bad education, and asserting the falsehood as a fact beyond question that some sodomites are “incurable:”

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. (Persona Humana, December 29, 1975.)

Although Persona Humana correctly termed sodomite acts as intrinsically disordered and cited Sacred Scripture’s condemning of them as representing a “serious depravity,” its text contained the drop of poison that is always the hallmark of Modernist discourses by referring to some of those who commit sins of unnatural vice as “incurable” because of “innate” tendencies and that the “judgment of Scripture does not permit us to conclude that all who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it.” Homosexual behavior is acquired, not innate, which why the professional propagandists within the homosexual collective must get themselves and their programs into all facets of education (from pre-school through all levels of higher education and professional school) and is foundational cornerstone of the corporate, medical, political, cultural, and legal worlds today.

It was a but a mere twelve years later that the then prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a chap who went by the title of Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger at the time, sought out to “clarify” Persona Humana, which Ratzinger believed had received a “too benign” interpretation and was used to justify the formation of groups of unrepentantly sinning sodomites under diocesan sponsorship in many places called “Dignity,” although he who was always prone to give one “clarification” after another when a conciliar document was “misinterpreted,” began his “strengthening” of Persona Humana by calling the issue of the “care” of “homosexual persons” complex but a legitimate subject of “pastoral care” What is complex about “Go, and sin no more?”

Anyhow, this is what “Cardinal Ratzinger” wrote in 1987:

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.” 

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” (Born That Way? Also see See: Homosexuality and Hope: Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association, keeping in mind that such material represents well-meaning efforts by believing Catholics within the conciliar structures to combat lies told by their own "pope" and "bishops" and priests/presbyters, efforts that are bound to fail time and time again as the conciliar church is false and its "popes" have been and continue to be figures of Antichrist himself.)

Indeed, as noted just above, it is the sodomites themselves who prove that their “born that way” defense mechanism that is supposed to stop all criticism of them by “homophobes” is a lie. Allies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio such as Mr. Blase Cupich, the conciliar archfiend of Chicago, and “Fathers” Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., and “Father James Martin, S.J., among so many others, clearly believe that sodomy is natural and good in and of itself and that criticism of homosexuals, of homosexuality, and of homosexual acts is unjust, unwarranted, discriminatory, inflammable, hurtful, and uncompassionate. (Mind you, this is not even to discuss the phenomenon of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s active recruitment, retention, and promotion of sodomites with its presbyteral and “hierarchical” ranks, something that was documented fully by Mrs. Randy Engel in The Rite of Sodomy sixteen years ago.)

Moreover, skilled homosexuals and lesbians seem to groom emotionally vulnerable people into their own twisted lives of perversity by manipulating and bribing them over the course of time. The recruitment programs at all educational levels from pre-school through graduate and professional school, the grooming of vulnerable individuals, the use of an unstable legal and constitutional system to militate in support of their “rights” and the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the mass media, an effort that began as early as November 1, 1972, the Solemnity of All Saints, mind you, as actors Hal Holbrook and Martin Sheen starred in “That Certain Summer,” an American Broadcasting Company made-for-television motion picture, has created a world in which those who oppose any or all of this must be silenced and punished. Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s embrace of men such as Timothy Radcliffe and James Martin, among so many others, is just a further ratification of the fact that the conciliar revolutionaries and their false doctrines have “evolved” way beyond the language of Persona Humana’s reference to the depravity of sodomite acts being condemned by Sacred Scripture.

Moreover, Persona Humana’s belief that subjective culpability for sodomite acts cannot be judged was gratuitous as only God alone knows the subjective culpability that a sinner bears for his sins. However, this does not detract in the slightest from the ability of a prayerful, experienced confessor to determine that state according to the gravity of the matter confessed and the penitent’s resolve to amend his life and sin no more.

Although God alone is the judge of subjective culpability, the objective nature of one’s acts is judged in the Sacred Tribunal Penance, wherein a true priest can absolve or retain sins as circumstances require. Acts of sodomy are in no way incurable and a properly catechized Catholic caught up in them must be instructed to quit his life of perdition by cooperating with the graces he receives in the sacraments, avoiding the near occasions of sin and, when necessary, seeking medical treatment if it is judged to be necessary for his spiritual growth. It is thus irresponsible for anyone to assert that it is not possible for a good confessor concerned about the horror of personal sin and who sincerely desires to save souls as an alter Christus to guide recidivist sinners out of the grip of the devil even if it means resorting to a simple or more solemn exorcism rite to do so.

Perhaps it should be observed also that that the matter of subjective culpability that is raised in conciliar documents is an emotional red herring as those of us who oppose the advancement of sodomy in society give one moment’s thought about the subjective culpability of those steeped in this horrendous, pestilential vice. The subjective culpability of sinners in no which lessens the violence that their sins cause to their own souls nor the violence their sins do the souls of others. A mass murder, for example, committed by one who is mentally incompetent and/or acting under some kind of compulsivity in no way lessens the horror of the murders he commits. His victims are no less dead and the sorrow of their surviving relatives and friends is no less real just because the mass murderer may not be subjectively culpable for his acts.

Sodomy is evil in the sight of God and it causes grave evils in society as it continues to undermine the fabric of the family and fills the world with anger as many of those steeped in this detestable vice are unceasing to convince all others to approve of their perverse behavior. Sodomy thus is also the ready pathway to diabolical obsession and possession in that it represents part of the adversary’s plan to create a rebellion within the souls of men against the union between man and woman that the One he hates, God Himself, ordained at Creation.

We now return to the response of the conciliar “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” response to the dubium about the “blessing” of “civil unions:

On such paths, listening to the word of God, prayer, participation in ecclesial liturgical actions and the exercise of charity can play an important role in sustaining the commitment to read one's own history and to adhere with freedom and responsibility to one's baptismal call, because “God loves every person and the Church does the same”[2], rejecting all unjust discrimination.

Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).

Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5].

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan. (Reponse to Dubium, February 22, 2021.)

Comment Number Two:

The conciliar pathway of choice for dealing with “difficult” problems is to avoid anything which might offend people engaged in any kind of sinful activity, including adultery, adulterous and bigamous “marriages,” fornication, and sodomy and its ever-growing list of mutations, be “offended” or feel that they are being treated without compassion or respect.

The conciliar officials are ever ready to offend God by their constant violations of the First, Second, and Third Commandments as they esteem false religions and pay homage to the idols thereof, engage in “inter-religious” prayer services that are loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity and their propagation of liturgical rites that are sacramentally invalid and thus as devoid of any Sanctifying Grace as the late Clerow “Flip” Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happening Now” (hey, there is a “Church on the Move” in Tyler, Texas).

These same revolutionaries have no regard for the proper relationship between Church and State regarding the objective duty of all nations to recognize the Catholic Church and to defer to her in all that pertains to the good of souls that determine the course of human affairs, have gutted the precepts of the Fifth Commandment by opposing the death penalty both in theory and in practice. These wretched ideologues have also overturned the ends proper to marriage and thus made a mockery of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage in full violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, and many of them have actually made light of what they call “below the belt issues,” thereby disparaging chastity, purity, and modesty. These are just some of the endless ways in which those who bear false witness against the Catholic Faith and who believe that the civil state can tax people into oblivion for purposes of social engineering offend God on a daily basis for the past sixty plus years.

Ah, these same conciliar revolutionaries are ever so sensitive when they are forced to take issue with a practice that has become a de facto feature in many dioceses around the world of “blessing” “civil unions” as they even speak ad infinitum, ad nauseam about “positive elements” contained in relationships that are opposed to the Divine Law and the Natural Law. However, this is subjectivism of the worst sort as it is impossible for them to be “positive” elements in sinful relationships as natural sentiments of affection mean nothing if they are opposed to the law of God and separate the sinners from His love as Mortal Sin is a turning away from God in favor of apparent created “good” that excludes any hope of pleasing Him until they are inspired to have remorse for their sins, make an act of perfect contrition and then seek out the ineffable mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance to thereby resolve to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. No one has any true love for God if he is committed to offending by living a life of unrepentant sin, and those who are sinning with each other unrepentantly have no true love for each other as human love must will the good of another, the ultimate expression is to will the good of all others by seeking to advance, and not retard or impede, their eternal salvation.

God’s love for us is an act of His Divine Will, and He wills us to obey His Commandments as members of His Catholic Church as we seek to root out our own sinful tendencies as we make reparation for our sins by cooperating with the graces that His Divine Son won for us during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. All other love is meaningless, and the phrase “positive elements” in sinful relationships is nothing than conciliar doublespeak to avoiding offending sinners while refusing to exhort them with urgency to quit their sins and to reform their lives.

References to “positive elements” in sinful relationships have been the hallmark of the antipacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The “extraordinary” synod of 2014, the “ordinary” synod of 2015, the rotten fruit of these synods, Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, abound in references to “positive” or “constructive” elements in “irregular” relationships that the since disgraced “Father” Rosica explained in 2014 were so “good” that it was no longer “appropriate” to use terms as “intrinsically disordered.” Here is a review of he said during the 2014 “extraordinary” synod on the family:

The head of the Holy See press office Fr Federico Lombardi and his assistants spoke of the many different subjects under discussion on the first two days of the Synod, in particular the need for a more sensitive and inclusive language about family life that will not turn people away from the Church. Canadian Fr Tom Rosica gave some specific examples from the English speaking bishops present at the meeting: 

“Language such as ‘living in sin,’ ‘intrinsically disordered,’ or ‘contraceptive mentality’ are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and the Church.”

Synod participants have also been underlining the need to apply the so-called ‘law of graduality’ or ‘stepping stones approach’ as they minister to people living in all kinds of relationships that do not conform to the Church’s ideal of marriage and family life. 

“Questa tema della gradualità è stata ripresa………non si raggiunge ancora questa ideale.” 

Fr Lombardi used an analogy from the Second Vatican Council which led to profound changes in the Catholic Church’s relations with other Christians and people of other religious traditions. During the Council, bishops agreed that while the fullness of Christ’s Church “subsists” only in the Catholic Church, important elements of truth and holiness also exist in other churches and faith communities. In a similar way, he said, valid and important elements of true love and holiness can also exist in a relationship that does not conform to the full vision of an ideal Catholic marriage.

English Cardinal Vincent Nichols and Lebanese Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai also shared impressions from the Synod Hall, including the call for a special message for families being persecuted for their Christian faith Iraq. They spoke about Synod Fathers who live in countries where Catholics are a tiny minority and who say the Church has much to learn from the wisdom and experience of other religious traditions.

Cardinal Nichols also described the very open and relaxed atmosphere of the Synod and the importance of hearing married couples share details of their relationships, including the pivotal role that sex plays in the life of most married couples:

“The Australian couple were quite explicit and developed in their thought and emphasis on the central role of sexuality and sexual intercourse in their marriage – now that’s not what we bishops talk about mostly! But to hear that as the opening contribution did open up an area which others followed and it was a recognition that it is often central to the wellbeing of a marriage.”

Cardinal Nichols pointed out it’s too early to draw any conclusions from these first sessions, yet it does seem clear that this first Synod of Francis’ pontificate is shaping up for a much more honest and down-to-earth discussion than most bishops have experienced here in the Vatican over recent decadess. (Sons of Martin Luther and Henry Tudor Meet to Accommodate Unrepentant Sinners.)

The text of the “midterm” report of the 2014 “extraordinary” synod on the family contained the following passage about “homosexual persons” that had “evolved” in the thirty-nine years after Persona Humana but nevertheless had some “elements” in common with it:

Welcoming homosexual persons

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority. (Synod on the Family Midterm Report, October 13, 2014.)

Mind you, this report was issued on the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady’s final apparition in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, as the Miracle of the Sun occurred.

Once again, there are no such things as “homosexual persons,” only human beings who have chosen to sin unnaturally, and there is no “pastoral” “need” to cater to those who base their human identity upon their tendency to commit and persist in the sin of Sodom and its related acts of detestable perversity.

Moreover, children must never be placed in any situation where their eternal salvation is at risk, and it is both perverse and indecent to place children within a situation where sodomy is accepted as a “natural” expression of “love” that is somehow compatible with being a member of the Catholic Church. It is nothing other than child abuse for their children to live in such a situation.

The adversary has gotten very bold after having conditioned Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism by means of the ceaseless, unremitting changes wrought by and institutionalized in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to accept “gradual” changes in matters pertaining to doctrine and pastoral praxis as natural, normal occurrences in the life of what is considered to be the Catholic Church.

The summary of proceedings that took place six and one-half years ago at what could be termed the Lambeth Convention of the counterfeit church of conciliarism provide a window into the simple, irrefutable fact that “Pope Francis” and his so-called “bishops” are completely bereft of the sensus Catholicus. They are apostates.

To use the contention found in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” and that elements of “true holiness” can be found in other churches in order to justify the acceptance of those living in sin—yes, I used that dreaded phrase, up to and including those living lives of unrepentant sins against nature itself, demonstrates very clearly once again that false premises lead to the enshrinement and glorification of other falsehoods over the course of time.

There is no such thing as an “isolated” error, which is why those who still exalt the false premises of the Modern civil state, including the United States of America, ought to realize once and for all that it is just as impossible to build a just social order on the premise of religious indifferentism and “religious liberty” as it is to maintain an “irreducible minima” of the Sacred Deposit of Faith after having jettisoned even one article contained therein.

Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, explained very clearly that the Catholic Church is the sole Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, none other:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

By abandoning this truth of the Catholic Faith, the bishops at the “Second” Vatican Council, led by “Saint” Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, showed themselves to have defected from the Catholic Faith. This one defection, among so many others, of course, this one “drop of poison” is a denial of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, which in and of itself resulted inevitably in the belief that the Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has something to “learn” from “other religions.” Once one believes such a lie, however, it is easy to come to the specious conclusion that one can find “elements of true love” in the lives of those who are persisting in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins that could, if not confessed before death, lead to eternal damnation and already consign them to lives destined to strike out at anyone who dares to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy by admonishing them to reform their lives lest they perish in flames of Hell for all eternity.

While God alone is the sole Judge of the subjective state of souls, He gave us the sensus fidei when we were baptized in order to be able to recognize sin for what it is and thus to amend our own lives when are tempted to sin or find ourselves in the near occasion of sin. This sensus fidei also provides us with the ability to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy, which includes, of course, admonishing the sinner. “Pope Francis” and his “bishops” do not believe this. Indeed, they condemn those who do. How is this not apostasy?

Catholics believe in the Spiritual Works of Mercy, Jorge. Here is a little review for you:

• To instruct the ignorant.
• To counsel the doubtful.
• To admonish sinners.
• To bear wrongs patiently;
• To forgive offences willingly;
• To comfort the afflicted;
• To pray for the living and the dead.

Catholics also believe that there are nine ways that they can be accessories to the sins of others:

• 1. By counsel.
• 2. By command.
• 3. By consent.
• 4. By provocation.
• 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
• 6. By silence.
• 7. By connivance.
• 8. By partaking.
• 9. By defense of the ill done.

Conciliarism is by its very false nature uncharitable as it makes a mockery of the authentic, immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by making it appear that it is somehow opposed to tenderness and mercy to follow these words that Saint Paul wrote in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

A physician does not "judge" anyone if he warns him what might happen if he does not stop engaging in a certain course of behavior that is deleterious to his bodily health.

Similarly, one who warns another about the state of his soul as he persists in a life of unrepentant sin is simply performing a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy, and those who are inclined to and/or steeped in perverse sins against nature are not to be left without being remonstrated as this is a duty of a Catholic before God and to the eternal and temporal good of the sinner.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Moreover, "the tendency" to the commission of the sin of Sodom, which not sinful of itself, is indeed disordered and indicative of grave problems.

Why?

Because it is against nature itself. It is a rebellion against the very purposes for which God has created men and women. No one is to be "accepted" for being "gay" as God does not make "gay people." To be attracted in a sinful manner to others of the same gender is a disorder that is learned. It is acquired. It is not inherent in the nature of man. It is that simple. It is exponentially worse to say that those who are engaged in such perverse sins have “elements of true love” for those with whom they are sinning.

Writing in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, the Argentine Apostate himself referred to “constructive elements” within sinful relationships of divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics:

292. Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and a leaven of new life for society. Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way. The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.314

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, 313 Ibid., 28. 314 Cf. ibid., 41, 43; Relatio Finalis 2015, 70. 223 they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.315 On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”.316 For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”.317 In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.318

294. “The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”.319 In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love.320 We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions”.321 Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.322 That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

As to the substance of the “papal” claims five years ago in Paragraphs 292-294 of Amoris Laetitia, it will suffice to bring forth Pope Leo XIII to present Catholic truth concerning the wicked nature of sins against Holy Purity:

41. In the great confusion of opinions, however, which day by day is spreading more and more widely, it should further be known that no power can dissolve the bond of Christian marriage whenever this has been ratified and consummated; and that, of a consequence, those husbands and wives are guilty of a manifest crime who plan, for whatever reason, to be united in a second marriage before the first one has been ended by death. When, indeed, matters have come to such a pitch that it seems impossible for them to live together any longer, then the Church allows them to live apart, and strives at the same time to soften the evils of this separation by such remedies and helps as are suited to their condition; yet she never ceases to endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so. But these are extreme cases; and they would seldom exist if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion, but entertaining right ideas of the duties of marriage and of its noble purpose; neither would they anticipate their marriage by a series of sins drawing down upon them the wrath of God.

42. To sum up all in a few words, there would be a calm and quiet constancy in marriage if married people would gather strength and life from the virtue of religion alone, which imparts to us resolution and fortitude; for religion would enable them to bear tranquilly and even gladly the trials of their state, such as, for instance, the faults that they discover in one another, the difference of temper and character, the weight of a mother's cares, the wearing anxiety about the education of children, reverses of fortune, and the sorrows of life.

43. Care also must be taken that they do not easily enter into marriage with those who are not Catholics; for, when minds do not agree as to the observances of religion, it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement in other things. Other reasons also proving that persons should turn with dread from such marriages are chiefly these: that they give occasion to forbidden association and communion in religious matters; endanger the faith of the Catholic partner; are a hindrance to the proper education of the children; and often lead to a mixing up of truth and falsehood, and to the belief that all religions are equally good.   

44. Lastly, since We well know that none should be excluded from Our charity, We commend, venerable brothers, to your fidelity and piety those unhappy persons who, carried away by the heat of passion, and being utterly indifferent to their salvation, live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Let your utmost care be exercised in bringing such persons back to their duty; and, both by your own efforts and by those of good men who will consent to help you, strive by every means that they may see how wrongly they have acted; that they may do penance; and that they may be induced to enter into a lawful marriage according to the Catholic rite. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Pope Leo XIII referred to those who “live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Jorge Mario Bergoglio praises those who are living together without the bond of lawful marriage for having a “noteworthy stability” if the sinful union has lasted for a certain while.

Pope Leo XIII was a true pope.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an antipope.

Pope Leo XIII was a Catholic.  

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic.

The conciliar revolutionaries are forever attempting to defy the principle of non-contradiction as they ascribe to the Modernist precept of dogmatic evolution, which was relabeled by Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II as “living tradition” and repackaged and relabeled by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as “hermeneutic of continuity.”

This means that that the clear reiteration of Catholic teaching by Pope Leo XIII can be dismissed by the conciliar revolutionaries by having recourse to the falsehood that it is supposedly “impossible” for dogmatic truth to be expressed clearly since its formulation is conditioned by the limitations of human language and by the historical circumstances which give rise to it.   

To believe such a thing, however, is to deny that Catholic doctrines are guided in their formulation and expression by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Such a blasphemous contentions means either that God the Holy Ghost is “mutable” or that He “misguided” our true popes and the fathers of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils for over nineteen centuries prior to the emergence of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the Balcony of Saint Peter on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. It is to make of the Catholic Church a merely human institution that is always “moved” at the arbitrary whims of God the Holy Ghost. How anyone cannot recognize this as blasphemy and heresy escapes my limited intellect.

A final excerpt from recent “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to a “dubium” that Jorge Mario Bergoglio approved follows below before commenting on the same Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s insidiously sly efforts to undermine what he had approved a month ago yesterday, February 22, 2021:

Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing[7] invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”[8].

The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.

The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith[9] – and  receive the teachings with sincere openness.

The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations[10], who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God[11].

At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”[12].  But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”[13].

For the above mentioned reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above.

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22^nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle. (Reponse to Dubium, February 20, 2021.)

Comment Number Three:

This is too cute by half.

The entire premise to the response is based on a spirit of “welcoming” practicing sodomites. Such a “spirit” characterizes numerous parishes in the United States of America, mentioning some of the more notorious “welcoming communities” such as Saint Francis Xavier Church and the Church of Saint Paul in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro District of the City of San Francisco, California, Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and, among so many others, the Church of Saint Brigid in Westbury, Long Island, New York, and the Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Deer Park, Long Island, New York. Entire countries in Europe—The Netherlands, Belgium, and the Federal Republic of Germany—have “hierarchies” repleted with sodomite or sodomite-friendly “bishops” who are bereft of the Catholic Faith to such an extent that they do not even believe that sodomy is a sin or that those who practice it are in any way disfavored by God. There are also many archdioceses dioceses in the United States of America—Lexington, Kentucky, Chicago, Illinois, Newark, New Jersey, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Seattle, Washington, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Rochester, New York, Syracuse, New York, and practically the entire State of California—where celebration of sodomy and those who practice it is the norm, not the exception, and it has long been the case that most of the older communities of religious men in the world are absolute strongholds of sodomy and sodomite apologists. This is far, far from any kind of all-inclusive listing.

Quite to the contrary of what is contended in the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to the dubium, however, God does not “accept us as we are.” Not at all. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ always accepts those who have sincere and truly contrite heart, but He does not and He cannot welcome those are steeped in their sins, have no intention of quitting them, and are fully intent on celebrating their commission while protesting angrily if anyone dares to singe their tender, malformed and deadened consciences with the bright, burning fire of Catholic truth to exhort them to reform their lives lest they spend all eternity suffering from the flames that consume the unjust in the very bowels of hell.

An elderly Jesuit priest, who looked all the world like Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J., gave a very powerful sermon during a staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty during a weekday service on May 25, 2000, at the Cathedral of Saint James in, of all places, Seattle, Washington, about the necessity of rejecting those who refuse to quit their sins after one admonishes the sinner with true love for the spiritual welfare of someone in their lives, including family members.

“It is frequently the case that the most loving thing we can do for someone is turn our backs on him.”

No, the Catholic Church does not welcome unrepentant sinners to her bosom, nor does she create special “pastoral” programs for those who base their human identity on a propensity to commit any kind of sins, including perverse sins against nature.

Holy Mother Church is unstinting in her efforts to search out prodigal sons so that they can reform their lives, but she will not for a moment concede that there is anything “good,” “true,” or “loving” about sins and sinful relationships.

As Pope Saint Pius X noted in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910).

Such is the voice of a true pope, a true pastor of souls who had his apostolic zeal or sense of urgency about the necessity of condemning error and calling it by its right name weakened by a career in the diplomatic souls. Pope Saint Pius X was of peasant stock, a parish priest, a seminary professor, and bishop and archbishop before he was elected to succeed Pope Leo XIII on February 20, 1903. Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto was a gentle man with children and erring sinners who wanted to repent of their sins, an encouraging and effective catechist of the young and a confessor who brought forth good fruit in the souls of penitents. Pope Saint Pius X, gave no quarter to error and he was not in the least bit indulgent of those who might petulantly demand to accepted “as they are” as this is not the mind of the Divine Redeemer and it can never be the mind of Holy Mother Church, guided infallibly as she is by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

What is so difficult to understand about the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as found in Saint John the Evangelist’s The Book of the Apocalypse?

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. [17] Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. [18] I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. [19] Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. [20] Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (The Apocalypse of Saint John, 3: 16-20.)

If Our Lord says this about the merely lukewarm, what will happen to those who are steeped in their sins and have no intention of reforming their lives?

Our Lord reproves and chastises, and those who are so intent on being considered “special” because they identify themselves on the basis of a tendency to commit and/or a wanton, willful persistence in the sins of Sodom are literally hellbent on their own eternal perdition if they considered any kind of rebuke, no matter how gently delivered, as act of “hate” from which they must recoil rather than a Spiritual of Mercy to which they must respond with humility as they seek out the ineffable mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Jorge Undermineth What Jorge Approveth

Entirely unsurprising, therefore, the lay Jesuit revolutionary, who has been so very “welcoming” towards “bishops,” priests/presbyters and ordinary laymen steeped in perversity throughout his wrecking ball of a career as a false cleric imbued from his seminary days in false principles that he has put into practice with the anti-apostolic zeal of a demon, slyly undermined the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” reply to the “dubium” concerning “blessings” for those living in “civil unions” during his Angelus address of Sunday, March 21, 2021, which was Passion Sunday in the calendar of the Catholic Church but which was the “Fifth Sunday of Lent” in the disordered world of the counterfeit church of concilarism:

Today too, many people, often without saying so, implicitly would like to “see Jesus”, to meet him, to know him. This is how we understand the great responsibility we Christians and of our communities have. We too must respond with the witness of a life that is given in service,  a life that takes upon itself the style of God – closeness, compassion and tenderness – and is given in service. It means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love. Then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution, or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time. It is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness. (Angelus Address, March 21, 2021.)

Permit me a bit of conjecture, please.

As a Modernist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a seasoned practitioner of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows full well that news of his refusing to approve the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to the “dubium” about “civil unions” would have been leaked if he chose to reject it. Clever little demon that he is, I believe, he “approved” the response but set about undermining so that “both sides” could “play ball,” so to speak, as he has absolutely no problem with the de facto practice of “blessing” “civil unions” as he his own appointees have permitted lesbians to have their children, conceived by artificial insemination or by “surrogate” mothers, baptized, and he has shown his own openness to sodomite-friendly priests/presbyters and he has said to private individuals that God does not “care” about homosexuality.

Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no problem whatsoever with the legal status of “civil unions,” something that he made clear in a recent interview:

After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”

The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.

The film chronicles the approach of Pope Francis to pressing social issues, and to pastoral ministry among those who live, in the words of the pontiff, “on the existential peripheries.”

Featuring interviews with Vatican figures including Cardinal Luis Tagle and other collaborators of the pope, “Francesco” looks at the pope’s advocacy for migrants and refugees, the poor, his work on the issue of clerical sexual abuse, the role of women in society, and the disposition of Catholics and others toward those who identify as LGBT.

The film addresses the pastoral outreach of Pope Francis to those who identify as LGBT, including a story of the pontiff encouraging two Italian men in a same-sex relationship to raise their children in their parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly beneficial to his children.

“He didn’t mention what was his opinion on my family. Probably he’s following the doctrine on this point,” the man said, while praising the pope for a disposition and attitude of welcome and encouragement.

The pope’s remarks on civil unions come amid that part of the documentary. Filmmaker Evgeny Afineevsky told CNA that the pope made his call for civil unions during an interview the documentarian conducted with the pope. (Bergoglio Calls for Civil Unions in new documentary about him.)

Civil unions?

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave free license for those inclined to commit perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to continue their lives of wanton decadence, meaning that he is utterly indifferent to the horror of just one Mortal Sin, to say nothing of the countless numbers of what are Mortal Sins in the objective order of things that his statement made in Francesco will suborn and for which he will have to answer to Christ the King at the time of His Particular Judgment in addition to all the other ways he has offended Him by constant blasphemies, reaffirming non-Catholics in their false religions and his constant resort to naturalism as the sole means to view human life and the problems in the world that are, after all, caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins.

Yes, Rainbow Jorge, Saint Paul knew that God does not "accompany us" in our sins. He wants us to quit them by cooperating with the graces that His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. 

As a true figure of Antichrist, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has protected and promoted and personally endorsed all manner of unapologetic  homosexual activitists within the ranks of the structures of his false church, including going so far as to hold the hand of the hand of  a homosexual activist named “Father” Luigi Ciotti as they walked up the steps of a Roman church on April 2, 2014:

(See the story at the Call Me Jorge website)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio also kissed the hand of a ninety-three year-old homosexual activist named Don Michele De Paolis when he met with him at the Casa Santa Marta on May 7, 2014 (See Jorge the Kissing Fool.)

Bergoglio has no problem with those who live in lives of unrepentant sins of perversion, and he has no problem with those who promote it, which is why he insisted that language "sensitive" to the needs of practicing sodomites be kept in the final report of last year's "extraordinary synod of bishops" after the passages had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority approval from the "bishops" in attednance. Lorenzo Baldiserri (see Modernnists Say Nothing Original) has been kind enough to admit that this is the case, an admission that came shortly before Bergoglio met with a woman who had mutiliated herself in an attempt to become a "man" after she had written to him, a letter that prompted Jorge to offer to pay her travel expenses to the Casa Santa Marta along with her supposed "fiance" (see Mutilating All Truth.)

Indeed, the conciliar revolution that was spawned at least in part by those inclined to the commission of perverse sins against nature, something that can be demonstrated in the art, architecture and music of the conciliar liturgy as well as by its orations, most of which mention nothing about a God who judges or about the possibility of eternal damnation or even the necessity of doing penance for one's sins, has created given diocesans and schools and hospitals in the control of the conciliar officials a decidedly lavender slant, if you will.

Well, as is well known by now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had a wide-ranging press conference on his flight back to Rome from Armenia on a trip that I have had no time to read about as I have been writing a commentary on the Brexit vote that has been interrupted for this particular article. Time does not permit me to handle everything Bergoglio said, athough I will write a separate commentary, perhaps in time for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul on Wednesday, June 29, 2016, to deal with several of his answers in that interview.

For the moment, however, the focus of this commentary is restricted to the question of asking "forgiveness" for the way in which "Christians and the Church" have treated "gay" people:

Cindy Wooden, CNS: Holiness, within the past few days Cardinal Marx, the German, speaking at a large conference in Dublin which is very important on the Church in the modern world, said that the Catholic Church must ask forgiveness to the gay community for having marginalized these people. In the days following the shooting in Orlando, many have said that the Christian community had something to do with this hate toward these people. What do you think?

Pope Francis: I will repeat what I said on my first trip. I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that they must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally. One can condemn, but not for theological reasons, but for reasons of political behavior...Certain manifestations are a bit too offensive for others, no? ... But these are things that have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge? And we must accompany them well...this is what the catechism says, a clear catechism. Then there are traditions in some countries, in some cultures that have a different mentality on this problem. I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness – like that “Marxist Cardinal” said (laughs) – must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times – when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners! – Christians must ask forgiveness for having not accompanied so many choices, so many families...I remember from my childhood the culture in Buenos Aires, the closed Catholic culture. I go over there, eh! A divorced family couldn’t enter the house, and I’m speaking of 80 years ago. The culture has changed, thanks be to God. Christians must ask forgiveness for many things, not just these. Forgiveness, not just apologies. Forgive, Lord. It’s a word that many times we forget. Now I’m a pastor and I’m giving a sermon. No, this is true, many times. Many times … but the priest who is a master and not a father, the priest who beats and not the priest who embraces, forgives and consoles. But there are many. There are many hospital chaplains, prison chaplains, many saints. But these ones aren’t seen. Because holiness is modest, it’s hidden. Instead it’s a little bit of blatant shamelessness, it’s blatant and you see so many organizations of good people and people who aren’t as good and people who … because you give a purse that’s a little big and look at you from the other side like the international powers with three genocides. We Christians – priests, bishops – we have done this. But also we Christians have Teresa of Calcutta and many Teresa of Calcuttas. We have many servants in Africa, many laity, many holy marriages. The wheat and the weeds. And so Jesus says that the Kingdom … we must not be scandalized for being like this. We must pray so that the Lord makes these weeds end and there is more grain. But this is the life of the Church. We can’t put limits. All of us are saints, because all of us have the Holy Spirit. But we are all sinners, me first of all! Alright. I don’t know if I have replied. (Full Text of Jorge's Press Conference.)

Perhaps, however, Bergoglio would have the Catholic Church to seek “forgiveness” for how she has been faithful to the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by refusing to excise these condemnations against homosexual behavior from the very pages of Holy Scripture that were written under His Divine Inspiration:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.) 

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

Does the Catholic Church have to apologize for the Book of Leviticus, for the words of Our Lord Himself, for the writings of Saint Paul the Apostle and for that of Saint Jude Thaddeus, our dear Patron of Hopeless Cases who was blessed to carry the Holy Shroud adorned with the Holy Face of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon it?

Perhaps the Catholic Church has to ask "forgiveness" for the work of Saint Peter Damian to rid clerical ranks of sodomite and sodomite influences in the Eleventh Century as described so clearly by Mrs. Randy Engel:

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:

"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ... This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more?"

No, dearest St. Peter Damian, I think not.

Like every saint before him, and every saint that will ever come after him, St. Peter Damian exhorts the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and reform his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul, "Wake up from your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you." (Eph 5:14) In a remarkable affirmation of the Gospel message, he warns against the ultimate sin of despairing of God's mercy and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:

"... beware of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat with confidence in God's love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; it is not the magnitude of one's crime, but contempt of God that dashes one's hopes."

Then, in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ's sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God, he says.

One of the very interesting historical sidebars to Damian's treatise is that he made no preference to the popular practice of distinguishing "notorious" from "non-notorious" cases of clerical immorality--a policy which can be traced back to the 9th century and the canonical reforms on ecclesiastical and clerical discipline by the great German Benedictine scholar and Archbishop of Mainz, Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776?-856). Under this policy, the removal of clerics found guilty of criminal acts including sodomy, depended on whether or not his offense was publicly known, or was carried out and confessed in secret.

In cases that had become "notorious," the offending cleric was defrocked and/or handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. But if his crime was known only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance and then was permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a similar post in a different diocese. Given the aggressive and predatory nature of the vice of sodomy, it is highly likely that such a policy contributed to, rather than inhibited, sodomical practices among clerics and religious between the mid-800s and the early 1000s. In any case, it was unlikely that Damian, who openly expressed his condemnation of too lenient canonical regulations related to the punishment of clerical sodomites and was so judicious in preserving the integrity of the priesthood and religious life, would have approved such a policy.

Saints are realists, which is no doubt why St. Peter Damian anticipated that his "small book" which exposes and denounces homosexual practices in all ranks of the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the Church. And it did.

In anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense as a 'whistle-blower'. He states that his would-be critics will accuse him of "being an informer and a delator of my brother's crimes," but, he says, he has no fear of either "the hatred of evil men or the tongues of detractors."

Hear, dear reader, the words of St. Peter Damian that come thundering down to us through the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its lambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons:

"... I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers' foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God's fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4) ... Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgement? ... How, indeed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? ... "So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother's well-being. "Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses' words, 'Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.' (Ezek 32:26)"

As he draws his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, St. Peter Damian pleads with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacred canons with regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons.Damian asks the Holy Father to "diligentl

y" investigate the four forms of the vice of sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provides him (Damian) with definitive answers to the following questions by which the "darkness of uncertainty" might be dispelled and an "indecisive conscience" freed from error:

1) Is one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from holy orders?

2) Whether at a prelate's discretion, moreover, one might mercifully be allowed to function in office?

3) To what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical office?

4) Also, if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel him under the circumstances to retire?

Damian closes his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX's pontificate "to utterly destroy this monstrous vice" that a prostrate Church may everywhere rise to vigorous stature." (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 53-55)

Does Jorge Mario Bergoglio want to destroy this monstrous vice?

Hardly.

He wants to befriend and to reaffirm those who attracted to it and to see it "mainstreamed" more and more in society, which is pretty much a fait accompli these days (see, for example, Irreversible By Means Merely Human. and Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part one, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part two, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part three, andArguing Who Decides That Which is Beyond Humans To Decide, part four)

By contrast, consider how Pope Leo IX responded to the report presented to him by Saint Peter Damian:

The approximate date that Damian delivered the Book of Gomorrah to Pope Leo IX is generally held to be the second half of the first year of the pontiff's reign, i.e., mid-1049, although some writers put the date as late as 1051. We do know, absolutely, that the Pope did respond to Damian's concerns, as that response in the form of a lengthy letter (JL 4311; ItPont 4.94f., no.2) is generally attached to manuscripts of the work.

Pope Leo IX opens his letter to "his beloved son in Christ, Peter the hermit," with warm salutations and a recognition of Damian's pure, upright and zealous character. He agrees with Damian that clerics, caught up in the "execrable vice" of sodomy "verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. " Such clerics, indeed profess, if not in words, at least by the evidence of their actions, that they are not what they are thought to be," he declares.

Reiterating the category of the four forms of sodomy that Damian lists, [59] the Holy Father declares that it is proper that by "our apostolic authority" we intervene in the matter so that "all anxiety and doubt be removed from the minds of your readers".

"So let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with everything your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the devil," the Pope continues. "Therefore, lest the wantonness of this foul impurity be allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by proper repressive action of apostolic severity, and yet some moderation must be placed on its harshness," he states.

Next, Pope Leo IX gives a detailed explanation of the Holy See's authoritative ruling on the matter.

In light of divine mercy, the Holy Father commands, without contradiction, that those who, of their own free will, have practiced solitary or mutual masturbation or defiled themselves by interfemoral coitus, but who have not done so for any length of time, nor with many others, shall retain their status, after having "curbed their desires" and "atoned for their infamous deeds with proper repentance".

However, the Holy See removes all hope for retaining their clerical status from those who alone or with others for a long time, or even a short period with many, "have defiled themselves by either of the two kinds of filthiness which you have described, or, which is horrible to hear or speak of, have sunk to the level of anal intercourse."

He warns potential critics, that those who dare to criticize or attack the apostolic ruling stand in danger of losing their rank. And so as to make it clear to whom this warning is directed, the Pope immediately adds, "For he who does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin."

Pope Leo IX praises Damian for teaching by example and not mere words, and concludes his letter with the beautiful hope that when, with God's help, the monk reaches his heavenly abode, he may reap his rewards and be crowned, "O in a sense, with all those who were snatched by you from the snares of the devil."

Clearly, on the objective immorality of sodomical acts, both Damian and Pope Leo IX were in perfect accord with one another. However, in terms of Church discipline, the pope appears to have taken exception with Damian's appeal for the wholesale deposition of all clerics who commit sodomical acts. I say, appears, because I believe that even in the matter of punishing known clerical offenders, both men were more in agreement than not.

Certainly, Damian, who was renown for his exemplary spiritual direction of the novitiates and monks entrusted to his care, was not unaware of certain mitigating circumstances that would diminish if not totally remove the culpability of individuals charged with the crime of sodomy.

For example, as with certain clerical sex abuse cases that have come to light today involving the Society of St. John and the Legionaries of Christ, which the Holy See has yet to investigate, some novices or monks may have been forced or pressured by their superiors to commit such acts. No doubt, it is circumstances such as these that prompted Pope Leo IX to use the term, "who of his own free will" in describing a cleric guilty of sodomy. Also among the four varieties of sodomy Damian discusses in his treatise, he states that interfemoral and anal coitus are to be judged more serious than solitary or mutual masturbation.

All in all, what this writer found to be most remarkable about the pope's letter to Damian, was the absolutist position Pope Leo IX took concerning the ultimate responsibility of the offending cleric's bishop or religious superior. If the latter criticized or attacked this apostolic decree, he risked losing his rank! Prelates who fail to "attack vice, but deal lightly with it," share the guilt and sentence of the one who dies in sin, the pope declared. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 57-58)

Writing five hundred years after Saint Peter Damian and Pope Leo IX, Pope Saint Pius V explained the just penalty due clerics caught in the act of unnatural vice:'

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the  to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)

Death, not "brotherhood" and "mainstreaming" for the sake of "inclusivity," was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Roman cited above, believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in "such an execrable crime" that caused him "such better sorrow" shocked his papal mind as he sought to "repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and others in the conciliar structures want to provide "brotherhood" and "acceptance." 

Just a slightly different approach, wouldn't you say?

A true pope understood the horror of such a detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime, which is why it can be said of him, who deals so lightly with vices that make a mockery of Holy Purity, what Pope Leo IX said of those deal lightly with vice: "For he who does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin."

A false "pope" seeks to appear as an agent of mercy when he is actually an apostle of eternal death, and there are those under him who have felt free to spend around $4.5 million of the conciliar Vatican's money to fund a pornograhic motion picture depicting the perverted Elton John in a favorable light (see The Vatican Spent Millions on Elton John's Biopic).

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of the death penalty for sodomy in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.

It is shameful that anyone would seek to provide a cover for a man who has such disregard for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and who seeks to indemnify sinners in the name of what is nothing other than a false mercy.

As has been noted so frequently on this site in the past seven years since Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s ascent to power within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, we are witnessing only the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism’s false teachings and its sacramentally barren liturgical rites. It was only a matter of time for men who have propagated grave doctrinal errors would come to propagate ever manner of moral error imaginable in the name of a false “mercy” and “tolerance.”

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false church. Its "pontiffs" and "bishops" have given us a steady diet of apostasy, blasphemy, and sacrilege over the course of the past nearly fifty-nine years.

Once again, Antichrist is not going to give his calling card. We are going to have to use the faculty of reason, guided by the sensus Catholicus and the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, to recognize who he is and who has done his bidding for him in advance of his coming.

While God alone is the sole Judge of the subjective state of souls, He gave us the sensus fidei when we were baptized in order to be able to recognize sin for what it is and thus to amend our own lives when are tempted to sin or find ourselves in the near occasion of sin. This sensus fidei also provides us with the ability to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy, which includes, of course, admonishing the sinner. “Pope Francis” and his “bishops” do not believe this. Indeed, they condemn those who do. How is this not apostasy?

Bergoglio’s undermining of a document he approved thus gives a green light to “bishops” and priests/presbyters to continue the status quo ante of their de facto practice of “blessing” civil unions and he will not say of rebuke or impose any kind of discipline upon those within his “clerical” ranks who defy the “response” to the dubium, which he really believes is simply an exercise in cold, authoritarian moralism.

Does it need to be pointed out that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is authoritarian who can be as moralistic in condemning his critics and those who are “restorationists” as believes that that the insipidly weak response of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” to the dubium about “civil unions” that was based on false principles in the first place and is but the result of a revolution with which his false religious sect has made its “official reconciliation” was “moralistic”?

Consider what Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, about a “new species of unions” between those engaged in acts of fornication or adultery that apply equally as well to the concept of “civil unions” between members of the same gender who are steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity:

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.  

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions nearly ninety years ago as "hateful abominations." Bergoglio believes them to contain "elements of true love."  This is because Pope Pius XI was a true pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not. He is an apostate.

Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given  you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that ” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be.  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)

There is little else to say about the Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s undermining his own “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” response to the dubium other than to say that the response will be honored only in the breach and will become the subject of great and heated debate as to what “he really meant” within the never neverland  of those who believe that the Argentine Apostate is a true pope and that they have to “petition Rome” to change things, either to  “stand by” the response or to demand its revocation.

What was I saying about Sisyphus earlier?

Readers of this website can relax as none of this has anything to do with the Catholic Church. (From: Antipope Appoveth, Antipope Undermineth What He Approveth. The Appendix below will review some of evidence documenting Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s full support and sympathy for the perverse agenda of the homosexual collective.)

All right. 

We are back in January of 2022 once again as Jorge the Canceller has struck yet again. One day, though, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is going to come to cancel him from the blessedness of Heaven if he does not repent and abjure his errors before he dies. It is fundamental act of charity, therefore, to pray for the conversion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the Catholic Faith solely for him to save his soul, which has been redeemed at the price of the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. The dread of the loss of eternal life should prompt us to a fervent love of God and a detestation for our sins, which have worsened both the state of the world-at-large and of the Church Militant on earth far, far more than we can come to reocgnize and accept.

Today, January 13, 2022, is the Octave Day of the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord in the General Roman Calendar of 1954 in which is read the Gospel of the the Baptism of Our Lord at the hands of Saint John the Baptist, who administered unto His Divine Cousin the symbolic baptism of repentance that he, the last of the Old Testament Prophets, was administering unto sinners. (This day, January 13, 2022, is the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord in those fully traditional chapels following the Genearl Roman Calendar of 1958.)

As in all things, Our Lord exhibited humility in accepting a baptism which He did not need to teach us the humility that we must have in seeking out His forgiveness in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and, quite importantly, so that He could fulfill in His own Flesh everything that He had caused to be written about Himself in Holy Writ as he sanctified the waters of the Jordan River--and hence all the waters on the face of the earth--as valid matter for the Baptism of spiritual regeneration He would win for us during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. The voice of His Co-Eternal, Co-Equal God the Father uttered these words as a dove, symbolic of God the Holy Ghost, hovered above Our Lord as He was baptized symbolically by Saint John the Baptist, who had leapt for joy in his mother's womb as his unborn Divine Redeemer, hidden from the view of men in the Virginal and Immacualte Womb of His Most Blessed Mother, freed him from Original Sin at the Visitation in anticipation of the merits He would win for us all as He atoned for Adam's sin in His own Sacred Humanity, thus paying back the debt of sin owed to Him in His Infinity as God:

At that time, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he said, Behold, the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of Whom I said, ‘After me there comes One Who has been set above me, because He was before me.’ And I did not know Him. But that He may be known to Israel, for this reason have I come baptizing with water. And John bore witness, saying, I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it abode upon Him. And I did not know Him. But He Who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He upon Whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, He it is Who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. (John 1: 29-34.)

Saint Augustine of Hippo provided an exegesis on this Gospel passage highlighting the second of the three great epiphanies of Our Lord that is contained in the readings for Matins in today's Divine Office:

John knew Jesus even before He came to be baptized of him in Jordan, as we perceive by the words I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest Thou to me? Behold, how he knew that He was the Lord, how he knew that He was the Son of God! How do we prove that he knew that He it was Who should baptize with the Holy Ghost? Before the Lord came to the river, when many betook themselves to John to be baptized of him, the Baptist said I indeed baptize you with water but One Mightier than I cometh; the latchet of Whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. (Luke iii. 16.) Behold, John knew this also.

Yet John saith: I knew Him Now, how are we to explain this without calling John a liar? and God forbid that we should ever even think anything of the kind. Was it not that when the Dove descended on Christ, John then for the first time knew Him to have that peculiar attribute, that, whosoever should baptize with His Baptism, whether they were themselves just or unjust, the virtue of the Sacrament should proceed, not from them, but from Him on Whom abode the Dove; so that He is the real Baptizer in every Christian Baptism until the end of time, and it is in this sense that it is said of Him the Same is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost Whether it be Peter, or Paul, or Judas, that performeth the ceremony, the real Baptizer and effectual Worker is Christ. For if the holiness of the baptism depended on the holiness of the particular officiator, no two baptisms would be exactly alike, and every one would be supposed to be more or less regenerated according as the minister who baptized him was more or less of a saint.

Now, my brethren, understand me. The saints themselves, those good men who appertain to the Dove, those good men whose portion is in Jerusalem, those good men in the Church, of whom the Apostle saith: the Lord knoweth them that are His, 2 Tim ii. 19,  these good men differ one from another by diversities of graces, and are not all of the same worthiness. Some are holier than others, and some are better than others. Supposing then for the sake of argument that A is baptized by B, a righteous saint, and C is baptized by D who is less worthy in the sight of God, who hath attained only a lower degree in godliness, who is not so chaste, and whose life is not so good as B's, yet A and C receive just the same thing. And how is this, unless it be that it is Christ Himself Who is the effectual Baptizer? (Saint Augustine of Hippo, Matins, January 13.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., provided the following reflection on these events in The Liturgical Year:

The thoughts of the Church, today, are fixed on the Baptism of our Lord in the Jordan, which is the second of the three Mysteries of the Epiphany. The Emmanuel manifested himself to the Magi, after having shown himself to the Shepherds; but this manifestation was made within the narrow space of a stable at Bethlehem, and the world knew nothing of it. In the Mystery of the Jordan, Christ manifested himself with greater publicity. His coming is proclaimed by the Precursor; the crowd, that is flocking to the river for Baptism, is witness of what happens; Jesus makes this the beginning of his public life. But who could worthily explain the glorious circumstances of this second Epiphany?

It resembles the first in this, that it is for the benefit and salvation of the human race. The Star has led the Magi to Christ; they had long waited for his coming, they had hoped for it; now, they believe. Faith in the Messias’ having come into the world is beginning to take root among the Gentiles. But faith is not sufficient for salvation; the stain of sin must be washed away by water. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. (St. Mark, xvi. 16.) The time is come, then, for a new manifestation of the Son of God, whereby there shall be inaugurated the great remedy, which is to give to Faith the power of producing life eternal.

Now, the decrees of divine Wisdom had chosen Water as the instrument of this sublime regeneration of the human race. Hence, in the beginning of the world, we find the Spirit of God moving over the Waters, (1 Gen. i. 2.) in order that they might “even then conceive “a principle of sanctifying power,” as the Church expresses it in her Office for Holy Saturday. (2 The Blessing of the Font.) But, before being called to fulfill the designs of God’s mercy, this element of Water had to be used by the divine justice for the chastisement of a sinful world. With the exception of one family, the whole human race perished, by the terrible judgment of God, in the Waters of the Deluge.

A fresh indication of the future supernatural power of this chosen element was given by the Dove, which Noe sent forth from the Ark; it returned to him, bearing in its beak an Olive-branch, the symbol that peace was given to the earth by its having been buried in Water. But, this was only the announcement of the mystery; its accomplishment was not to be for long ages to come.

Meanwhile, God spoke to his people by many events, which were figurative of the future Mystery of Baptism. Thus, for example, it was by passing through the waters of the Red Sea, that they entered into the Promised Land, and during the miraculous passage, a pillar of a cloud was seen covering both the Israelites, and the Waters, to which they owed their deliverance.

But, in order that Water should have the power to purify man from his sins, it was necessary that it should be brought in contact with the sacred Body of the Incarnate God. The Eternal Father had sent his Son into the world, not only that he might be its Lawgiver, and Redeemer, and the Victim of its salvation — but that he might also be the Sanctifier of Water; and it was in this sacred element that he would divinely bear testimony to his being his Son, and manifest him to the world a second time.

Jesus, therefore, being now thirty years of age, comes to the Jordan, a river already celebrated for the prophetic miracles which had been wrought in its waters. The Jewish people, roused by the preaching of John the Baptist, were nocking thither in order to receive a Baptism, which could, indeed, excite a sorrow for sin, but could not effect its forgiveness. Our divine King approaches the river, not, of course, to receive sanctification, for he himself is the author of all justice — but to impart to Water the power of bringing forth, as the Church expresses the mystery, a new and heavenly progeny. (The Blessing of the Font.) He goes down into the stream, not, like Josue, to walk dry-shod through its bed, but to let its waters encompass him, and receive from him, both for itself and for the Waters of the whole earth, the sanctifying power which they would retain for ever. The saintly Baptist places hit: trembling hand upon the sacred head of the Redeemer, and bends it beneath the water; the Sun of Justice vivifies this his creature; he imparts to it the glow of life-giving fruitfulness ; and Water thus becomes the prolific source of supernatural life.

But, in this the commencement of a new creation, we look for the intervention of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. All Three are there. The heavens open; the Dove descends, not, as a mere symbol, prophetic of some future grace, but as the sign of the actual presence of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of love, who gives peace to men and changes their hearts. The Dove hovers above the head of Jesus, overshadowing, at one and the same time, the Humanity of the Incarnate Word and the water which bathed his sacred Body.

The manifestation is not complete; the Father’s voice is still to be heard speaking over the Water, and moving by its power the entire element through- out the earth. Then was fulfilled the prophecy of David: The Voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of majesty hath thundered. The Voice of the Lord breaketh cedars, (that is, the pride of the devils). The Voice of the Lord divideth the flame of fire, (that is, the anger of God). The Voice of the Lord shaketh the desert, and maketh the flood to swell, (that is, announces a new Deluge, the Deluge of divine Mercy). (Ps. cxxviii. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10.) And what says this Voice of the Father? This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (St. Matth. iii. 17)

Thus was the Holiness of the Emmanuel manifested by the presence of the Dove and by the voice of the Father, as his Kingly character had been previously manifested by the mute testimony of the Star. The mystery is accomplished, the Waters are invested with a spiritual purifying power, and Jesus comes from the Jordan and ascends the bank, raising up with himself the world, regenerated and sanctified, with all its crimes and defilements drowned in the stream. Such is the interpretation and language of the Holy Fathers of the Church regarding this great event of our Lord’s Life.

The Feast of the Epiphany celebrates this wonderful mystery of Jesus’ Baptism; and we cannot wonder at the Eastern Church having selected this Day for one of the solemn administrations of the sacrament of Baptism. The same custom was observed, as we learn from ancient documents, in certain Churches in the West. John Mosch tells us, that, as regards the Oriental Church, the Font was more than once miraculously filled with water on the Feast of the Epiphany, and that immediately after having administered the Sacrament, the people saw the water disappear. The Roman Church, even so early as the time of St. Leo, decreed that Easter and Pentecost should be the only two days for the solemn administration of Baptism; but the custom of blessing the baptismal water with great solemnity on the Epiphany was still retained, and is observed even now in some parts of the West.

The Eastern Church has always religiously observed it. Amidst all the pomp of sacred rites, accompanied by his Priests and Ministers, who are clothed in the richest vestments, and followed by the whole people, the Bishop repairs to the banks of a river. After reciting certain beautiful prayers, which we regret not being able to offer to our readers, the Bishop plunges into the water a Cross richly adorned with precious stones; it represents our Lord being baptised by St. John. At St. Petersburg, the ceremony takes place on the river Neva, and it is through a hole made on the ice that the Metropolitan dips the Cross into the water. This same ceremony is observed by those Churches in the West, which have retained the custom of blessing the baptismal water on this Feast.

The faithful are very anxious to carry home with them the water of the stream thus sanctified; and St. John Chrysostom, in his twenty-fourth Homily, on the Baptism of Christ, speaks to his audience of the circumstance, which was well known by all of them, of this water never turning corrupt. The same has been often seen in the Western Church.

Let us honour our Lord in this second Manifestation of his divinity, and thank him, with the Church, for his having given us both the Star of Faith which enlightens us, and the Water of Baptism which cleanses us from our iniquities. Let us lovingly appreciate the humility of our Jesus, who permits himself to be weighed down by the hand of a mortal man, in order, as he says himself, that he might fulfill all justice, (1 St. Matth. iii. 15.) for having taken on himself the likeness of sin, it was requisite that he should bear its humiliation, that so he might raise us from our debasement. Let us thank him for this grace of Baptism, which has opened to us the gates of the Church both of heaven and earth; and let us renew the engagements we made at the holy Font, for they were the terms on which we were regenerated to our new life in God.

 

O Lamb of God! thou didst enter into the steam to purify it, the Dove came down from heaven, for thy sweet meekness attracted the Spirit of love; and having sanctified the Waters, the mystery of thy Baptism was over. But what tongue can express the prodigy of mercy effected by it! Men have gone down after thee into the stream made sacred by contact with thee; they return regenerated; they were wolves, and Baptism has transformed them into lambs. We were defiled by sin, and were unworthy to stand near thee, the spotless Lamb; but the waters of the holy Font have been poured upon us, and we are made as the sheep of the Canticle, which came up from the washing fruitful, and none is barren among them; or, as doves upon the brooks of water, white and spotless as though they had been washed with milk, sitting near the plentiful streams! Preserve us, O Jesus, in this white robe which thou hast put upon us. If, alas! we have tarnished its purity, cleanse us by that second Baptism, the Baptism of Penance. Permit us too, dear Lord, to intercede for those countries to whom thy Gospel has not yet been preached; let this river of peace, the waters of Baptism, flow out upon them, and inundate the whole earth. We beseech thee, by the glory of thy manifestation at thy Baptism, forget the crimes of men, which have hitherto caused the Gospel to be kept from those unhappy countries. Thy heavenly Father bids every creature hear thee; speak, dear Jesus! to every creature. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

We need Our Lady's help to make her Divine Son manifest to others in a world filled with fear, unbelieve and every kind of falsehood, supernatural and natural, imaginable. It is to this end that we must make use of her Most Holy Rosary faithfully and to take seriously the promises associated with being clothed with her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel while using her Miraculous Medal as pledge of our love to her and our reliance upon her for the graces that we need to save our souls and to make reparation for our sins so that we might be deemed worthy to have God the Father say to us waht He said of His Divine Son this very day:

And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3: 17.)

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the the Rosary, pray for us.  

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.   

 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Appendix

Reviewing Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Support for the Homosexual Collective’s Agenda of Perversity

(As adapted from past commentaries on this website)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a theological, moral, pastoral, ecclesiological, and liturgical revolutionary of Jacobin/Bolshevik proportions. He is a murderer of souls, a liar from the very beginning.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.  

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions nearly ninety years ago as "hateful abominations." Bergoglio believes them to contain "elements of true love."  This is because Pope Pius XI was a true pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not. He is an apostate.

Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given  you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be.  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a theological, moral, pastoral, ecclesiological, and liturgical revolutionary of Jacobin/Bolshevik proportions. He is a murderer of souls, a liar from the very beginning.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not only refuse to this, he has said very plainly on a number of occasions now that “homosexuality” does not matter, and he has made absolutely no distinction between one’s being inclined to commit perverse sins against nature and those who do so and persist in doing so.

One of Jorge’s first such ventures occurred in the summer of 2013 when he telephoned Christopher Trutino, a Frenchman who based his self-identification upon his inclination to commit sins of unnatural vice in defiance of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:

Then on Friday, Mr. Lombardi denied newspaper reports in France that the pope had called a young Catholic gay man in Toulouse to reassure him. The man, Christopher Trutino, a 25-year-old salesclerk, had told a local paper, La Dépêche du Midi, that after he wrote a letter to the pope explaining his struggles to reconcile his sexuality and faith, Francis phoned him to counsel him. “Your homosexuality, it doesn’t matter,” he recalled the pope saying. “One way or another, we are all children of God.”

Some on Twitter and elsewhere on the Internet greeted reports of the call as a welcome change in the doctrinal rigidity of the church on the issue of homosexuality. But the Vatican’s denial of the reports fanned speculation that the call had been a hoax, while also prompting some to question whether the Vatican was dissembling to distance itself from a delicate topic.

Mr. Trutino is avoiding the media, and could not be reached for comment on Monday. But Cyril Doumergue, the journalist from La Dépêche du Midi who interviewed him, said he had sounded authentic and genuinely moved. But he said he believed Mr. Trutino may have been deceived. He said the young man told the newspaper that during the call — which he said began at 2 p.m. — the pope explained that he would later be receiving King Abdullah II of Jordan. But Ansa, the Italian news agency, said the king arrived at 11 a.m. and the meeting was over by 12:06 p.m.

“Christopher did not record the conversation, so it is impossible to know 100 percent what happened,” Mr. Doumergue said. (Francis is on the line and everyone's talking.)

Contrary to what "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., tried to claim, it was within a few short days that Jorge himself admitted the phone call and its contents in his now infamous interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J.:

“Another example from recent days that I saw got the attention of newspapers: the phone call I made to a young man who wrote me a letter. I called him because that letter was so beautiful, so simple. For me this was an act of generativity. I realized that he was a young man who is growing, that he saw in me a father, and that the letter tells something of his life to that father. The father cannot say, ‘I do not care.’ This type of fruitfulness is so good for me.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Bergoglio thus admitted to “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., in Interview Number Two in September of 2013 what Vatican spokesflack and spinmeister “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., had denied when news of the infamous phone call had first become public two weeks beforehand, and he made news two years later when he met two sodomite friends of his who had gotten civilly “married” in Argentina:

Here is a report on the meeting with that so-called “gay couple”:

VATICAN CITY — Ever since it became public that Pope Francis met in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the questions have been swirling: Why did he meet with her, and was it meant as a political statement?

As it turns out, the Vatican said on Friday, the pope did not mean to endorse Ms. Davis’s views. It also said he gave her no more than a typical brief greeting, despite what her lawyer described.

Instead, the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video.

The disclosure, after the Vatican’s unusual attempt to correct the impressions left by Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis, added to days of speculation about whether Francis intended to send a message on the place of gays in the church, or conscientious objection, and whether his advisers had fully briefed him on Ms. Davis, or had their own agenda.

The Vatican spokesman emphasized that the meeting with Ms. Davis was arranged by the office of the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington, not by anyone in Rome — including the pope.

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released Friday morning.

On the other hand, Mr. Grassi, a 67-year-old caterer, told The New York Times that he and the pontiff have known each other since the 1960s, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the future pope was then called, taught him literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción, a Jesuit high school in Santa Fe, Argentina.

Mr. Grassi said that he had resumed contact with the future pope years later, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He also visited the pope at the Vatican in September 2013, and later contacted his office to ask for an audience in Washington.

“Once I saw how busy and exhausting his schedule was in D.C., I wrote back to him saying perhaps it would be better to meet some other time,” Mr. Grassi said. “Then he called me on the phone and he told me that he would love to give me a hug in Washington.”

Mr. Grassi said that he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends, and that the meeting took place at the Vatican Embassy on Sept. 23 — a day before Ms. Davis met the pope.

Mr. Grassi said that Francis had told him to arrange the visit through the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio, or envoy, in Washington.

It was a private meeting, for about 15 to 20 minutes, in which I brought my boyfriend of 19 years,” Mr. Grassi said. His boyfriend, Mr. Bagus, worked on a video that was posted online that showed Francis hugging Mr. Grassi and the others.

Mr. Grassi said the meeting was purely personal. “I don’t think he was trying to say anything in particular,” Mr. Grassi said. “He was just meeting with his ex-student and a very close friend of his.”

Late on Friday, the Vatican confirmed the meeting. “Mr. Yayo Grassi, a former Argentine student of Pope Francis, who had already met other times in the past with the pope, asked to present his mother and several friends to the Pope during the Pope’s stay in Washington, D.C.,” Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement.

“As noted in the past, the pope, as pastor, has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue,” the statement added.

Earlier on Friday, the Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.

The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years.

For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.

For Francis, the timing of the Davis controversy is not ideal. Beginning Sunday the Vatican is staging a critical three-week meeting of bishops and laypeople to discuss whether to recommend changing their approach to contemporary issues related to the family, like gay couples, single parents or whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained annulments should be allowed to receive communion.

That meeting, known as a synod, could become a showdown between liberals and conservatives. Francis has spent nearly two years trying to gradually build consensus and has repeatedly stated his desire for a more welcoming, merciful outreach — even as he has not signaled any willingness to change church doctrine.

News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers.

It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. Francis has emphasized that he strongly believes in conscientious objection as a human right, a position he reaffirmed on his plane ride home.

On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. Father Lombardi’s statement said that the brief meeting “has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” and that he was providing clarification “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

The Vatican’s statement prompted reactions on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Staver said the meeting had been called by the Vatican.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

But at the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.

“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”

Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”

Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to Archbishop Viganò in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington againstsame-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.

“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct.

Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”

A receptionist who answered the phone at the Vatican Embassy in Washington on Friday said, “The nuncio does not deny that the meeting took place, but would not make any further comment.”

She said the embassy did not have its own spokesman, and that no other officials there would comment.

Archbishop Viganò is turning 75 in January, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican asking for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments well past age 75. But if Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts.

“Nobody in the Catholic Church wants another Regensburg,” said Massimo Faggioli, an associate professor of theology and director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. He was referring to the backlash after Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’ predecessor, gave a speech in Regensburg, Germany, that appeared to denigrate Islam.

“This was not as serious as Regensburg, when Benedict read his own speech,” Dr. Faggioli said about the meeting attended by Ms. Davis. “But the pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”

The meeting with Ms. Davis was clearly a misstep, Dr. Faggioli said, “because the whole trip to the United States he very carefully didn’t want to give the impression that he was being politicized by any side.”

He added, “And this thing is the most politicized thing that you can imagine.” (Before Clerk, an Antipapal Hug for a Gay Friend.)

I quoted this entire story to give readers a full appreciation of how far from the sensus Catholicus Bergoglio and his fellow travelers in the false religious sect of conciliarism are in the practical course of daily events. These apostates are so bereft of the Catholic Faith that their very first instinct is to indemnify wanton sinners and leftist ideologues while vilifying those who dare to criticize or make life “uncomfortable” for such people.

Furthermore, the contention made by Dr. Massimo Faggioli that Jorge’s meeting with Kim Davis was not as bad as “Regensburg” was a remarkable concession that it was as “unacceptable” and “incendiary” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to state even an attenuated version of the truth of Mohammedanism as being an irrational religion prone to violence in an address he gave Regensburg, Germany, on September 12, 2006, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as it was for “Pope Francis” to have been put in the “untenable” position of meeting with the “toxic” Kim Davis. Any kind of opposition to the gaystapo agenda is considered to be an act of “violence” against a supposedly “legitimate” classification of human beings even though human identity is not based on one’s proclivity to commit any particular sin, less yet those that are unnatural and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The conciliar Vatican went to extraordinary lengths to throw Carlo Maria Vignano, who has since  gone on to carve out a niche for himself as a "defender" of the Gallicanist "resist while ecognize" movement, Kim Davis and Matthew Staver under the bus while celebrating the fact that Bergoglio (a) invited his former student, Yayo Grassi, and his “partner” in unnatural vice, Iwan Bagus, and (b) the video shows the false “pontiff” hugging both men and kissing them on their cheeks!

Thus, there is really nothing terribly “new” about Bergoglio’s endorsing "civil unions," especially if one recalls what Senor Jorge did eight months prior to his meeting his Argentine pals who were engaged in an "union" of perversity. The  following is from a commentary I wrote in 2015:

As has been well-reported in the past two days now, Bergoglio’s latest venture into the world of the  freakish and bizarre took place on Saturday, January 24, 2015, the Feast of Saint Timothy, as he met with a Spanish woman, who had undergone gender mutilation surgery, and her “fiancée,” after the mutilated woman had written to him to explain that she had been described as the “devil’s daughter” by her local presbyter:

Vatican City, January 26 - Pope Francis on Saturday received in a private audience a Spanish transsexual and his girlfriend after the man wrote to him saying he had been cast out of the church in his native city, Spanish daily Hoy reported Monday.

The transgender male, Diego Neria Lejarraga, a 48-year-old former woman, wrote to the pope some time ago saying he had been "marginalised" by Church officials in the city of Plasencia, in the southwestern region of Estremadura, Hoy said.

Neria, a believer and a practising Catholic, said he had been rebuffed by elements of the local clergy and claimed the parish priest had called him "the Devil's daughter", Hoy reported.

Francis phoned him twice in December, setting up Saturday''s meeting in St Martha's House, the Vatican guesthouse the pontiff lives in, Hoy said.

The pope has said the Catholic Church should be more accepting of gays but recently failed to muster a big enough majority of cardinals to change doctrine on the issue.

Asked about the reported meeting, official Vatican sources declined to comment. (Jorge receives Spanish Transsexual”)

Well, I suppose that Federico Lombardi has finally learned—or has been told—to keep his mouth shut after one of Jorge’s “private” meetings or phone calls become a matter of public news once it is blabbed by the “private parties” being used by the false “pontiff” to “push the envelope” on his conciliar revolution to the uttermost limits of the LGBT agenda imaginable.

Some might protest that Bergoglio was only giving “comfort” to an aggrieved soul.

Really?

What’s the grievance?

The gender-mutilated woman is the devil’s daughter as to mutilate one’s body to change his gender is to play God with the very nature He has given to him and is a direct violation of the binding precepts that flow from the Fifth Commandment. Just as he really does not believe that there is anything inherently unnatural in “same-sex attraction,” so is it apparent that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that there is anything inherent wrong in undergoing gender-mutilation surgery. He is as perverted in his mind and in his soul as the woman who met with him in the company of the woman she intends to “marry” even though she is a “woman.” So much for Jorge’s supposed opposition to “same-sex marriage,” huh? What the mutilated woman, who believes herself to be a man, intends in reality to do is to “marry” another woman.

By giving a show of support and affirmation to the gender-mutilated woman, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is, in effect, communicating his belief that such a mutilation must be accepted as a fait accompli without any word of criticism or rebuke. Such a belief, though, is contrary even to the official teaching of his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which issued a “doctrinal note” on January 31, 2003, declaring that one who undergoes a “sex-change” operation does not change the gender that God gave to him:

VATICAN, Jan 31, 03 (CWNews.com) -- The Catholic Church cannot recognize the validity of a sex-change operation, the Vatican has declared.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released a secret directive to bishops and religious superiors, indicating that an individual who has undergone a sex-change operation cannot be a candidate for the priesthood or religious life, and cannot enter into a valid marriage. The document also instructs pastors that they should not alter an individual's sacramental record to change the person's gender.

The Vatican document was released in 2000, but its existence and contents were tightly guarded until earlier this month. The directives were reportedly sent at first to papal delegates in each country, and later to the heads of episcopal conferences. Vatican officials confirmed the existence of the document after the Catholic News Service reported on it, but the full text is not available to the public.

The Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains that an individual's physical characteristics-- which can be altered surgically-- constitute only a part of his gender identity. While the body can be changed, the sexual identity cannot, the Congregation says.

The Vatican document indicates that if a bishop or religious superior learns that an individual has undergone a sex-change operation, "that person cannot validly be admitted into a religious institute or society of consecrated life." The document adds that if a transsexual is now living in a religious order, "he must, for the good of souls, be expelled from the religious house."

The Vatican document was reportedly given greater circulation after a query from an American bishop, prompted by a dispute within a religious order in his diocese. (SEX- CHANGE OPERATIONS RULED INVALID BY THE CONCILIAR VATICAN.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio may or may not know about this “doctrinal note,” which would not matter to him even if he did know about it. The Argentine Apostate lives by pure viscera.

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio does know, however, is that one of his chief nemeses in the conciliar structures, Raymond Leo “Cardinal” Burke, whom he deposed as the head of the Apostolic Signatura in conciliar captivity, had himself given credence to the supposed “validity” of gender-mutilation surgery (the singular case is being used to refer to what are a series of grotesque surgeries performed by real-life sons of Dr. Frankenstein by way of Dr. Moreau’s Island of Lost Souls) by accepting a gender-mutilated man, who had started to call himself “Julie Green,” to found a religious community of women in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, which is why Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been asked to issue the doctrinal note quoted just above.

Here is a review of the pertinent facts once again:

At times his theological allegiance with these orders placed Bishop Burke in some compromising positions. Most striking, perhaps, was the case of Sister Julie Green, a member of the Franciscan Servants of Jesus:

"Julie Green is living a lie!" writes Mary Therese Helmueller in an October 25, 2002, letter to Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, Papal Nuncio to the United States. "[She] is a transsexual, a biological male. He is really Joel Green, who had a sex operation to make him physically appear as a woman.... I fear that The Church in America will suffer another 'sex scandal' if Julie Green continues to be recognized as a Catholic Religious Sister, and if Bishop Raymond L. Burke receives his final vows, as a religious sister, on November 23rd, 2002."

Montalvo forwarded the letter to Burke, who on November 20, 2002, replied to Helmueller. "With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See," he writes. "These are matters which are confidential and do not admit of any further comment.... I can assure you that Sister Julie Green in no way espouses a sex change operation as right or good. In fact, she holds it to be seriously disordered. Therefore, I caution you very much about the rash judgments which you made in your letter to the Apostolic Nuncio."

Adds Burke: "I express my surprise that, when you had questions about Sister Julie Green, you did not, in accord with the teaching of our Lord, address the matter to me directly." (Bishop Takes Queen.)

While it is nice that Joel Green believed the surgery that he had to become “Julie Green” is “seriously disordered,” such a disavowal does not annul the fact that he had underwent such surgery himself and was presenting himself as a woman, no less a woman desirous of starting a religious community with the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism within the Diocese of La Crosse with the approval of a man, Raymond Leo Burke, whom Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict transferred to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, Missouri, and later brought him to Rome and elevated him the conciliar "college of cardinals."

This having been noted, it could very well be that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is crazy like a fox in this instance. That is, he appears to be daring Raymond Leo Burke to criticize him publicly for meeting with the “transgendered” Spanish woman who believes herself to be a man. At the same time, though, Jorge is showing his disregard for the work of the congregation many believe that he wants to dismantle while forcing Burke to say that he disagrees with Ratzinger for approving the “doctrinal note” that stopped him from proceeding with his plans for “Sister Julie Green."

What can be stated with certainty is that the Argentine Apostate has shown that he accepts the “reality” of the supposed effects of gender-mutilation and desires to blunt all efforts on the part of conciliar "bishops" and priests/presbyers to "exclude" them from the life of the conciliar sect.

Cheer up.

Things are only to get worse under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is taking the conciliar revolution where no revolutionary at the "papal" level had gone before. 

Gone are the days of official posturing by conciliar officials within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River concerning various diocesan programs and “ministries” that curried favor with unrepentant practitioners of perversity. “Official” reprimands of such groups as “Dignity USA” and “New Ways Ministry” are things of the past. “Francis the Merciful” has tickled the itching ears of many pestilential vermin within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the conciliar Vatican had “tolerated” on a de facto basis even while reproving on a de jurebasis. Almost the entirety of the sodomite agenda has received de facto endorsement from Bergolio and his lieutenants, up to and including “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, who is on day duty for Jorge and does night duty for the man who groomed him for his current position of influence, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. (From Mutilating All Truth, Janauary 28, 2015. By the way, Georg Ganswein no longer performs his duties as the "prefect of the 'papal' household" even though he still retains the title.)

Only the willfully blind can deny that Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to advance the agenda of the Homosexual Collective because he believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. What is wrong, the Argentine Apostate believes, is the condemnation of those who are expressing their “love” in ways that require “acceptance” and “accompaniment.”

The false mercy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, coupled with his denunciations of faithful Catholics, comes at a time when sin is being justified and enabled by the lords of Modernity, who deem as "haters" the very people Bergoglio sees as "hypocrites." None other than the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, a Doctor of Holy Mother Church, had a few choice words about the delusions of the sorts of unrepentant sinners whom Bergoglio believes are "judged" by merciless "hypocrites".

Consider the following passages from Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri’s sermon for Sexagesima Sunday:

The Devil brings sinners to hell by closing their eyes to the dangers of perdition. He first blinds them, and then leads them with himself to eternal torments. If, then, we wish to be saved, we must continually pray to God in the words of the blind man in the gospel of this day,” Lord, that I may see." Give me light: make me see the way in which I must walk in order to save my soul, and to escape the deceits of the enemy of salvation. I shall, brethren, this day place before your eyes the delusion by which the devil tempts men to sin and to persevere in sin, that you may know how to guard yourselves against his deceitful artifices  

2. To understand these delusions better, let us imagine the case of a young man who, seized by some passion, lives in sin, the slave of Satan, and never thinks of his eternal salvation. My son, I say to him, what sort of life do you lead? If you continue to live in this manner, how will you be able to save your soul? But, behold! the devil, on the other hand, says to him: Why should you be afraid of being lost? Indulge your passions for the present: you will afterwards confess your sins, and thus all shall be remedied. Behold the net by which the devil drags so many souls into hell. “Indulge your passions: you will hereafter make a good confession." But, in reply, I say, that in the meantime you lose your soul. Tell me: if you had a jewel worth a thousand pounds, would you throw it into a river with the hope of afterwards finding it again? What if all your efforts to find it were fruitless? God! you hold in your hand the invaluable jewel of your soul, which Jesus Christ has purchased with his own blood, and you cast it into hell! Yes; you cast it into hell; because according to the present order of providence, for every mortal sin you commit, your name is written among the number of the damned. But you say.” I hope to recover God’s grace by making a good confession." And if you should not recover it, what shall be the consequences? To make a good confession, a true sorrow for sin is necessary, and this sorrow is the gift of God: if he does not give it, will you not be lost for ever?  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 118-119.)

The conciliar revolutionaries, of course, live in a delusional world. Their world is so delusion that they do not even tell the unrepentant sinner that he has to make a good confession, not that the thought of doing so enters into the minds of most unrepentant sinners today.

Bergoglio embraces and enables the very crimes of Modernity that have contributed to the natural disasters of our present age, and he bears direct responsibility for the crimes of Modernism as advanced by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres explained the connection between the sins of men and natural disasters and tragedies:

While the founding mothers admired Mother Mariana's perfect observance of the rule and practice of virtue, there were other sisters who were stirred by jealousy. Mother Marina suffered insults and persecutions form those sisters without ever trying to justify herself or protest. Only at the foot of the Tabernacle did she confide her secret sorrows to her Beloved. One day in 1582, as she was praying before the altar, she saw the Tabernacle open and Christ Himself emerged, suffering as He had at Golgotha. The Blessed Virgin, at His feet, was shedding tears of pearls. Mother Mariana asked her, "My Lady, am I do blame for this sadness?"

"No, she replied, "it is not you, but the criminal world." Then as Our Lord began His Agony, she heard the voice of the Eternal Father saying, "This punishment will be for the 20th century." She saw three swords hanging over the head of Christ. On each was written, "I shall punish heresy, blasphemy and impurity." With this, she was given to understand all that would take place in the present era.

The Holy Virgin continued: "My daughter, will you sacrifice yourself for the people of this time?" Mother Mariana replied, "I am willing." And immediately the swords moved away from the agonizing Christ and buried themselves in the hear of Mother Mariana, who fell dead through the violence and pain. (Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D., Our Lady of Good Success: Prophecies for Our Times, Tradition in Action, Inc., second edition, 2000, p. 27.)

Following Mother Mariana's "mysterious death and resurrection," Our Lady spoke to her again:

"Thus do I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and especially in the 20th century, in what is today the Colony and then will be the Republic of Ecuador, the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs, for Satan will reign almost completely by means of Masonic sects. They will focus particularly on the children in order to achieve this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation. Making use of persons in positions of authority, the devil will assiduously try to destroy the Sacrament of Confession ...

"The same thing will happen with Holy Communion. Alas! How deeply I grieve upon manifesting to you the many and horrible sacrileges--both public and also secret--that will occur from such profanations of the Holy Eucharist! Often during this epoch, the enemies of Jesus Christ, instigated by the demon, will steal consecrated hosts from the churches so that they might profane the Eucharistic Species. My Most Holy Will will see Himself cast upon the ground and trampled upon by irreverent feet" . . . .

"Know, moreover, that Divine Justice releases terrible chastisements on entire nations, not only for the sins of the people, but especially for those of priests and religious persons. For the latter are called by the perfection of their state, to be the salt of the earth, the masters of truth and deflectors of divine wrath. Straying from their divine mission, they degrade themselves in such a way that, before the eyes of God, they quicken the rigor of the punishments. . . . (Our Lady of Good Success: Prophecies for Our Times, pp. 44-45; 63) 

We should not be surprised, therefore, by the outbreaks of various natural disasters as they are instruments of God's justice. They are also, however, instruments of His ineffable mercy, providing survivors (and those in other parts of the world who become aware of various disasters) an opportunity to amend their lives and return to Him through His Catholic Church before they die sudden and sacramentally unprovided-for deaths. We must remember that there is nothing we can suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer during His Passion and Death, remembering also how our sins caused Seven Swords of Sorrow to be thrust through the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Dr. Horvat put it this way in Our Lady of Good Success: Prophecies for Our Times:

It is almost impossible for us to understand the next phase of the life of the novice Mariana de Jesus Torres. Hidden in the Heart of her Spouse, she was inflamed with a desire for a life of immolation and sacrifice. Our Lord Himself told her the practices she should carry out during the free hours of the community schedule and the penances she should perform each week. Her severe disciplines, sacrifices, fasting and prayer, all described in chapters of the manuscript, appear daunting to the man of our century, who finds suffering something to avoid, or, at best, to endure as austerely as possible.

Suffering is highly ennobling. On this road of suffering in union with Christ, man finds the fullest meaning of his life, and he discovers that frequently it is in the great sufferings of life, accepted with a supernatural disposition, that he can find a joy which the greatest pleasures do not give. Further, he discovers in suffering an interior state that makes him capable of soaring to heights impossible for one who does not suffer. Only when man embraces great sufferings can his horizons expand to grand metaphysical and religious heights and his spirit advance to a superior state. At the end of Mother Mariana's life when her sanctity was acknowledged in the community and convent, she would look back with nostalgia and sigh for the days of persecution and suffering. (Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D., Our Lady of Good Success: Prophecies for Our Times, Tradition in Action, Inc., second edition, 2000, p. 26.)

Yes, God punishes men for the sins, both in this life and, in the case of those who die in a state of Mortal sin, for all eternity in hell. This is simply His Divine Justice, which is not in the least in conflict with his ineffable mercy for erring sinners who seek to reform their lives by confessing their sins, both by kind and number as far as they are able to remember, to a true priest.

God will not be mocked. Sins must be punished. God chooses a variety of ways to punish us errant, recidivist, ungrateful sinners. The elements of the earth are themselves disturbed by human sins as they are part of the Order of Creation (Nature) whose perfect balance was rent asunder as a result of Original Sin. 

I would entreat you, however, to consider how Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself told Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres that the sins of men in Ecuador, a country favored with the visits of Our Lady of Good Success and ruled for twelve years (1859 to 1865 and 1869 to the time of assassination in 1875) by that great exemplar of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Gabriel Garcia Moreno, would diminish the luster of the sunsets in that country on the equator:

She saw that when this would happen, the beautiful dawn that each morning would break forth with refulgence over this land--so enchantingly spectacular that some persons would rise at daybreak just to see the day break--would lose some of its brilliance. Thus does earth reflect Heaven, and the earth's beauty and vitality diminish with sin and infidelity to grace. This favor of beautiful dawns should cease, Mother Mariana was given to understand, because the Republic [of Ecuador, which was then only a Spanish colony] would become corrupt and ungrateful for the benefits it received from God. (Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D., Stories and Miracles of Our Lady of Good Success, Tradition in Action, Inc., 2002, p. 68.)

Men must quit their sins and repent of them in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. They must treat each other as they would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who was made Flesh in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb, where He spent nine months growing to the point of His Nativity in poverty and anonymity in Bethlehem on Christmas Day.

No one can say that he loves Our Lord and yet supports His dismemberment mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children. And it is impossible to provide for any element of  the common temporal good on an enduring basis as long as the innocent preborn are attacked with legal impunity, as long as the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage is denied by means of contraception, as long as perversity is promoted under the slogans of "diversity" and "human rights," as long as men live as though there is no true Church and that they do not have to face Christ the King as their Judge at the moment of their Particular Judgments.

Men cannot sin wantonly without realizing terrible chastisements from God, something that Saint Alphonsus de Liguori made very clear in Preparation for Death:

The Lord does not wish us to be lost; and therefore, by the threat of chastisement, he unceasingly exhorts us to a change of life. Except you will be converted, He will brandish His sword. Behold, he says in another place, how many, because they would not cease to offend me, have met with a sudden death, when they were least expecting it, and were living in peace, secure of a life of many years. For whey they shall say: Peace and security: then shall sudden destruction come upon them. Again he says: Unless you shall do penance, you shall likewise perish. Why so many threats of chastisements before the execution of vengeance? It is because he wishes that we amend our lives, and thus avoid an unhappy death. "He," says Saint Augustine, "who tells you to beware, does not wish to take away your life." It is necessary, then, to prepare our accounts before the day of account arrives. Dearly beloved Christians, were you to die, and were your lot for eternity to be decided before night would your accounts be ready? Oh! how much would you give to obtain from God another year or month, or even another day, to prepare for judgment? Why then do yo not now, that God gives you this time, settle the accounts of your conscience? Perhaps is cannot happen that this shall be the last day for you? Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day; for His wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance He will destroy thee. My brother, to save your soul you must give up your sin. "If then you must renounce it at some time, why do you not abandon it at this moment?" says Saint Augustine. Perhaps you are waiting till death arrives? But for obstinate sinners, the hour of death is the time, not of pardon, but of vengeance. In the time of vengeance He will destroy thee. (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Preparation for Death.)

It was on September 19, 1846, that Our Lady explained Our Lady of La Salette told Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud about the terrible effects of sin in the world:

The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay. But now Enoch and Eli will come, filled with the Spirit of God. They will preach with the might of God, and men of good will will believe in God, and many souls will be comforted. They will make great steps forward through the power of the Holy Spirit and will condemn the devilish lapses of the Antichrist. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth! There will be bloody wars and famines, plagues and infectious diseases. It will rain with a fearful hail of animals. There will be thunderstorms which will shake cities, earthquakes which will swallow up countries. Voices will be heard in the air. Men will beat their heads against walls, call for their death, and on another side death will be their torment. Blood will flow on all sides. Who will be the victor if God does not shorten the length of the test? At the blood, the tears and prayers of the righteous, God will relent. Enoch and Eli will be put to death. Pagan Rome will disappear. The fire of Heaven will fall and consume three cities. All the universe will be struck with terror and many will let themselves be lead astray because they have not worshipped the true Christ who lives among them. It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive.

Now is the time; the abyss is opening. Here is the King of Kings of darkness, here is the Beast with his subjects, calling himself the Savior of the world. He will rise proudly into the air to go to Heaven. He will be smothered by the breath of the Archangel Saint Michael. He will fall, and the earth, which will have been in a continuous series of evolutions for three days, will open up its fiery bowels; and he will have plunged for all eternity with all his followers into the everlasting chasms of hell. And then water and fire will purge the earth and consume all the works of men's pride and all will be renewed. God will be served and glorified." (Message of Our Lady of La Salette.)

Remarkably, Our Lady’s warning at La Salette, France, is very similar to as found in The Mystical City of God as Our Lady explained to the Venerable Mary of Agreda:

"Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time." Woe to the earth, where so many sins and such wickedness shall be perpetuated! Woe to the sea, which refused to pour forth its floods and annihilate the transgressors at the sight of so great offenses against its Creator, and to avenge the insults against its Maker and Lord! But more woe to the profound and raging sea of those that follow the demon, after he had descended in their midst in order to war against them with great wrath and with such unheard of cruelty! It is the wrath of the most ferocious dragon, and greater than that of the devouring lion (I Pet. 5, 8), who attempts to annihilate all creation and to whom all the days of the world seem a short time to execute his fury. Such is his hunger and thirst to do damage to mortals, that all the days of their life do not satisfy him, for they come to an end, whereas he desires eternal ages, if possible, in order to wage war against the sons of God. But incomparably greater than against all others is his rage against that most blessed Woman, who was to crush his head (Gen. 3: 15).  (The Mystical City of God.)

We are eyewitnesses to apostasy, which is why we need the help of Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, now more than ever before,

Offer all of the sufferings of the moment to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slave of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart Mary, whose triumph will be manifest when will least expect it.