Even by Bergoglio's insanely absurd crazy standards, the ring-kissing switcheroo is weird...

Just when one thinks that Bergoglio cannot get any weirder he does something completely absurd, something completely off the charts. Even by Bergoglio's absurdly crazy standards, this is weird:

It is like something from a Benny Hill or Monty Python sketch. For an overweight man with probable drinking problems, one lung, and obviously slow-of-thought, he sure does more fast. That whole ring-kissing switcheroo could spawn a thousand memes, and with good reason.

I have never seen anything like it and I don't know if it is the first time he has done it or if it is a trademark dribbling move.

My initial  comments are the following:

  • First of all, it is really really weird. Even by his insanely-high bizarro standards   it's so weird it's almost creepy.
  • Secondly, it serves these people right for wanting to kiss the ring of a man as perverted as Bergoglio. The man has nothing Catholic about him, and yet they still want to bow down and kiss his ring, that same ring which has adorned some of the worst documents any bishop has ever produced in Church history. They desrerve a slap, not merely having Bergoglio move his hand. Maybe that would teach them that the man is to be avoided.
  • Thirdly, it is as though the man is going out of his way to prove that he is not pope and is not worth of the respect due to one. That he is pope is dubious, that he deserves contempt is unquestionable.

I am not big on the whole ring-kissing thing. There is an indulgence attached to it of some sort, and I suppose to get some poor soul out of purgatory I might bring myself to do it if the man whose ring I was kissing was worthy. Bergoglio most certainly is not. Yes, I know, it is not about the man but about the office. In reality though, kssing someone's ring affirms the man considerably so it should be reserved for good shepherds.

Even if he were worthy, I really cannot see how I could justify kissing a gold-plated silver ring. It smacks of trans-materialism, to borrow some jingo from today's crazy leftists. It's from a man who doesn't know the symbolism of his office, wants to pretend to be humble by using silver instead of gold, yet isn't secure enough in his imbecillity to go all the way through with it so he covers the ring with silver. Kissing his ring only affords him a respect he most certainly does not deserve.

Still, I have never seem him move so fast. It is as though somebody had transported him from a free-masonic temple into the Vatican (or Loreto, where it turns out this particular show was staged), and finding himself there and not having a clue who all these people are or what he's supposed to do, he thought all these people were coming towards him to take a bite out of his hand.

For pure comedy gold, this has to be the most entertaining of Bergoglio's many cringe-worthy stunts. It is most "disturbing", as LifeSite News put it.

It certainly cracked me up anyway, and I suppose unless we prefer weeping that's all we can do at this week's installment of the Bergoglio horror show.

On the Cardinal Pell case only the facts of this case matter, a point seemingly lost on most

This article consists mainly of a comment I wrote on the day's comment for the 8th of March, in reference to a piece titled " On Cardinal Pell ". It was written by VoxCantoris and elicited a lot of responses. The original is undedited and in this piece I have altered and elaborated a bit

***

I do not care much for Cardinal Pell. In my opinion he is a big part of the problem: the neo-Catholic who references Vatican II at every turn and refuses to criticise the revolution. He doesn't even believe in the Book of Genesis for crying out loud. The only thing he has done well as far as I am concerned is his intervention at the 2014 pre-synod against the family, in which he complained against the manipulation then ongoing. He has also celebrated the Tridentine Mass a few times, which is nice.

However, my opinion of him means very little, and is in fact entirely irrelevant to the question at hand: Namely, whether he is guilty of the charge levelled at him. Unfortunately, VoxCantoris seems to let his fondness or lack of it of someone take over his analysis of most situations. That was certainly the case with Trump's bombings of Syria, the treatment of Muslims at the hands of zionist and Western freemasons, and seems to be the case now, even though he is not as blatant.

What if Pell is guilty? I might as well ask "What is Bergoglio is Catholic?" What if VoxCantoris is a freemason who pretends to be Catholic? Is it even relevant? We can all make up "what ifs " to our heart's delight.

The only thing that counts is whether there is evidence to convict him of his crime, and from the reports I have read there is none. We have one witness, who I believe is either now or has been a drug addict who has fallen on rought times, whose testimony is contradicted by everyone else, including the man who he claims was his co-victim, now deceased. The physics of the crime don't make sense, unless we are to believe that Pell celebrated Mass in the emperor's new clothing and only the kids managed to see his nudity for what it was.

Evidence matters in crimes. In fact, it is all that matters. In this case we seem to have absolutely none, and the witness also lacks credibility. Even if Pell had not been a cardinal the conviction would make little sense, but given that he is a cardinal who does not push sodomy or other perversions, surely the benefit of the doubt shouldg o to him.

Make no mistake: This Pell case is a trial run for future evidence-free trials. If it is allowed to go ahead then it will absolutely ruin any hope of anybody - not just Catholic - getting a fair trial in crimes which are deemed fashionable by the state.

Some claim that we should wait for the appeal, but surely this is the height of imbecility! If they can have a kangaroo court at the first instance, what reason do you have for thinking that they cannot arrange a show trial in the second instance? Will the evidence be any different? Did they not have appeals when they were putting our Catholic martyrs to the sword in England? Another claimed that Australia is not some Soviet country with show trials, which just proves how dangerous Western totalitarianism is: At least in the Soviet Union, people knew that their country was guilty of show trials. In the West, we seem to have show trials with a large part of the populace under the illusion of justice. Even the show trials are dishonest.

In the end, God alone knows what Cardinal Pell is guilty of, but  he is innocent until proven guilty, and there does not even seem to have been an attempt to prove his guilt, merely an assertion which has carried favour among the political elite in Australia. We would therefore have to assume the man is innocent of this charge, and - unfortunate as it is to point this out since so many have missed it - this is the only charge that matters.

The assessment by Murray is spot on:

Even if it is true (God forbid), the verdict should probably have been Not Guilty according to the law.

We had one accuser--the other putative (deceased) victim having twice told his mother that he had never been abused--describing a highly unlikely circumstance 23 years ago that was uncorroborated by anyone else present at the time, and that the Cardinal strenuously denied. Nothing about the story makes sense to anyone who has been inside a sacristy before or after Mass: The abuse taking place in a bustling, semi-public area, the difficulty of maneuvering an archbishop's vestments to facilitate the abuse, the sheer recklessness of the act against all public evidence of Pell's character...

How does this even begin to rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard?

If you think that the child-abuse excuse show trial will end with Cardinal Pell, then think again! These people are only interested in creating precedent, and then using that precedent to go after both the Church and their citizenry.

One final note: The Vatican has not come out in defence of Cardinal Pell. Given Bergoglio's Vatican's propensity to be at the wrong end of every moral and factual debate, that should be even more reason to conclude that the man is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused.

It matters little whether Cardinal Pell has been accused of in other instances, and I should point out, that he has been acquitted as well in those cases. It matters not that he is not the valiant champion of orthodoxy that we would like to see. This is not a Church trial, and he is not on trial for not defending orthodoxy, for...

Ecclesia Dei is rewarded with abolition for its good work, as Catholic kids are threatened with similar reward - Sunday 6th to Saturday 26th of January

This will probably be one of the last if not the last of the time-period chronicles. There is simply too much happening too fast for me to write effectively about it. I hope to transition to shorter pieces which cover one topic and I have several in the pipeline, but I have to get through some of the time period stuff, so I shall make this brief...

In "Not Just More Scripture, But Different Scripture — Comparing the Old and New Lectionaries ", Peter Kwasniewski mada a point of pointing out that the Novus Ordo Missae doesn't have what the Roman Rite have plus some add-ons, but that there are significant substractions from the lectionary. Things get even more interesting when we analyse what got left out and realise that many of the 'hard' teachings were left out entirely from the Sunday readings, and some entirely over the whole 3-year cycle. He also had an article on non-reasons for preferring the Novus Ordo, which was written as a response to a famous convert priest who had written a piece with purpoted reasons to prefer the Novus Ordo.

The biggest issue for the U.S. domestically was the case of the kids of Covington Catholic High School, who were villified in the media for something they never did , on top of which the diocese joined in on the unjust condemnation, and added threats of expulsion to it without even ever having heard their side of the story. For once, Donald Trump kept his keyboard close to himself, which proved wise because after the storm had blown off and the story found to be false, he could then stand back and point to yet another example of the fake news media.

Before we get too praisy on Trump, we should remember that he is quite adept at producing fake news himself, as evidenced with his attempted coup in Venezuela, in which his vice president spoke to a relative nobody in the Venezuelan parliament, assuring him that the U.S. would recognise him president if he swore himself in, which he promply proceeded to do, followed by prompt U.S. recognition of this rouge politician, with Trump following suit with lies about dictator Maduro this-and-that, with Nicolas Maduro being the duly-elected president. This story has lots of legs left on it so I shall not write much on it today, apart from noting that the major event was triggered on the 23rd of January, and that the story being told in the U.S. - which has suddenly decided to back Trump - is the exact opposite of the truth. This was the major story internationally.

As always, fake news is not limited to the secular media, with neo-Catholic sites never far behind. In Christian groups cautious on U.S. troops leaving Syria, EWTN proceeded to tell us about how worried Syrians are about the U.S. withdrawing from its illegal occupation of Syria, without so much as citing one Syrian  - not even a fake one.

We all know that modern Western nations do not care one bit about children, so it was amusing when the U.K. used , the chldren excuse to introduce a pornography licence of sorts in which we are told that people will have to register with the government in order to view pornography. When governments pretend to care about children, you know it is not about them. If we accept the premise that the government is setting forth, soon you will need read alternative news.

The ever-empty Bergoglio decided to give some parental advice, and his advice was as bad as ever. He informed parents that they should fight, but not in front of the children. I suppose love and honour no seemed too old-fashioned for him.

Much more could be written about U.S. roguery or Bergoglio madness, but I shall conclude with the following...

In a widely-speculated-on move, Bergoglio decided to abolish the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. His stated argument is that the traditional orders have reached a degree of stability which no longer requires that the Ecclesia Dei commission be kept going and that the SSPX wanted to have negotiations directiely with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This, of course, neglects the fact that the Ecclesia Dei commission was about more than just handling negotiations with the SSPX. It was about preserving and normalising the Tridentine Rite, and issuing clafirications about how the authentic Latin Rite Mass should be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal - including even granting permissions to use other older missals. It saddened me to see the kind of normalism which has become all too common in the Novus Ordo, with people unquestioningly for the most part accepting this pathetic excuse.

It stands to ponder, for example, what will happen to traditional orders or nuns and monks which no longer have Ecclesia Dei protection. Will they be handed over to the wolves at the Congregation for Religious? How about those who wish to switch to authentic Catholicism? Will they find themselves under a Bergoglian commissar who instructs them to use the Novus Ordo, as the Franciscans of the Immaculate were forced to do? We shall soon find out.

This month's Bergoglio victim was the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which was finally de-commissioned on account of its often-laudable work in re-establising authentic Catholicism.

 ...

Acknowledgning Christianity's true enemies in the modern world would kind of help...

Part of winning a war, or even a battle - perhaps the most important part - is knowing who the enemy is. When someone comes at you wielding an axe, it is easier to assume the person is more your enemy than say, the manager of your hostel, no matter how bad he treats you.

It would be difficult to imagine that the manager of your hostel would want you dead given that you think he needs your money for his establishment, even though he has been trying to kick you out ever since he took over management. That bitter taste in your morning porridge may wreak of chlorine or cyanide, but you are probably going to dismiss it. "Pouring chlorine or cyanide into my morning porridge is something he said he would never do",  you convince yourself.

That little intro brings us to a piece which ran on Russia Today, or more specifically, RT America - the American version. I much prefer the international version because it is far more serious in its work, and employs far more serious journalists rather than simply slim and young women, although I suppose when in Rome...

The piece is the one below:

It is about Christians who were killed in Libya for their faith, by ISIS or people claiming to be ISIS anyway, whose mass grave has now been uncovered - or at least found. In the piece they are labelled Ethiopians, but I remember them being Egyptians and much of the talk in the piece ends up being about Coptic Christians in Egypt anyway, so I don't know whether it is RT America's  young slim women who have made an error or whether the victims referred to were actually Ethiopians or whether they were Egyptians. I digress...

The debate then comes around to something I have often mentioned myself: Namely, that people who claim to be Christians in the U.S. often end up supporting wars in the Middle East whose one consistent outcome has been depriving Christians of their ancestral homelands.These so-called Christians are mentioned as the biggest pro-war faction, which is hardly a controversial opinion, to be fair. The evangelicals in particular are pointed out, again, not in any way unfairly.

The journalist makes the case that it is probably about ignorance; that the U.S. public does not know much about what happens in the world, that it has been duped by the media and political establishment to support wars it otherwise would not do. There is probably some truth to that.

Much more to the point though, is the fact that Christianity is not the biggest religion in the U.S., but actually zionism is, or ameri-zionism, which I suppose is a mix of zionism and americanism in which no number of victims are too great if the U.S. does the killing or zionism is the cause. Most so-called Christians in the U.S., when push comes to shove, would rather support Talmudist Jews who hate Christ and hate everything about the Church that Christ founded than they would support Christians in the Middle East, Arabs or otherwise. That is the cold hard fact that most people do not acknowledge. 

In fact, as someone put it recently, Americans would rather give up Alaska than give up support for the zionist state of Israel.The particular appeal of zionism is that it appeals to no particular faith: One can be a zionist with little or not faith in God, and in fact atheist zionists are just as bloodthirsty as their 'religious' peers. Most zionists in the U.S. are not even Jews, but people who claim to be Christians. Of course, zionism is a heresy, so no Christian can hold to it without apostasising.

I wish this were only an evangelical problem, but years of listening to Catholic Answers has taught me otherwise, as have many conversations with people who call themselves Christians, even Catholics, in Sweden. I am often tempted to ask them: "If Judaism is so swell, why don't you just convert to it and leave Christianity to those who follow in the footsteps of the early Christians, the earliest of whom converted from Judaism to Christianity, often at great peril?" One day, perhaps in a bout of anger, I shall ask that question.

That evangelicanism is a creation of the devil is a topic I might have time to pursue in future. For now, suffice it to write that evangelicanism is entirely devoid of intellectual substance, so it should surprise us little that they will claim to care for Christians while supporting regimes which kill them and starting wars which are sure to leave Christianity worse off than it was before. The devil is smart that way, in that he can use our intellectual and moral blindness to fight for evil in the name of an imaginary good.

In the meantime, it bears remembering that the very same people who wage wars in the Middle East - ostensibly against dictators or Islamists - are the very same people who attack Christianity in the formerly Christian lands of Europe. It would indeed, take a very massive mental disconnect, to believe that these people want Christianity expunged from Europe but have it thriving in the Middle East.  That these same peope - and the zionists who support them - have been arming the same Islamists who they claim to fight, even in the face of clear evidence that these Islamists want to destroy every last shred of Christianity in the region, is also worth remembering. Let us recall that with the possible exception of Iraq, the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fought on the same side of every war that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 20 years or so - whether that be Libya, Yemen or Syria.

It is sad that I have to contextualise my piece with the following clarification but, given times are as they are I must: I am no friend...

The Christmas octave clarified, and reverence loses out again, starring your favourite whatever-he-is - Sunday 30th of December 2018 to Saturday 5th of January 2019

As part of my vow to try and be more timely in my weekly reviews - and to have proper weekly reviews - I thought I would release one in record time. I hope, as usual, to be brief, but given that I've been hoping for an end to the Bergoglian plague for over 5 years now with no end in sight, be prepared to learn that my hopes do seem to often end in disappointment! Anyway, here goes...

The year starts with what used to be called "The Feast of the Circumcision", but which was renamed to "The Solemnity of Mary" in the Novus Ordo deforms, on the 1st of January. Fr. John Hunwicke has often written about how this is a return to ancient tradition and not a proper novelty, strictly speaking. I have been willing to accept this notion, even though I have had my doubts, given how all the readings of the Mass have to do with the Circumcision and do not even mention the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is even without going into the question of whether reverting to ancient practice would not fall into the heresy of antiquarianism, given there was no particular need for it.

Well, I need not have worried much because Gregory DiPippo over at the beautiful blog Novus Motus Liturgicus had my back covered. He explained in The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision first of all how stunning it is that historians who ought to know better manage to get this issue wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. He also explained why the confusion came about, and why the feast is not called "The Feast of the Circumcision" until much later: It seems as though in the early Church there were 2 celebrations which fell on that day - none of which were particularly Marian -, these being the Circumcision and the Presentation.

Here are my first reflections of his piece, as commented on that day:

I am indebted to Gregory DiPippo over at Novus Motus Liturgicus for clearing up a few points of irritation I have had with the whole notion of the Octave of Christmas. It has become fashionable to say that it only acquired the name of circumcision later and that traditionally it was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would seem to vindicate at least in part NOChurch practice.

He manages to slay that notion entirely by showing that the most ancient sacramentaries all have reference to the Circumcision and that possibly the only reason it was not called the Feast of the Circumcision is because it might have been united with the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Given what  I know - however inadequate - about the Tridentine Reform, it would have been odd to see them innovating on titles. The explanation given in his piece titled  The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision does much to bring clarity to this whole issue.

He then followed his initial article with another one titled The Marian Character of the Feast of the Circumcision. That is also well-worth reading.

It often gives me pause to disagree with the good Fr. Hunwicke, but Gregory DiPippo is a very meticulous scholar, and he provides very strong evidence for his assertions - which Fr. Hunwicke does not even attempt to do - so I have no hesitation in following Gregory DiPippo's line on this. Ultimately, whether or not there may have been observance of some Marian feast on this day, the theological significance of Christ's Circumcision is much more necessary to commemorate on that day, especially given that it cannot escape anyone that all of Christmastide is a celebration of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we detract nothing from it by not celerbating it on the octave day of Christmas, the day on which Jesus Christ was circumcised.

The Bergoglian apostasy tour continues as do his attempts to try and prove to anyone paying attention that he absolutely abhors anything that Catholics hold sacred. The latest installment in his displays of irreverence was standing and absolutely refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament  during Eucharistic Adoration on new year's eve. The man will kneel for all and sundry, but not for God. I commented the following:

The Bergoglio menace - a beast of irreverence - does it again, refusing to kneel in front of the Holy Eucharist. Quite how anybody can claim that Bergoglio is a Catholic of any stripe is beyond my comprehension, because I doubt there are many who have worked harder to prove that point than Bergoglio has.

In fact, I would be willing to wager he is a satanist, a free-mason, a Talmudic Jew, even a Muslim, before I can call him a Catholic, and I can't even wager on him being a  believing protestant because although most such protestants, though they do not believe in reason, natural law or Sacred Tradition, at least they pretend to believe in the Bible, which Bergoglio clearly does not.

I don't know who or what Bergoglio is, but as I have often remarked, if there is a problem with perceiving Bergoglio as an anti-Catholic, the problem is not on the broadacasting side, but on the reception side. He has been broadcasing in high-fidelity audio ever since at least Maundy Thursday of 2013 that he has little regard for the Catholic Faith.

No doubt the Novus Ordites will tell us that standing is the new kneeling,  but anybody using his mind ought to be able to see that Bergoglio is now simply mocking us, and is being very forthright in his atheism. If  you don't believe me, then keep in mind that the Bergoglian Vatican press had written in celebration of...

The Grinch who attacked Marian dogmas, and kangaroo trials aplenty - Sunday 25th of November to Saturday 29th of December

There is, as usual in NOChurch, plenty of bad ecclesiastical news to go around. I shall, however, start with what is unquestionably bad news, but one which has still divided opinion because of the secrecy and irregularities surrounding it. That news, is of course, the conviction of Cardinal Pell for sexual child abuse, down in Australia, which seem to be working extra hard to cement its association with kangaroos, this time with what seems clearly to be a kangaroo court.

The uncontested facts are as follows: The cardinal was charged with a crime dating from the 1990s. Before that he was in charge of financial reforms at the Vatican, during the course of which he is widely reported to have found irregularities and was blocked in his attempts at following these irregularities up. He was also opposed to the Bergoglian antics of the 2015 synod, famously shouting "the manipulatio of this synod must stop!" or some such thing. Not long afterwards the accusations against him picked up steam and he chose to go back to Australia to fight the charges rather than stay in Rome, which he could have done given that he had a Vatican passport - or so I have been led to believe.

Many obviously see the charges against him as part of a conspiracy to remove him from the Vatican so that he would not follow up the financial corruption he had uncovered. Others see Cardinal Pell's case as another example of a highly-placed Vatican official being a child molester. Those 2 stories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some see him as an ardent traditionalist, a charge false at best, while others see him as a conservative who is part of the problem, probably  not entirely unfounded but far from telling the full picture.

In any case,  Cdl. George Pell was found guilty by unanimous verdict, but even that is contestable as the trial was secret. The actual details about the case read like something from a bad fiction on Soviet times.

As has become popular in Anglo-Saxon countries, the details of the court case were kept under wraps and there is a gag order on reporting on it. Not only that, but  they have also gone after foreign news outlets which dare to shed light on the case. The Remnant put it best with the title Cardinal Pell Convicted, Details Available On Need-to-know Basis (and you don't need to know). The cardinal can appeal, but he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion by a media which is hostile to him largely because he opposes the sexual deviancy that they have been promoting.

Some authentically Catholic outlets have   chosen not to criticise the process and accept the conviction as proper. However, I find this odd because it does not seem to me that they can have any sort of insight into the case against him, and to judge a man based on largely unsubstantiated accounts is gravely unjust and an offence to justice. Others, most notably Gloria.tv, have labelled it a witch trial.

Not knowing all the facts, I cannot make much of a case in favour of or against the cardinal. For a good account of the irregularities surrounding the trial, I can do worse than point to an article titled The inexplicable conviction of Cardinal Pell, written by Phil Lawler., not exactly a reflexive defendant of NOChurch hierarchs. He makes the case that " in a proper legal system, not only is justice done, but justice is seen to be done" and there is nothing about a secret trial, held under a media gag order, in which irregularities in the timing seem not to be challenged, that can be considered just.

This case has eery similarities with that of Tommy Robinsion - a man I really have no affinity for and a zionist who I consider to be part of the controlled opposition - in which a secret trial reached a conclusion favouring a totalitarian mindset under the cover of a media gag order. Unlike that case, there does not seem to be any actual proof of any crime (although I hasten to add that the crime in that case was a made-up one), but rather conviction is handed down based on the witness of people who have dubious motives and characters, to say the least.

There is good reason to suspect that Cardinal Pell is innocent of these crimes, and good grounds for that comes also from Australia, where a Abp. Philip Wilson who had been convicted of covering up sexual abuse was later cleared. The accuser confessed to making the whole thing up.

I have previously warned that we must be very careful with the sexual abuse hysteria. Enemies of the Church, both within and without, will use it to attack the Church, both Her reputation and Her material wealth. They are hard at work at this, and given the potential financial rewards of accusing prelates or priests of sexual abuse, it is not surprising to see all and sundry coming up with accusations, and the media dutifully obliging in demonising the accused, with no evidence whatsoever. For that reason I am very pleased with the suspicious line that Gloria.tv has taken with regard to allegations of sexual abuse by priests, something from which Church Militant could learn a great deal. Watching Church Militant, it seems there is no accusation they are not willing to take as well-founded, even those coming without proof or those which have previously been dismissed. Perhaps it is because, after years of having gone after those who opposed Bergoglio and finally having to concede that those were right, but not having the integrity to admit it outright, they now find themselves having to jump on the bandwagon against anybody facing any sort of accusation of sexual misbehaviour, Whatever their reason, it is rather unsavoury, and not particularly charitable towards the truth.

Either way,...

Bergoglio shatters the irony-meter as the synod against the youth ends with gay abandon - Sunday 28th of October to Saturday 24th of November

Sometimes this Bergoglio character is quite amusing, probably without even meaning to be; almost certainly so. Without a hint of irony, the man who has led what is without a doubt the most sustained attack on the Catholic faith ever carried out by a bishop found it fit to tell us that we should, as one newspaper titled it "Defend Church from those who seek to destroy it". It deserves mention that he also implicated those who reveal sins of the hierarchy in this. He wasted no time in labelling them "the great accuser", no doubt in reference to Archbishop Vigano, who has exposed him as the sexual abuse enabler that he is.

I hope this will be a short entry, as I am running far behind current events and I would like to catch up. So I'll jutt make it a recap of what I think were the most interesting topics which caught my attention.

The synod, or "gaynod", as it was aptly called by some, finally ended, and not a moment too soon. The whole exercise was a waste of money, time and opportunity, or as Mundabor put it, "the faithless leading the stupid", although that was in reference to Cardinal Tagle who managed to demonstrate the absolute imbecillity of those who run the Church by engaging in a silly dance with some youth. What is it with NOChurch and the cult of  youth, and old men always debasing themselves trying to look hip? I shall not even mention the dance at the closing ceremony, in which even Bergoglio seemed to realise the stupidity of it all and chose to remain in his seat while all the geezers and  youths danced with gay abandon around him.

The always-combative and often painfully-honest Louie Verrechio had his say on the final document, which he described as "Montini’s gift to the LGBT cause", in reference to a Vatican document published during his time as pope. There is much to read in that piece but the most eye-catching was the following line:

As for the mitred bozos that approved of this text, their minds are another matter altogether.

There was once a time when I would have considered such a statement out of line, but frankly, that is much better than I care to address them, and "mitred bozos" actually flatters much of the NOChurch hierarchy.

It has been reported that most of the people who voted on the document didn't actually understand what they voted on, since the final draft was only available in Italian, and they had but a few hours to read them. If this is true, then it makes me think even less of these bozos who think so little of the Church and of their office that they are willing to sign off on documents which they do not understand. That fact alone ought to render anything they did as inadmissible, and them as certifiable, but in NOChurch, it seems absurdity and incompetence is rewarded instead of punished, and we can be sure that those who signed off without question were given much more of a red carpet treatment than those (if any) who resisted what was obviously underhanded tactics.

One of the many idiotic ideas proposed at the synod was the idea that there needs to be some sort of Catholic blog certification. Obviously, the Bergoglians are tired of the fact that all of the authentically Catholic blogs are against them so they aim to silence their critics as they have managed to do on the ecclesiastical front. Quite why they think anybody takes them seriously enough to consult them for advice on what they should read is anybody's guess. It just outlines how out of touch they are with reality. If such a list were introduced, a "FrancisCertification", if you may, it would act as nothing more than a list of outlets to avoid .

Come to think of it, I would be very much in favour of them publishing such a list! It would make my job of discerning what not to read that much easier.

Enough on the synod against the youth...Bergoglio's attack on Catholicism is multi-pronged after all.

One of his favourite tactics is going after faithful orders, which almost exclusively seem to be Tridentine-Rite, or trending that way. This period was no different, as we were informed that Bergoglian commissars have gone after the French order of sisters in France called "Little Sisters of Mary, the Mother of the Redemer". About 90% of the sisters have asked to be dispensed from their vows, rather than put up with a commissioner who is almost certain to be working counter to the mission of the Church and the charism which attracted them. As usual, they made up claims in order to justify their intervention , with the odious Braz de Aviz licking his lips to get in on the action, yet again. This is the man who claimed that the Church had never been better, some years back, which makes one wonder whether  his memory is bad, his grasp of the current situation is bad, or whether he simply does not understand what the word "better" means.

It bears wondering whether the man has ever seen or heard of a faithful order he did not wish to see crushed...

Destroying Holy Mother Church (or at least attempting to) is not a task at which Bergoglio can manage alone, nor is it one which he is undertaking on his own, as he seems to have ample help from most of our largely faithless Catholic hiearchy. Case in point: In Italy they had a bishops' conference, and one of the things some bishops brought up was the need to  abolish Summorum Pontificum. Only a few brought it up though, which in these times must be considered a sort of victory for sanity. No...

More dubious canonisations: Heads decency loses, tails perversion wins - Sunday 7th to Saturday 27th of October

We had yet another dubious NOChurch canonisation, as Pope Paul VI was canonised by Bergoglio, the man who seems to want to attack Humanae Vitae - pretty much the only thing Pope Paul VI did somewhat right, just about. The miracles attributed to Paul VI are as dubious as his character, but that didn't stop NOChurch from counting them as genuine, and using them as proof for his sanctity; these people are nothing if not relentless in their quest to destory all things Catholic.

Needless to say, real Catholics did not take this lightly. The SSPX issued a statement issued questioning it. Peter Kwasnieski went even further, and explained Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’. Louie Verrechio, in his own particular way, had his take on this queer man being raised to the altars. I have no idea what NOChurch media wrote about this, but I am quite certain it was entirely uncritical.

With so many canonisations, and so many dubious, people have begun to wonder: What exactly are we to think of canonisations? Does it mean the same thing? Are we bound to accept these things? How come there are so many of them nowadays and every pope seems to get a halo as his retirement present. Well, Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison in Unam Sanctam Catholicam attempted to show us what has changed and it shows clearly that whereas the old process was concerned with the integrit of the process, the integrity of the faith, the new one seems to be more interested in expediting the process, and not so concerned with anything which might slow or halt a canonistaion.

Part of the problem with the McCanonisations, is that we often do not get to evaluate objectively what was done, as much of the information is still hidden. The McCarrick scandal, for instance, has done much to cloud John Paul II's legacy, since it has come to light that there were warnings about McCarrick long before he got made cardinal, and that he was promoted in spite of these warnings. We were informed by ChurchMilitant.tv that the Vatican is gigging the McCarrick Investigation so as to place the blame on Pope John Paul II, now sainted by NOChurch's saint factory, and deflect attention away from Bergoglio - soon-to-be-sainted by said factory. Mundabor saw in this proof that Bergoglio is clearly an atheist, arguing that no true Catholic would canonise someone and then question the man's virtues after he had been canonised. I shall not waste your time in pointing out that Bergoglio is not Catholic at all, since that much should be obvious from what I have written many times on this blog, but I agree with Mundabor that this can count as proof.

My take on that is the following: This is a classic case of Bergoglian intrigue. It's a case of "heads, I win; tails, you lose". By this I mean that Bergoglio wins his greater plan to destroy the Catholic faith no matter how it turns out if he implicates Pope John Paul II in the McCarrick scandal, and the stronger the implication, the stronger his victory, and there is a connection to Pope Paul VI here as well. Let me explain...

It is no secret that Bergoglio is partial to sodomy. There are strong reports that Pope Paul VI at least before he became pope was involved in sodomitical relationships of the homosexual nature. If it turns out that Pope Paul VI is definitely proved to have done this, then now that he is a 'saint', what Bergoglio will have done is to create the space for him to claim that homosexuality is no big deal, since even some saints were homosexual. If, however, it turns out that the blowback is so large, then he can tar all canonisations by saying that canonisations are not infallible, are not trustworthy, and therefore the Catholic faiith has no certainties. It is the same with McCarrick: If you pin the blame on Pope John Paul II, then you  say thatt McCarrick's perversions either were not that grave, or failinng that, that Pope John Paul II was a flawed pope, who still managed to become a saint, and therefore we can be as flawed as we like and still manage to become saints. One can expect him too caption it "canonisation is  medicine for a fall world, not a prize for the perfect", just as he does with Holy Communion.

So what are we to do, given all these canonisations, a large chunck of tthem highly dubious? Well, a piece on either Rorate Caeli or Novus Motus Liturgicus tackled this issue head on. The conclusion was that perhaps we do not need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Although the Church does not define canonisations as infallible, certainly not within the scope of the dogma of infallibility, we can still maintain that pre-Vatican II canonisations are infallible, while those after the process was changed are not infallible. If the intention and the matter of canonisation has changed, then surely this cannot be without consequence for how we approach them.

The zionists in occupied Palestine continued their aggression. It was in many ways inevitable, as not having Syria as a playground for their airforce, they were bound to find other victims for Etheir murderous appetites . Donald Trump withdrew from yet another treaty, this time the INF Treaty, yet again proving that he will stop at nothing to placate the war party, contrary to his many statements on the campaign trail speaking of a responsible foreign policy. There were reports that the U.S. helped coordinate the drone attack on Russia's aribase in Syria earlier this year , really to the surprise of nobody since the U.S. has admitted to helping the Islamists ever since the start of the Syrian war, which they themselves helped to...

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its...

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists...

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS