Alfie Evans and another NOChurch disgrace, and perhaps Le Creep is the equal of Putin after all - Sunday 22nd to Saturday 28th of April

From Le Creep's mouth to your screen: "I'm the equal of Putin". This story would have quite likely have formed the body of the article had it not been for yet another infanticide committed by the British authorities in plain sight.

It's too good a story to leave without comment though so I'll simply state that the only way that Le Creep Macron is the equal of Putin is with regard to the ages of their wives. Given that Putin is (unfortunately) divorced and (possibly) remarried, I might have to qualify that statement and re-state it as "with regard to the ages of their first wives". In any case, Le Creep informed us that he had to bomb Syria to prove that he is the equal of Putin, which tells us that we have in charge of a nuclear-armed nation a man with very deep and disturbing issues.

Now to poor blessed Alfie Evans, the latest public victim of the totalitarian death cult that has swept over all of the 'West' and is firmly entrenched in the U.K., as was proved yet again this week.

We had a sweet boy who happened to have the misfortune of falling behind on his development milestones. Upon closer inspection it was revealed that he had a brain disorder. The doctors supposed to assist him decided he would be better off dead. The parents disagreed, took the hospital to court and kicked up a fuss over it. The father, Tom Evans, is a Catholic, but the mother is not. The parents were unmarried.

The court, under the power of a homosexual (from what I understand) homosexualist decided time and time again that it would be in the child's best interest to have life taken away from him. This came despite the fact that the parents had raised money to take him abroad for treatment, that there was a plane ready to take him to Italy, and that the Italian state even granted sweet Alfie Evans citizenship.

None of that mattered because if the state says you are do die in a hospital bed, you are to die in a hospital bed, if they have to kill you to make it happen. This they did, first taking him off life support, and if that was not enough, starving him. His death came some 5 days after being taken off life support and there are strong suspicions that he was actually poisoned.

Now, just like Charlie Gard last year, we have in this a classic example of statism gone wild. The U.K. government simply cannot allow someone - least of all a Catholic working class man - to counter the dictates of the pseudo-religious entity known as the NHS, for if the U.K. has a religion, it is the NHS and the belief that the NHS is a source of good like few others and therefore must be all-powerful. This is the reason why the U.K. fights so hard to have children dying in their hospitals, because the NHS said so and because it would be a source of national shame to have a child flown abroad, treated and brought back to health, after the NHS had condemned that child to an early death on account of having a life it deemed not worth living.

Just like Charlie Gard last year, it was so obvious what the right thing to do was that even Bergoglio could not resist interfering - either because he actually cared for the child (I doubt it) or because he wanted to win some cheap publicity points (much more likely).

Bergoglio's invervention, however, seems to have been the catalyst for yet another disgraceful actor to enter the scene: the archishop of Liverpool Malcolm McMahon. This pathetic excuse for an oxygen consumer actually came out publicly and sided with the government. He actually went to the trouble of flying out to Rome to meet with Bergoglio, and it seems, to tell him to tone down his opposition, because it is reported that the Vatican's support for the Evans' subsided following McMahon's visit. Presumably it is McMahon who provided the title for the satirical piece The Gospel according to St Malcolm by EcclesIsSaved. That piece was written upon the death of sweet Alfie and was a follow-up to Career options in the modern world which had taken aim at the characters in this tragedy.

I have read that in its original Greek usage, the term "tragedy" is applied to a series of events which have a very unfortunate outcome  which derive inexorably from the steps taken before the regrettable conclusion comes about. If this is true then the case of Alfie Evans is tragedy 101.

In it we can track the moral degradation of a society whose primary indentifying feature is being not Catholic, on account of a king who killed a number of his wives and broke from the Church in order to commit adultery without being chided for it. Instead of contrition, the Brits seem to be proud of this fact. This very state then allowed the killing of the unborn in then 1970s, sodomitical unions in the 2000s - the same period in which it was going around the world bombing virtually defenceless countries in pursuit of another country's militaristic hegemony - , and now practical euthanasia. Then we have a NOChurch which is so hell-bent on cosying up to the 'modern' world that it is willing to go along with every evil, only paying the occasional lip service to the poor and the needy - and not even that to Almighty God - when it feels that no consequences will flow from such empty gestures. Of course, then we have the feeble British, weakened by decades of inane political correctness and unable for the most part to formulate an independent opinion, and a government which knows full well that it can take advantage of such an idiocracy.

What right does anyone in Britain, or...

Bergoglio hits yet another low; now using grieving children as props - Sunday 15th to Saturday 21st of April

In one of the more amusing-yet-informative stories you will read in a while, Steve Skojec decided to make an admission in "Coming Clean About My Latin Problem". It deals with how Latin is used to enhance worship even among those who do not understand it, and how even children appreciate the Mass much more than they do those in their mother tongue. He was as much surprised by it as anyone else, it would seem.

The ramifications of NATO's aggression on Syria continued this week. It is clear already, if it wasn't before, that the whole chemical attack incident which was used as the excuse for this aggression was a complete hoax.

The OPCW finally reached Douma. I have little hope that the OPCW will issue a clear verdict confirming the hoax. It is quite clear that part of the reason for the bombardment was to put pressure on the OPCW to not declare the whole thing as fake. Had the OPCW arrived before the bombardment the onus would have been on them to declare it a hoax so as to avoid military confrontation. Now that military confrontation has taken place, the onus on them is to save face for the aggressors, yet they cannot come out and flatly rebuke the Western rogue agents.

Expect therefore a document which in its title leaves the question unresolved but in its details more or less concludes that there was nothing! The credibility of the OPCW is very much at stake here, but its agents have livelihoods in the countries which carried out these attacks and have much to lose by coming out against these NATO aggressors.

The Christian leaders of Syria came out and denouced the millitary operations, condemning it fully.

A Novus Ordite made an attempt at defending the operation by this-and-that faulty logic, lies and misrepresentations, even bringing out the old Hitler mention, in attempting to argue just war cause and failed miserably; only succeeded in showing just how far the Novus Ordo has taken people away from authentic Catholic thought. What we witnessed in the piece is an attempt at claiming Catholicity which only proves that what counts as Catholic in many American Catholics minds is an americanist neo-con neo-Catholicism, which doesn't even look out for the Christians it purports to care for. Case in point: The Christian leaders are unanimous in their support of Assad, whereas an American neo-Catholic thinks she knows more about the situation than the very Christians who have died under the assault of Western-backed Islamists, and yes, that includes support even under the Trump regime.

It is my sincere intention to write more about this whole Syrian bombing scheme, since there is much that remains untouched and I definitely aim to return to the afore-mentioned piece in the event of that article. I really take no pleasure in critiquing a piece by someone who by all means is well-intentioned, and who I enjoy reading much of the time, but I must use that piece to point out how easy it is to fall into deceptions when one has been lulled into an alternative universe by being drip-fed lies. That the author also seems to despise the SSPX and is an ardent defender of the Novus Ordo, I am sure is not entirely unrelated. As of now I simply wish to urge anyone who does not believe me to look up "just war" in the Catechism - the new one will do since it has a much more elaborate treatment of this topic than the old - and tell me if anything of what she wrote is even remotely in accordance with a proper Catholic understanding of "just wars". It just seems as though many neo-Catholics are neo-cons first (waaay first), and Catholics second, when convenient.

The Skripal poisoning story refuses to go away, with Lavrom telling us that a Swiss lab involved in the investigation had told the Russian government that 'BZ toxin' - which turns out to be some kind of incapacitating, but not lethal, agent - was found in the Skripals.

The journalist Sandro Magister tried to make the case that Paul VI, despite approving the Novus Ordo reforms, actually disliked them. He made use of soem memoirs from one who was involved. Rorate Caeli warned us not to fall into this whitewas of history, reminding us that Paul VI was front and center the creator of the New Mass of Paul VI.It is difficult to argue otherwise given that Paul VI was celebrating versus populum and in the vernacular long before the Novus Ordo Missae was published.

This leaves us with Bergoglio, and his attention-whoring antics once again hit rock-bottom when he employed a child who had recently lost his father to once again undermine the Church's teaching on salvation and The 4 Last Things. In fact, what he did was tantamount to no less than spiritual abuse.

A boy came over to him - if we are to believe the story - and mentioned that his father had died. He spent some time with Bergoglio so I'll give Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt and assume that he asked the boy some follow-up questions - if not, we are left with the rather unlikely scenario of the boy trotting out his father's life story in less than 2 minutes, while having the clarity of mind to ask very theologically-pointed questions. It transpired that the father was an atheist who had nonetheless accepted to have the children baptised.

Bergoglio, true to form in undermining everything Catholic, proceeded to tell us that God smiled upon this atheist because his effort in having his children baptised even while remaining an atheist was greater than that of a believer who has his children baptised. He assured the little boy that he could pray to his father, and that he is almost certainly in Heaven.

In other words, Bergoglio rejected the very words of Christ who tells us that...

Dishonourable and impotent but still dangerous: The failure of Donald Trump to get anything done in his country imperils us all - Sunday 8th to Saturday 14th of April

As far as scandals in the Church go, this was a normal week by NOChurch standards.

We had  Carlo Capella, a former Vatican diplomat, being arrested on child pornography charges in the Vatican - well overdue, one might add.We had Cardinal Schönborn intimating that we could have priestesses in the Catholic Church.

Bergoglio issued yet another apostolic exhortation, this time called "Gaudete et Exsultate" - 'Rejoice and be Glad', which, let not the title deceive you, was yet another big rant against those who hold to the Catholic faith. We also had Bergoglio seeming to aplogise for his handling of the Barros sexual abuse affiliation scandal in Chile, and I write "seeming" because he found a way to say that he was not actually to blame and that he only acted wrongly because of the information he had received.

The fallout from Bergoglio's denial of heresy continuted, with one of the most prominent American neo-Catholics, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, finally publicly turning on him. The Remnant was quick to draw attention to the fact that Bergoglio is losing support from those who have defended him all along.

The big news were of course that the U.S. and its NATO lap dogs launched strikes against Syria. This time at least it took them almost a week before launching strikes against Syria, which is more than the 2-3 days it took them at roughly the same time last year.

Much of the week - by anyone honest - was spent actually exposing the absurdity of the alleged chemical attacks which were used as the justification for this NATO attack to have been carried out by Assad. A rather large chunk went to actually showing that the alleged events never actually took place, and that the whole narrative had been a hoax. That did not matter for Donald Trump and co. , however, as they launched their airstrikes on the very same day that the OPCW inspectors were supposed to visit the site of the alleged incident.

Most of the media covered itself in shame yet again, with Tucker Carlson the one notable and admirable dissenter in the U.S. In a series of episodes he showed just how much the U.S. has lied about this stuff before, that the U.S. defence minister had just 2 months prior come out and said that the chemical attack which was alleged to have taken place last year and which was used as the justification for airstrikes then was never actually proved . He also pointed out that there seems to be a pattern in which as soon as it seems as though the U.S. might be pulling out or drawing down its involvement in helping the Islamists in Syria, a 'chemical attack' takes place, which is used to drum up support for some sort of U.S. intervention in Syria.

The Russians, are, of course, in Syria and helping the Syrian government strike back against the head-chopping heart-eating Islamists who the U.S. and its Western allies - not to mention Turkey - have been hell-bent on unleashing in Syria. Russia had warned that it would shoot down any missiles which threatened its forces in Syria, and not only that, but that they would also target any launch platforms which were used. Fortunately, that did not come to fruition as the NATO strikes were cosmetic at best. Nobody died, which is the most important thing, and the equipment that was destroyed does not seem to have been irreplaceable.

Still, we are talking about an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country founded on a very lazy lie which was easily disproved and we should all be concerned that the NATO gang feel they can attack any country for any reason, or no reason at all. It should also be a cause of embarassment for all Americans that the president of the U.S. has more latitude in attacking countries for no reason than he has to put a stop to spurious money-sucking investigations directed towards him, or even building the wall which was the cornerstone of his presidential campaign.

A petition was launched by prominent Catholics in an attempt to impress on Trump the importance of the just war doctrine, not that it did much help.

I have already had occasion to write once on "The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria" and I intend to follow this story because it deserves to be followed, and also because of the disgraceful actions I have seen from both Catholics and non-Catholics regardin this latest Western aggression against yet another sovereign state. The mainstream media was predictably extremely vociferous in its support and encouragement for military action against Syria, relying on lies and disinformation based upon previous lies and disinformation to make its case.

Some of the most prominent traditionalist Catholics were very vocal in their opposition to these strikes, as was the Christian community in Syria. The Remnant and OnePeterFive deserve honourable mentions as well as contrast. At The Remnant, nobody commenting on the story believed the U.S. government story. At OnePeterFive, the publishers did not believe it, but since the quality of Catholicism is lower there  - it is not exclusively or even primarily traditionalist in nature - the quality of the responses towards the official Western narrative was also noticeably worse.

One more important thing to take home from this is that Donald Trump missed a golden chance to assure his re-election. If he had turned to the people who elected him and told him that this is just another fake news media ploy, I have little doubt that he would have stood out as a giant among (granted, mediocre) men. Instead, he missed the oppostunity to look smart for once and now looks just like another stooge of the deep state and the American war machine. As far as I am concerned, the U.S. would be better off if Donald Trump was to be impeached because at least that would pull...

Training my neck muscles: On drones and the Blessed Sacrament, and NOChurch being good for something - Sunday 1st to Saturday 8th of April - Easter Week

It was Easter week, and a good week it was indeed. Whatever else happens in the world cannot take away from the joy of the Resurrection.

Easter Sunday this year fell on April Fool's day, and Mundabor took the time to make an Easter confession regarding how he had met  a new younger woman and in order to seek happiness he was obliged to follow his emotions and leave his family for her. I recognised it as an April Fools' day immediately, having followed his blog for long enough to realise that he would come up with one, and having learned enough of the man to realise that he would keep his adultery secret, as any half-decent man would, instead of parade it about.

Sadly, not everyone was in on this and we had some of our lost Catholic sheep advising him to have an annulment enough so as to put a NOChurch stamp on his adultery. This again re-inforces the point I have made many times that the annulment process today is little more than a Catholic divorce and furthermore, that is how most Catholics seem to view it as well.

One story which might well have made a good April Fools' day, but which alas, was just another day in NOChurch, was the one about the parish which used a drone to deliver the Blessed Sacrament in  a monstance to the priest. Ringing a bell and walking solemnly to the altar just isn't entertaining enough for modern man, you know.

As the title pointed out, this was neck muscles training time and if there is one thing NOChurch is good at it is getting me to shake my head on account of the sheer volume of the sheer madness which I witness and read about. Shaking one's head is all one can do at times and I admit that I am forced to do it quite often.  I can admit that I never thought I would see the words "drone" and "Blessed Sacrament" in the same sentence, and we have to thank NOChurch for making that happen, I suppose.

Having experienced the pre-1950s Holy Week celebration, Jeff Ostrowski came to realise that he was wrong to Dread the “Pre-1955” Holy Week. One of the most peculiar thing about it was that the vigil was held in the morning - which even I find a bit odd - but he wrote that it didn't seem out of place. That it was much longer did not seem to be as much of a drain as he had feared either.

The Skripal poisoning story still hasn't died, and neither have those who were allegedly poisoned. At this point I am only continuing to use the term 'Skripal poisoning' mainly for categorising reasons, as that is the tag that I gave it at the beginning. Last week we were told that Yulia Skripal had woken up from her coma. This week we were informed that someone had logged into her facebook page when she was supposed to be in a coma. The Russians insist that they   won’t accept probe into Skripal case if Russian specialists won’t take part and who can blame them? There doesn't seem to have been a poisoning at all, one would have to conclude at this point. The Russians are not letting this story die down, and nor should they. The U.K. has to be named and shamed over this, and heads should roll, if not literally then at least figuratively, because we have agents who seem intent on starting a major confrontation and looking for a premise on which to do it.

In this week's entry for the culture of death, we had a German woman jailed for 9yrs for murdering her newborns & keeping bodies in freezer.

It is not all bad news though, so, for instance, in Syria, rebuilding efforts are underway, now that the only major pockets of Islamists remaining are those in areas under American protection. This is exemplified by drone footage from Ghouta showing the clearing of a highway which has been blocked for a long time on account of the fighting.

It would hardly be a week's review if we did not have stories regarding Bergoglio's ongoing efforts to destroy the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. This week's entries are varied but I shall only pass over them in brief.

First the world's favourite heretic was busy telling missionaries that they shouldn't be missionaries, and this didn't make news any more as we have tome to expect that sort of nonsense. Then we had a story which was issued on April Fools' day but which had not been retracted or revealed as one, regarding how one non-Italian cardinal confronted him regarding his denial of hell, one of his many heresies. I can't think that our cowardly cardinals will let it go beyond faint voice-raising inside the Vatical walls, but it's good that we have that at least.

Louie Verrechio had is take on Bergoglioism in a piece titled "Bergoglianism: An effort to rewrite the Divine Law" which details how Bergoglio's strategy in fighting the Faith is to reduce it to mere rules and ideals. In "Is Francis Catholic? The burden of proof" he lays out the case that it is simply not enough to presume that bergoglio is a Catholic  until proven otherwise, on account of the fact that he was baptised as one and presumably is in charge of the Catholic Church. No, rather he argues that "there are well-established criteria that must be met in order for one to legitimately lay claim to such membership". This is in accordance with the Encyclical Mystici Corporis written by Pius XII.

Bergoglio has, of course, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he absolutely abhors Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith which she...

The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria

On the 7th of April, I wrote about how Russia, having grown tired of the numerous false flag events that have been deployed in the Syrian war, had tired and decided to pre-empt false flags by warning beforehand of what they believed to be plans to conduct some. I wrote:

Having tired of false flag attacks by the Americans, the Russians decided to pre-emptively warn that the U.S. was planning one with the help of Islamists in Syria. This seems to have worked as we have not had any major false flag propaganda recently, as one would have expected what with the Islamists seemingly being cornered. If everybody knows that you are going to launch a false flag, then all credibility is lost when the false flag attack is carried out. The Russians and the Syrians have played this one very well.

With impeccable timing, the very next day, on the 8th of April, reports came out of an event bearing all the hallmarks of a false flag event; not even that, a hoax. The event supposedly took place on the very same day I released that article. Videos were circulated purporting to show how the Syrian government had attacked its people. Donald Trump went on his customary twitter rant, Hillbilly Haley did her thing at the U.N, and the lap-dogs in Europe of Theresa May and Le Creep Macron chimed in.

As few will have missed, the gang of rogue agents bannered under NATO launched airstrikes against Syria on Saturday the 14th. Only 3 countries did it in the end, but let not that fool you into thinking that the rest of the members are peace-lovers and warmonger-haters. The only other country which could reasonably had joined in was Turkey, and it has its own agenda which would not have been served by going along with this illegal action - although let us recall that Turkey has illegal actions of its own inside Syria.

There will be plenty more to write about this as more details become known, but I'll just mention one thing before getting to my main point: Unlike the events in Syria last year, which may indeed have been a genuine false flag (if the event ever took place, that is) this one appears to be a genuine hoax. In other words, the details which have come to light seem convincing on the matter that there was never any attack involving chemical attacks to begin with.

The term "false flag" is used quite a lot nowadays but it's worth making proper distinctions, given that it's often used wrongly.

A "false flag" proper is an event which takes place, carried out by someone other than the one who gets blamed, with the specific goal of using the blame apportioned to achieve other ends.

A "hoax" is a non-event which is prevented as an event.

Nothing takes place, but it is claimed that something took place, and blame is pinned as though an event had taken place. Before last week I would have argued that hoaxes were much more difficult to carry out effectively than false flags, but given the compliance of the media and the ignorance of the general population, I think the powers-that-be have decided that they do not need to go to the trouble of carrying out false flag events when hoaxes, cheaper and safer as they are, will do the job just as well.

It would seem as though what we had on the 8th of April was a complete hoax, which Donald Trump, the American establishment, the British establishment, the Western European establishment, the media, all of these sorry excuses for adults, fell for like a bitch in heat.

All we know for sure is that the White Helmets were involved. How many others of the aforementioned agents were involved is impossible to know at this point in time. The Russian government has pointed the finger at British intelligence in any case, although they have not yet presented any proof for this.

Back to the main point of this article, which has to deal with fantasies, and more specifically the fantasies which have enabled this tragic situation.

There are many flying around at the moment, far too many to list. One could be the idea that dropping bombs is humanitarian. Another is that the "rebels" are fighting to save Syria from a brutal dictator. Yet another is that the U.S. is an independent actor in all of this, only intervening to make sure that the sides are fighting fairly. Another is that the Western media can be relied upon to report on anything truthfully.

By far the biggest fantasy in all this let's-bomb-Syria-for-the-Syrians campaign is the absolutely ridiculous notion that the United States, that Donald Trump, that Theresa May, that Le Creep Macron, that Angela Merkel , that the media, that any of these narcissists care one bit about the well-being of the Syrian people.

They don't even care about the people in their own countries.

These people have been arming the band of militant head-Chopping Islamists who have terrorised all of Syria over the past 7 years. These people have mercilessly bombed the Syrian Arab Army in order to help the cause of the Islamists. These people have introduced sanctions on Syria to prevent it form being able to re-build after the war is over. These people have done everything in their power to prevent the war from being over. These people have occupied the riches parts of Syria to prevent Syria from having the funds to rebuild.

We are then supposed to believe that Donald Trump, Le Creep Macron, and medicore May care about Syrian lives, Arab lives, any lives. All the while they are claiming this, they are not only doing nothing to stop a genocide in Yemen on account of a naval blockade initiated by Saudi Arabia, but they are actively involved in helping Saudi Arabia enforce this blockade which is starving millions as...

The grinch who stole Holy Week, or more honestly put, the attention whore who tried to upstage it - Sunday 25th to Saturday 31st of March - Holy Week

As we all should be aware, but most are not, the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were quite sweeping. Berfore Holy Week, Rorate Caeli once again re-posted an article on " The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956". It is well-worth reading, especially in connection with the news recently that some traditional orders had been allowed to celebrate the pre-1950s Holy Week on a 3-year experimental basis starting this year.

Traditionalists are nothing if not resourceful and it didn't take long before there was a resource for the pre-1950 Holy Week with English translations, aptly called Pre-1955 Holy Week (although I grant that it may well have been present before the announcement). Rorate Caeli also provided us with a clarification on who exactly may chant the Passion. These two interventions by Rorate Caeli were quite helpful to me personally, as I finally came to realise taht the Passion is not actually the Gospel reading for Good Friday, but that we actually have a Passion reading followed by a Gospel reading, at least in the traditinal liturgy, pre-1950s edition in any case. Rorate Caeli was also kind enough to provide us with pictures of Palm Sunday from the pre-1955 Holy Week celebration.

Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Easter is the biggest event of the Church year (yet it seems that professional journalists writing for major state-sponsored publications don't have a clue about what Easter is all about, to nobody's surprise, and they are probably even proud about it). We shall also know that Holy Week is the most august week of the year. It is for this reason that the secular anti-Catholic world generally steps up its attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is also the week that the world's most popular attention-whore gets up to his usual attention-seeking antics in order to seemingly steal attention away from the Church's commemorations and celebrations.

This year was no exception, but having noticed that his Maundy Thursday foot fetish doesn't get the attention it used to , Bergoglio decided to get a little help from his now 93-year old atheist friend Euginio Scalfari. Every time he speaks to that an he can be guaranteed a few scandalous headlines and this time was no different. Just in time for the Holy Week Celebrations, in which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist and died to save us from the fires of hell and allow us too spend eternity with God, Bergoglio told his friend that there is no hell, and that those who die in sin simply vanish, while those who repent before end up spending eternity in the presence of God. This interview was timed to coincide with Maundy Thursday, and naturally overshadowed his feet-washing ceremony, which was once more carried out in prison and against the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, rubrics which he himself amended, it has to be mentioned.

The reactions were not long in coming, and predictably, much of the Catholic press tied itself up in knots, blaming the poor atheist fool Scalfari, instead of pointing to Bergoglio as the culprit. The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, informing us, as we all know, that Scalfari does not record his interviews so it cannot be ascertained whether what was reported was the exact phrasing that Bergoglio used. In other words, they were saying loudly and clearly that Bergoglio is a heretic, as we all know, but we can use the he-doesn't-record-interviews card to get us out of a very serious doctrinal situation. They could really have done little else, for had they said that Bergoglio had actually admitted that he doesn't believe in hell, then they would efffectively have been confirming what we all know, that the man is not Catholic. Had they come out and denied that Bergoglio said that, then they would have had to explain how it is that a man who, as far as I know, hasn't faced many accusations of total misrepresenation in his work before - save for when he speaks to Bergoglio - could get such a fundamental thing so wrong.

Bergoglio himself did not come out and deny it, so we can rest safely in the knowledge that Bergoglio told his atheist friend that. It must be noted that this is not the first time that Bergoglio has denied that souls end up in hell, as Scalfari has reported on this before, and even in Church documents Bergoglio has written something to the tune of everything been on its way to Heaven. His defenders have pointed out that Bergoglio mentions the devil quite a lot, and so he must be misquoted if he has said that the devil does not exist. That is a logical fallacy if ever there was one, as it is entirely possible to believe that the devil exists and yet believe that nobody ends up in hell; that the devil would spend eternity in hell with his demons. In any case it was dishonest of them as they could easily have found multiple instances of Bergoglio telling us that those who die in mortal sin never end up in hell, assuming that anybody can even die in mortal sin, which Bergoglio does not seem to believe - save for traditional Catholics who use doctrine as stones to throw at people while sitting in the judgment seat of Moses. That's his phrasing, not mine, of course.

On the topic of attacking the Church's doctrines, Bergoglio could not resist taking a barb at the notion of truth, insisting that priests ought not to make "idols of certain abstract truths". This was in a separate speech, mind you, proving beyond doubt, if anyone is still not convinced, that the man is in constant heresy mode, and not just when speaking to his atheist anti-Catholic friends who, if you are to believe his enablers, have nothing better to do than...

Sometimes good deeds do not go unrewarded - Sunday 18th to Saturday 24th of March

As far as the Vatican goes, this was a slow news week, which is good. The biggest news of the week, without a doubt, was the re-election to the Russian presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was rewarded for his stellar work.

Few were surprised at the outcome, not least since the polls showed him to be winning with a very large margin. The goal they had set was 70/70, which is to say, a 70% of a 70% voter turnout. The turnout was not quite as high as 70% - I believe it came up just short - but the support was even higher.

Here we have a man who towers above all heads of state in the world today, one who has charted a course which has seen his country steer away from destruction and utter despair into once more being a powerhouse. There is no doubt that most of the scaremongering regarding Russia is blantant propaganda and lies, but there is also little doubt that Russia is a feared nation once again, and most of the credit for that has to go to Putin, a man respected by most who have not not fallen victim to the propaganda of mainline Western narratives.

In the Soviet days, 'Russia' was feared, but today it is very much also a respected country. It is respected by many in the global South, and in the East, and in Latin America, because it has shown that one does not have to bend over to appease the West. In fact, Russia's greatest error after the collapse of the Western Union was allowing itself to be lulled into a sense of friendship with the West, for which it paid very dearly, with the country being looted almost literally to the point of bankruptcy.

There are those who, predictably, have said that the elections were rigged, although they have received a passing grade from observers. What many will find striking is the nothin that 76% of a country's electorate can vote for a single man, can support a man so as to essentially obliterate any meaningful opposition to him.

What a lot of people don't realise is that in Putin, Russians see a man they can trust, a man who they know loves his fatherland, and who has spent his life trying to serve his nation. Most Russians will definitely not agree with everything Vladimir Putin does, and neither do I, because the man is not perfect, as no one is. However, I doubt you will find many Russians who question whether what Putin does politically he does because he thinks it is the best for Russia.

Of which rulers (and I call them rulers and not leaders for a reason) in the West can we say that? Not even Trump comes close, because Trump's "America first" mantra in reality seems to translate to 'Israel first', to 'military-industrial complex first'. We definitely cannot say that about the rulers of the U.K, nor Sweden, nor France. What people also fail to realise is that Russians, although diverse in many ways with regards to ethnicity, have been forged by a common history, and they have a common sense of duty towards their nation.

It probably deserves mention that most Russians are 'ethnically' Russian, but the broader point is that their is a national sense of being Russian, and it would seem as though Russians want a strong ruler who they can respect and who also gets others to respect their motherland. It would seem as though Putin is a near-perfect embodiment of this rule, who actually is a very good leader as well.

One could make a comparison between Putin and Bergoglio, and if one can do it while maintaining a straight face one would realise that the two are polar opposites. The less said about the cabal running things in the Vatican today the better, but I shall say that those who claim that Bergoglio seriously thinks he is acting for the better of the Church, are more than kliley trying to convince themselves of that more than anything else.

I know that this is Edward Pentin's line, but how such a learned and good-natured man can say that in public I really do not understand. He knows more about Bergoglio's evil machinations and the mess they are making than most, so his claim does assume a seriousness that it would not otherwise merit. However, given all the scandals that have been uncovered, all the scheming, all the anti-Catholic statements, I really would like Edward Pentin to elaborate on how exactly it is he concludes that Bergoglio is trying his best and not working out of sheer malice.

So much for intentions. As for outcomes, I'll not waste anyone's time comparing Bergoglio's to Putins save to mention that one has turned his country into a feared and respected nation, while the other is well on his way to turning the Church into an obscene and blasphemous joke. That he will not succeed in his evil plans is neither here nor there, but it says much of the man that those who have always defended the papacy and papal authority are now his most fierce opponents, and that even the general audience is more or less tired of this lewd man, appropriately enough showing up in fewer and fewer numbers at his general audiences, such that some mockingly wonder whether they are still free to attend. As the elections in Russia showed, the people in Russia have taken the opposite view, and feel entirely content with handing over to Putin all the power he needs to do what he thinks is good for the country. If his record is anything to go by, it probably will be.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that Putin got more votes this time around than in 2012, whereas with Bergoglio, genuine Catholics seem to find him more offensive by the month, if not...

It turns out NOChurch is actually good at something, and Bergoglio's heresies are of his own free choice - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of March

We can really only start in one place, and that's with what has become known as 'Lettergate'. I tagged it as "Vigano lettergate" because I can only assume that there will be more scandals involving falsified letters from this dreadful pontificate and I therefore need to prefix 'lettergate'.

The basic story, as I have understood it is as follows. Vigano, who acts as some sort of communications director, asked Pope Benedict XVI to write a letter in promotion of a series of theological papers due to be released in 'honour' of Bergoglio's 5-year anniversary as pope. The Vatican released an image of 2 pages of the letter, only the first of which could be seen, with the signature on the second page.

It soon became known that they had blurred out the last paragraph on the first page. In this section, Pope Benedict wrote that he had not read the books and had no  intention of reading them. What seemed to be a mild endorsement had transformed into a complete non-endorsement of the books, and a less than complimentary take on Bergoglio's pontificate thus far.

In stage 3 of Vigano lettergate, it became known through Sandro Magister that the Vatican communications department had omitted virtually all the text on the second page, barring the signature. This part made it clear that Pope Benedict had refused to touch these papers on account of sections of the bundle being written by 2 theologians who had become known during his pontificate and that of Pope John Paul II for all manner of heresies. In other words, the non-endorsement had turned into a condemnation. If one was to read between the lines, one could see that what Benedict was saying was that people who have had all sorts of problems with the Church's teaching are now being used to endorse Bergoglio's theology, which can only mean that Bergoglio is more or less a heretic himself, and this coming from a 'pope emeritus'.

A lot of people wondered why Bergoglio's handlers had to go to such great lengths to turn a non-endorsement into an endorsement, and in such a bad way in which they were bound to be found out. Perhaps their incompetence simply doesn't allow them to know any better. Perhaps they do actually want Bergoglio exposed as the true fraud that he is. It's anybody's guess at this time. What is claimed to be the full text was then finally released, and Edward Pentin has done a good job covering the timeline of this scandal.

In any case, people realised what we have long suspected: Bergoglio's pontificate is burning itself to the ground to such an extent that they require some sort of endorsement from Pope Benedict XVI, whose reforms have been dismantled by Bergoglio virtually from the top down.

There is one thing which Pope Benedict wrote which is worth drawing attention to and in my opinion this is the take-away. These most important words of Pope Benedict XVI's letter are the following:

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today. 

What Pope Benedict XVI is telling us here is that Bergoglio's heresies and idiocies are of his own making and nobody else can be blamed for them.

It has become very common to excuse Bergoglio by saying that he had a bad formation, as a South American Jesuit in the 1960s. In other words, what these people are implying is that everybody is to blame for Bergoglio's stupidity than Bergoglio himself. The list of these people can indeed be made long, and would have to start with his parents, then his school teachers, his seminary directors, his bishop, his Jesuit superiors, and probably a whole big cast, not least of which is the case which surrounds Bergoglio today and is said to offer him bad advice.

Pope Benedict XVI utterly rejects this view and points out that Bergodlio did have a good formation and that his heretical ways are entirely of his own choosing.

This brings us to our next point...

One of the most dreadful individuals on the face of the Earth, Cardinal Kasper, came out with his usual tripe about Bergoglio and  contraception. This time though, Kasper is right on the money. It cannot be denied that Bergoglio has subtly endorsed contraception on multiple occasions, and while not endorsing it he has minimised its moral gravity. Kasper argues that Bergoglio's "silence" on the issue shows that he approves of it, and I could not agree more. As I commented on the day:

It creeps me out to agree with Kasper on anything, but I would have to agree with him that Bergoglio's silence on contraception reveals that Bergoglio is in favour of it.

However, even in that statement Kasper cannot help but be true to himself and lie.

It is far from accurate to tell us that Bergoglio has not spoken about contraception. It would be like saying that Theresa May of U.K.-poodleship fame has not accused Vladimir Putin of acts of aggression simply because she does not mention his name when making all kinds of anti-Russian statements implicating the Russian government.

Bergoglio has indeed spoken out multiple times against the Church's stance on contraception. In at least one instance he insisted that the Church "must not obsess" about "contraception, homosexuality and abortion". In another he said that Pope Paul VI changed his mind on contraception, allowing it for certain cases; a blatant lie and one of many.

Anyone who claims that Bergoglio has not attacked the Church's teaching on contraception ought to be ashamed that on this issue even Kasper the terrible cardinal is more truthful.

As if to accentuate the Novus Ordo's chronic ability...

Proof, if anyone needed it, that NOChurch is the devil's creation, from the mouths of Novus Ordites themselves - Sunday 4th to Saturday 10th of March

They say that polls can be used to tell us just about anything, and it's true that the way questions are posed does make a big difference. If the questions are posed in the same way year after year, however, then the polls must tells us something of value, if it is the case that there are variations year on year, of even if there are no variations, to the very same questions asked in much the same way.

This, I assume, is the way that the Pew Research Center has been conducting its various surveys aimed at Catholics on various issues. The latest survey is quite telling in may ways and some will indeed choose to focus on the fact that Bergoglio has lost a lot of trust among most Catholics. Mind you, by 'Catholics' the researchers mean people who self-identify as Catholics. Had the term 'Catholic' been defined to mean people who actually believe in everything that the Catholic Church teaches there is little doubt that the figures would have looked much worse for Bergoglio, but then again, there might not have been a big enough sample to go by, given that believing Catholics are virtually an endangered species after almost 60 years of NovusOrdoism.

I could go on and ask this and that question, such as "how can an overwhelming majority of Catholics still maintain  positive opinion about this man?", or "how can a majority think he is a force for good?". That really wouldn't get us anywhere because the point that traditionalists have been making for a long time is that 'Catholics' for the most part nowadays are practitioners of a religion that would have been deemed abominable by virtually any practising Catholic before 1950.  I'll not dwell much on Bergoglio except to point out that Bergoglio has only accelerated  a loss of identity and virtue that began even before the Second Vatican Council, probably since they re-made the Holy Week liturgy in 1950, and it is not hard to see why because the psychological effect of these changes must have led to the conclusion that Christianity is a man-made religion.

If you don't believe me then simply ponder what I wrote on the day I read the survey:

In other NOChurch apostasy news, we have a poll measuring attitudes of Catholics in the U.S. to various topics, althouth most of the piece focuses on Bergoglio. A lot of people will focus on Bergoglio but I thought the most telling point was the following:

The share of U.S. Catholics who favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry has grown from 54% in 2012 to 67% in 2017.

In other words, the mass apostasy within NOChurch began long before Bergoglio began homosexualising and anti-evangelising through his voluminous seemingly-never-ending rantings.

In a discussion that I had some while back, it was mentioned that Vladimir Putin does not give full freedom to the Catholic Church in Russia. I am unsure what that means, as the Catholic Church in Russia seems to be under less oppression than in say, the U.K.. In any case,  my response was simple:

If I was in charge of Russia I wouldn't allow the Catholic Church to operate either. This is a country coming out of 80 years of communist propaganda, with a president trying to rebuild the moral fabric of the nation. On the other side we have the Catholic Church, which in its NOChurch guise seems to do nothing other than promote homosexuality and feminism.

The survey of American Catholics confirms pretty much what I said then. Whatever NOChurch touches is worse off for it.

Many will say that one needs to make a distinction between people who self-identify as Catholics and those who actually go to Mass every single Sunday. I agree that the distinction is not irrelevant, but I have always argued that the greatest argument against the Novus Ordo is not the vast number of Catholics who never bother going to Church on Sundays, but rather a good conversation with a large number of those who do. I have had many of these discussions, and I can disabuse anybody of the notion that the statistics for Sunday Mass-going Catholics would be anything other than horrifying.

I really do not want to spend too much time on other news of the week, because nothing out to detract from the frightening news contained in that survey, which I urge everyone to read.

In other weeks, I might have spent more time on a new homosexual priest scandal, this time in Italy, on account of the news that a homosexual prostitute made a list of 40 sodomitical clerics with whom he has been involved and this list has now been presented to the Vatican. As I wrote last week, we seem to have sodomy news from clerics almost every week and it is utterly depressing, yet it explains so much of what is going on in the Church today.

I could mention that an African cardinal, a certain Cardinal John Onaiyekan, is bemused at why the Catholic Church in Europe is attempting to tackle the 'isolation' of homosexuals, instead of tackling its empty Churches.

In another week, I might have written extensively about the Italian elections, in which anti-immigration and anti-EU forces won the majority of the votes, very much in oppsition to Bergoglio's and the Italian bishops' conference's prodding.

We might have been able to tackle comments by Cardinal Brandmüller taking issue at the German bishops' conference promoting and authorising protestants to receive 'Holy Communion' on Sundays if they are married to Catholics, a move based on "utterly dishonest" premises. After all, these would be protestants who long so much to receive the Eucharist that they couldn't be bothered to enter the Catholic Church in order tod o it.

Also of mention is the fact the truth regarding the...

The Roman Rite gets in a good punch once in a while, vicious attacks on traditionalists not withstanding - Sunday 25th of February to Saturday 3rd of March

There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.

In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.

My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when  it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.

Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.

In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.

Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.

I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.

Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.

With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"

Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.

There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.

Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.

Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system  that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS