There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...

The full verse of Isaiah 59:4 reads:

There is none that calleth upon justince, neither is there any one that judgeth truly - but they trust in a mere nothing, and speak vanities: they have conceived labour, and brought forth iniquity.

I was tempted to go with Psalm 93:16, which reads:

Who shall rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who shall stand with me against the workers of iniquity?

That would have allowed me to lead with "certainly not the bishops of the U.S. or the neo-Catholics"! As it is, I chose to stick with Isaiah.

The topic for today is the U.S. election, which takes place tomorrow. So at least soon we shall be out of our misery with regards to that soap opera. Specifically, I wish to write about the disgraceful silence of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, their even more disgraceful interventions where those have been present, and the scandalous acts of the neo-Catholic establishment, specifically with regards to Donald Trump's bid to assume the presidency. There will be time for a dishonourable mention of Bergoglio's attempts to interfere.

On the day before the election, I finally took time to glance at the Donald Trump's campaign policies from his own website. They didn't bring much insight as I already knew much of it. The most noteworthy were left out, these being his pledge to fight the abortion industry and his resolve to make peace with Mother Russia instead of inciting conflict.

One might have thougth that Donald Trump's Catholic detractors would at least base their criticism of him on his policies, but no, it has been anything but. From bishops to neo-Catholics, the tone has been that Donald Trump is ungentlemanly, all the while creating a false equivalence between the boorishness of Donald Trump and the sheer evil of Hillary Clinton, whose campain promises read like a what's-what of intrinsic evils. From killing the unborn in their millions in her country and abroad, to forcing the Church and her members to participate in it, to promoting sodomy and wanting to punish those opposed to it, to starting unjust wars abroad, arming Islamists, picking fights with world powers, this woman seems to he some kind of arch-agent of death.

To compare the policies of these two individuals would be akin to comparing the actions of  St. Peter St. Paul with the Emperor Nero - so big is the difference between the positions. Yet one  would never know it from listening to the myriad of bishops who have commented on this, and even worse from the many neo-Catholics who have come out openly against him from the very beginning. On which grounds is Donald Trump so odious? Apart from the myriad of personal attacks on the man's boorish character, we never get a response to that. Some have claimed that he is against immigrants (which is not true given he was married to the daugher of one), while some have cited that he has spoken derogatively on women. I am not the man's etiquette coach so I shall not delve into that debate, but I would expect any half-grown-up human being to realise that Donald Trump is no saint and is not running as one, so any critique we make of the man would have to be based on what he puts forth as his policies, and not who he was as a person say, 10 years ago (when, I should add, he was a member of the party he is now running against, a party which stakes its political claim on demeaning womanhood).

A few of the bishops have acquitted themselves satisfactorily, but they are few and far between. Some have been disgraceful, and there are no guesses that Cardinal Dolan is a shoe-in for that list, as is par-for-the-course by now. The actions and inactions of these bishops just serve to emphasise how much damage the Novus Ordo has done to the Church and how complicit the Church has been in much of the evil we see in the Western world today. The choices could not be clearer - one promises to attack the Church, another to defend it - yet the bishops are satisfied with "no candidate is perfect", as though there has ever been such a thing as a perfect candidate! One wonders whether these people are stupid or evil, or both, or whether they simply like to play the role of useful idiot when they have time left over for non-evangelisation!

The Remnant has done a good job of pointing out why Catholics at the very least have a duty to vote against the wicked woman - a woman who appears more satanical by the day - and made a convicing case why one would more or less have an obligation to vote for Trump. It is not a case of lesser evils (which Trump definitely is not), but one of double-effect. has also done a good job, as have many traditionalist sites. The neo-Catholic sites though, on the whole, have not been as clear in their opposition and have often muddied the waters.

There are only 2 things (of which I know) for which I can fault Trump - and I write this as someone who has been following his campaign almost from the start. One of them is his position on torture, an intrinsic evil. No Catholic can support that. On this point, it is difficult to imagine Hillary Clinton thinking otherwise since she has expressed a will to bomb pretty much anybody anywhere, and is in favour of killing the unborn till the point of birth, and almost certainly afterwards; in other words, torture and death for the most innocent. The second position of Trump which worries me is that on Iran, where he has been outrageously aggresive in his rhetoric. Again, this can be compared to that wicked woman, who in 2008 said that if elected president she would attack...

Basilica of St. Benedict: Thank you for the memories!

It is with great sadness I learnt that the Basilica of St. Benedict had been destroyed by an earthquake. It happened earlier today, on the feast of Christ the King.

The basilica itself was majestic. Upon entering one felt that it was a home away from home. One felt the closeness of hundeds of thousands, perhaps millions, of worshippers who had gathered there to celebrate the Holy Catholic faith throughout the centuries.

The Monks of Norcia had managed to revive the town and revive more importantly, the Christian spirit of the town. I have no doubt that they will continue with their good work, and will manage to rebuild the basilica over time, with the aid of the glorius St. Benedict and St. Scholastica.

The people of Norcia are warm and pleasant and very proud of their history, and with good reason. They will come back from this; of this I have no doubt. With the help of the monks, it would nor surprise me of Norcia once again becomes a bastion of orthodoxy in a decaying world.

I would now like to turn attention to the timing of the events.

As we all know by now, a ravenous wolf of a pope is coming to Sweden to celebrate one of the most successful heretics in the Church's history. I have little doubt that the man would rather be dragged half-alive to the site of the heresies' celebration than to cancel them.

If I was a ravenous wolf of a pope though, I would heed the warning of this earthquake. It was only a few days ago that I was watching a segment on Our Lady of La Salette, and the dire warnings she gave. In it she mentioned errant priests and earthquakes and other disasters befalling Italy. I am not normally one to seach for divine significance in natural calamities but this one I could not ignore.

Put it simply: This earthquake could not have been more pointed towards Bergoglio if it had produced in the earth an outline spelling out Bergoglio. Let us remember that the earthquake struck on the Feast of Christ the king, who was so viciously attacked and calumniated by the man Bergoglio is going to celebrate. It brought down the basilica dedicated to the man who is considered the father of Europe, a day before Bergoglio goes to celebrate a man who divided Europe line none before.

If this ravenous wolf in shepherd's clothing goes ahead with the celebration, history will remember that a pope decided to honour a great divider only a day after the basilica in honour of one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church had been destroyed. It will surely be one more nail in the coffin for our good future pope  who will no doubt condemn Bergoglio in the starkest terms.

May we keep the people of Norcia in mind, and with the intercession of St. Benedict and St. Scholastica, pray that out of the town of Nursia may once again arise a great Christian awakening!

Buildings do not talk and have no emotions. We are the ones to feel the emotions when what we have grown to love and appreciate gets destroyed and I was indeed very sad at the news.

Still, in honour of the basilica I cannot help but offer a heartfelt "Thank you for the memories!"

I feel privileged to have been inside the Baslicia of St. Benedict and look forward to setting foot to the one which will be built to replace it.

He that is of a perverse heart, shall not find good: and he that perverteth his tongue, shall fall into evil

The words are taken from Proverbs 17:19:

He that is of a perverse heart, shall not find good: and he that perverteth his tongue, shall fall into evil

In fact, the whole of Proverbs 17 could be about the perverted man who we call pope, Jorge Bergoglio.

This piece grew out of spone spontaeous thoughts I had to the day's links on the 25th of October, yet another day in the long line of occasions Bergoglio has used to belittle Church teaching, this time indirectly by attacking those who defend it.

Given Bergoglio's latest cringeworthy rant against those who attempt to live by Christ's teaching, titled  “Beneath rigidity there is something else, there is often wickedness” by Vatican Insider, I must, somewhat reluctanctly, agree with Mundabor that Bergoglio is a "lewd old man". It is a tag he has used multiple times which I have not been keen on endorshing in the past but the man's incessant insults aimed at those who try to lead pure lives hints at grave moral deficiency in the man.

There is something deeply sinister about a man who seems to think that people who act virtuously are hypocrites, or that there is "often wickedness" in them. This seems to be a man attempting to justify his own perversions. At the very least, these words betray a most perverted outlook on life and virtue.

We are well within our rights to wonder whether Bergoglio's attack on chastity is not because he himself has issues with upholding sexual morality on a personal level.

It is something I have been disinclined towards, but now we must openly ask it.

If he does not have problems on a personal level, then his attack on morality is all the more bizarre and inexcusable and he is a fouler man for it.

Bergogio's attack on the Church and God's plan for marriage continued today, with the words:

At times we have proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. This excessive idealisation, especially when we have failed to inspire trust on God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.

I must ask again just who he is attacking, just what is so abstract with the idea that marriage is for life, just what is artificial about it when Genesis tells us that God made us man and woman, to which The Word Incarnate adds "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".

That is not even the worst thing he has said this week. No, that award would have to go to his invention of a Novus Ordo heaven, of which he states:

What is the Kingdom of God?  Well, perhaps the Kingdom of God is a very well-made structure, everything tidy, organization charts all done, everything and the person who does not enter (into this structure) is not in the Kingdom of God. No, the same thing can happen to the Kingdom of God as happens to the Law: unchanging, rigidity…    the Law is about moving forward, the Kingdom of God is moving forward, it is not standing still. What’s more: the Kingdom of God is re-creating itself every day.

Granted, the week is not over yet, and there is more time for the man who Hilary White has apparently affecionately named "Pope Humblebrag" to outdo himself in more gibberish. Mundabor, without much effort, explains that the concept of an ever-evolving Heaven is a great absurdity.

This is from the same man who has admitted that he prays that people may fall into sin if they seem too sure of their virtue. Granted, we canot be sure if he actually prays, so we must take his comment with a good measure of salt, but what we do know for sure is that he was not ashamed to say that he prays for sins to befall other people, simply because those people seem to practice virtue. Mind you, this is the same Bergoglio who answers "Who am I to judge" when asked about the presumably sodomitical priest who he put in charge of his living quarters. Evidently, the man's capacity to judge only activates itself upon those who aim to follow the ways of God.

Dovetailing to my initial point: Bergoglio's attack on the Church's teaching on morality is incessant, as is his promotion of all manner of actual sins (discounting the many false sins he admonishes). He seems to have a special soft spot for sexual deviancy, and also seems to surround himself with perverts of all kinds. 

It is significant that he does not seem to believe that God's grace can help us overcome sins, and seems to assume that those who act virtuous are hypocrites with a hidden wickedness. Nor surprisingly, perhaps, this seems to be the sentiment of Martin Luther, the heresiarch that Bergoglio will be celebrating within a week. They say "great minds think alike", and the same would seem to apply to lewd heretics, a group to which Bergolio certainly seems to belong.

A man who speaks with such venom against those who are trying to follow the way of Christ in a very hostile culture cannot be a good man. Above all, he cannot be a man who aspires to good by way of Christ. Whatever notion of good such a man has would have to be a twisted one.

Whether Bergoglio he practices his evident lewdness or not (and with whom) we ought not really to speculate, but that his mind seeks to entertain all sorts of perverted notions is certainly not up for debate, not any longer.


The evil clown is coming to town

The title of this piece is a bit less sanguine than normal but I couldn't resist it, especially given that it rhymes a bit. Furthermore, I am not ashamed at my indignation over a pope coming to this country to celebrate errors against the faith of Holy Mother Church.

On this day next week, barring divine intervention, Bergoglio will be in Lund celebrating the longevity of one of the Church's arch-heresiarch's heresies. Sure, his enablers call it commemoration, but a celebration by any other name is still a celebration.

Yes, believe it or not there are still people hell-bent on defending everything that man does. Some do it because they approve of his approach to de-Christianise Christianity, others because they want to play 'devil's advocate' (FYI: the devil's advocate was not actually there to promote the devil's work), others because they simply do not have the courage to muster a defence of the faith, and no doubt we can jot down reasons to escape reality till our life's breath gives way, but suffice to say that those looking for excuses will always find them.

In the Nordic countries, we were treated to a scandalous letter from the bishops, the contents of which I hope to assess at a later date, so the warm-up act to Bergoglio's main jumboree is in full sing.

Since a lot of the people claim to be Catholics, and not a few of them claim to know what the Church teaches - including our weak bishops -, it has left me wondering just what it would take to get them to acknowledge that Bergoglio is an enemy of the faith. I have seriously begun to wonder whether there is anything the man would say which would get these people off their comfort zone and actually denounce the anti-Catholic actions of the man.

So, taking my cue from The Remnant Forum, in which Michael Matt proposed that Bergoglio's defenders make a list of things so scandalous that if he ever did them they would disown him,  what follows is a list of brazenly outrageous actions which I propose to be the 'red line'. If you find yourself thinking, "the pope would never do that", just keep in mind that you would probably had said the same thing had I listed (before he did these things) that a pope would say that most marriages are invalid and many non-marriages are valid, that nobody is damned forever, that adultery committed enough ceases to be a mortal sin, and so on.

Some of what is on the list he has already done anyway, but it is so outrageous that I could not leave it out.

Here goes a list of outrageous statements which may be uttered the the man:

  1. Insists that the Miracle of the multiplication of the loaves was that of sharing and not , as the miracle is called, "the multiplication of the loaves".
  2. Claims that the Apostles made up the story of Christ's miracles.
  3. Claims that the Apostles made up the story of the resurrection, that we do not need to believe in a historical resurrection.
  4. Insists that most priests are laymen.
  5. States that many laymen are priests.
  6. Includes pets' feet in the washing of the feet ceremony on Maundy Thursday.
  7. Includes people holding pets in the Maundy Thursday foot-washing ceremony.
  8. After years of abusign the foot-washing ceremony, changes rubrics to allow the washing of women, thus confusing the faithful, but limits the washing to "the people of God".
  9. In defiance of his own regulations regarding the washing of the feet, washes the feet of non-Catholics and pagans.
  10. Shouts "Allahu Akbar" from the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square.
  11. Shouts "Allahu Akbar" from a mosque.
  12. Insists that most married people are not married.
  13. Insists that many unmarried people are married.
  14. Claims that single people can be married.
  15. Insists that married people can be divorced even without seeking an actual divorce.
  16. States that those in adulterous relationships should need not leave those relationships behind in order to live virtuously.
  17. States that people in adulterous relationshpis may receive Holy Communion.
  18. Re-inteprets the 4th Commandment to include mother nature.
  19. Uses a Marian feasts to desecrate the facade of St. Peter's Basilica with vulgar images for crass humanistic reasons.
  20. Calumniates a pope by claiming that he had previously allowed nuns to use contraception - twice.
  21. In spite of his constant nagging about how we must be kind and merciful to others, states that good works are not needed for salvation.
  22. States that virtue can be a sign of vice.
  23. States that vice can be a sign of virtue.
  24. Tells people that having doubts about God is necessary in order for one to grow in one's faith.
  25. Insists that certainty about the moral law is bad because life consists of shades of grey.
  26. Calls evangelisation "solemn nonsense" outright.
  27. Calls proselytisation "solemn nonsense" and calls it a crime against ecumenism.
  28. Says that without protestants we cannot be truly Catholic.
  29. Says that many protestants are Catholic and many Catholics are protestants.
  30. Calls Muhammad an authoritative intepreter of the Gospel.
  31. Calls Christ a foreshadow of Muhammad.
  32. Tells Muslims they need not convert to Christianity and that they should grow more in their faith instead of seeking Christ.
  33. Tells atheists they do not need Christ and that they only need to do what they feel is good.
  34. Claims that Catholics need to study the works of Muhammad in order to understand the Gospel message.
  35. Compares the command of Christ to evangelise to the Islamic jihad.
  36. Says that one need not confess one's sins and that it is enough to show up in a confessional with virtually a nod and a wink to the priest.
  37. Encourages protestants to receive Holy Communion without renouncing the protestant errors.
  38. Encourages Catholics to receive bread and wine in protestant ceremonies.
  39. Receives himself bread and wine in
  40. ...

Doctrine to a fool is as fetters on the feet, and like manacles on the right hand

A while back I had intimated that I would write a 3-piece exposé on Bergoglio and his agenda. When I opened the article which I had begun writing, I noticed that the timestamp read

2015-09-07 22:39:09 +0200

In other words, this is a piece which has been more than 1 year in the making; shameful stuff. One would think given such a revelation that it will be long. One would be wrong.

In fact, I have abandoned the original idea totally and only aim to highlight what I think is my input into the dreadful pontificate of a faithless ravenous incompetent duplicitous Argentinian Jesuit who manipulated his way into the top of the mediocrity-promoting NOChurch. Hmm, here I was thinking I would work up to that,  but evidently, hand me a keyboard and I can't stop writing what I really feel about Bergoglio, just like hand Bergoglio a microphone and he can't stop talking about how much he hates God's Holy Church.

Before I get too worked up, I thought I might try to explain why I never really got around to writing the piece, whose unfinished version I shall leave unedited in order to kind of hint at what I had in mind.

Basically, there are 4 primary reasons for why I abandoned the idea, although the struggle to abandon it was a long back-and-forth tale:

  1. However much it might seem the case, no faithful Catholic (and I do make a genuine attempt at being faithful) likes to write about Bergoglio and what the modernists are doing to the Church. It is disheartening, and frankly, a lot of us feel it distracts us from the real mission to which Christians are entrusted - that of proclaiming the Gospel. I genuinely would like to write about positive news, or at least positive things, of which there is no shortage. That being the case, we cannot simply ignore the errors being fed to the unsuspecting, which is why many faithful Catholics feel themselves reluctantly bound to write about the unfortunate Bergoglio pontificate.
  2. A growing realisation that no matter how many scandals and heresies Bergoglio spouts, far too many will refuse to see that he is an enemy of the Church. They either do not have the faith or the love for truth to learn about what the Church actually teaches. Embracing the whole of the Catholic faith is a daunting prospect, not least because it forces us to leave our comfort zones and actually engage in spiritual warfare, often to the detriment of our social relationships or economic opportunities. It is far easier to be a NOChurch Catholic with no idea that much of what one defends has been condemned by the Magisterium and actually is still condemned, though tolerated (even promoted) by people who have no authority to change what the Church actually proclaims (since the message comes from Christ) so settle for confusing the faithful either through misleading them or leaving them in ignorance.
  3. The fact that in most of the faithful Catholic circles (i.e., traditionalists) the idea of Bergoglio as an enemy of Christ and His Holy Church is now a mainstream opinion. In fact, it is a mainstream opinion even among believing Novus Ordo Catholics, who for the most part cannot bring themselves to make excuses for the man any more. When I originally planned to write this, those who had concluded that Bergoglio was an enemy were a small and shunned minority - basically Mundabor, a few others and I - even the Remnant couched its criticisms in soft gloves. Now though, there is no shortage of articles and writers listing Bergoglio's crimes against the faith, many of whom are more eloquent, learned and thorough than I am. Some of those articles are linked at the bottom of this piece. The gloves have truly been taken off,
  4. The sheer volume of the insanity coming from the man and his comrades in arms make it impossible for me to keep up, and would have made any article showing examples of his assult on Catholicism outdated nearly as soon as it was published.

With that out of the way, I would still like to think I can make a small contribution to the debate not by highlighting what Bergoglio is doing - his agenda, as it were - but in sifting out his overall strategy.

Now you might be wondering: Why write anything about this if you abandoned the plan? To this I answer that it is for 2 reasons:

  1. I would like to think of myself as a man who keeps his word, so if I write that I shall do something then I either do it or at the very least offer an acceptable reason for refraining.
  2. With Bergoglio on his way to this God-forsaking country for his heresy jumboree, I felt duty-bound to at least wrap this up, not least because I intend to write about the heresy fest, and anything I write about that will make more sense in lieu of what I have to write.

So here is my small contribution to the greatuer unpacking-Bergoglio debate. Basically, I have Bergoglio's actions down to a 3-pronged attack on the pillars of the Church:

  1. Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church
  2. Attack the defenders of the faith and the hierarchichal structure created by Our Lord, especially the papacy
  3. Attack the family

 Those are the 3 pillars upon which all of Bergoglio's actions are based, his 3-pronged armada aimed at the barque of St. Peter, our Holy Mother Church. In fact, with these in mind anything which seems odd, creepy, stupid or downright  perverse on his part soon begins to make sense.

I'll just pass over them in brief.

Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church

Whether it is in his promotion of adultery, his attack on the holy institution of marriage, sacrilege in the form of Holy Communion for lechers or non-Catholics, insulting the Blessed Virgin Mary,...

By the comments of the afflicted we shall know them...

This piece comes from some reflections I had on the comments from an article written by Carl Olson on Catholic World Report.   Carl Olson is notable in that he was a big defender of Bergoglio, to the point of seemingly denying reality in order to do so.

That is no longer the case, as I had written previously. I expect any Catholic of any integrity to be joining him in condemning Bergoglio's shenanigans.

Here goes...


There are many informative comments regarding the interveiw wherein Bergoglio tries to create an equivalence in perception between the Great Commission to evangelise the whole world, and the actions of ISIS and Islamists to conquer the whole world by blood. The man has touched off many nerves, and people are fed up.

The Catholic World Report is far from a traditionalist website, and if I am not mistaken, many of the commenters have at least in the past been very vocal against the SSPX in particular. It is evident that Bergoglio's scandals have pushed even Novus Ordo Catholics against the wall and being there, more and more are realising they have to push back against what is a pirate of a pope. Carl Olson had 2 very good pieces within the space of a week - the other being the one about deaconesses, an idea Bergoglio typically suggested needs revision - and I have seen that with a lot of the other non-traditionalist Catholics who still respect the integrity of the faith.

I expect that trend to continue as Bergoglio's assaults against Holy Mother Church and the Holy Trinity become all the clearer.

Of all the comments to the piece, these two seemed to capture the essence of the situation:

I think after three years, I have no doubts in my mind that Francis lacks the academic stamina to lead Catholicism. This was first observed to me by a guy from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Every time Francis gives an interview, he reveals a shocking shallowness in his responses. He does not spend time to think through these issues. ...He makes ridiculous statements that betray a shocking superficiality in his thinking. The Great Commission has nothing, not even a remote analogy to Islamic Jihad...The question is: must Francis give these interviews? They help no one. Can't he maintain some silence and reflect? A Pope who is always talking has nothing to say.

Then we have this one, reflecting on the state of those who elected this very queer man:

At this point, one must conclude that trying to parse the statements of the Holy Father is like trying to pick up blobs of mercury with a pitchfork. Even more difficult is to try to relate them to authentic Christianity, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the history of Christian civilization, and the role of the papacy. He appears to be one of the most uninformed people in Europe when it comes to any discussion of things Christian. The real concern is not what it says about Francis – who, after all, is just one confused individual – but what it says about the college of Cardinals who elected him.

As to those who twist Bergoglio's around trying to make them sound Catholic or rational, Carl Olson had this pointed response to one of the commenters:

Glad to know what you think the Pope said in general. However, I was commenting on what he actually said.

So there we have it. From these comments, taken in order, we can see that some have concluded that Bergoglio is simply a "malignant buffoon". Others have realised that Bergoglio cannot be taken in isolation, and one must wonder whatever possessed the cardinal electors to vote for such an un-Catholic man. Then we have those who attempt to twist Bergoglio's words and Christian teaching with them, so as either to aid him in his assault on the faith, or hide from the brutal reality that they would otherwise have to confront.


And they perverted their own mind and turned away their eyes that they might not look unto Heaven, nor remember just judgements

The attemt to rape the Bride of Christ continues: The pirate at the helm beckons the rapists

And they perverted their own mind and turned away their eyes that they might not look unto Heaven, nor remember just judgements. Daniel 13:9

The Bible tells the story of Susanna in the Book of Daniel. She was a just woman, who 2 old leacherous men attempted to blackmail into adultery. These two men were judges, responsible for making just decisions, yet they avereted their gaze from righteousness, that they may be able to do their dirty deed. They failed, and were sentenced to death for it. I take Susanna to represent the Bride of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and the 2 leacherous men to be represented by Bergoglio and his gang of Kasperites and  modernists.

Today begins the synod on the family, ostensibly on the family in any case. I cannot help but notice that Bergoglio mentions Jesus much less nowadays - like the old men he seems to have turned away his eyes away from Heaven. Cardinals Kasper, Marx and the rest of the dirty gang hardly ever mention Christ anymore either, if they ever did, that is. Unlike the old men, who were driven by lust for Susanna, Bergoglio seems driven by a loathsomeness for Holy Mother Church that  is easier to notice by the day. He desires Her not for her beauty and strength, but rather like the old men mentioned in Daniel, he wants to shut down the doors that he can hold Her down and his gang can have their way with Her, that she be ravaged and left tarnished, just like the rest of the world.

At least the old men were driven by a natural desire and attraction to beauty. In Bergoglio's case, one wonders exactly what drives the man, but we know it is not a quest for beauty or vitue all the same, as he so often makes clear.

Last year as the synod was about to being I wrote: Will the synod on the family continue the rape of Holy Mother Church? The answer was not long in coming, and it was a resounding "yes!", at least to the attempt to carry out the rape in its entirety. He almost suceeded, but for the episcopal resistance which was raised after the mid-term report.

That Bergoglio and his gang of rapists attempted the rape can be in no doubt, as the mid-term relatio clearly demonstrated. We have been told that it was written even before the synod ever started, a claim which is eminently believable given that most of the synod fathers who have spoken about it have mentioned that it bore no relation to anything that was discussed. Even the Cardinal tasked with presenting it distanced himself away from it. Those who doubt that Bergoglio was involved would be well served to know that the man put in charge of the rape project, Cardinal Baldissieri, later admitted what everybody already knew, that Bergoglio had approved the mid-term report.

What has followed since has been one scandal after another from Team Bergoglio, leaving nobody who follows them in doubt that they have no respect for the sacrament of marriage, no respect for the family, no respect for God's laws, no respect for God's sacraments.

What we have seen in the lead-up to this synod is that the attempted rapists have been beckoned all the harder by the man placed in charge of protecting the Bride of Christ - Pope Francis - while he seems to have gone on and acquired some stronger straps, lest the Bride should try to wrestle Herself away from the rapists, and lest those faithful who defended The Church last time around attempt a rescue operation. He has evidently decided to keep the deliberations at the synod secret, lest the gullible sheep who have not discovered his evil ways should get wind of the machinations of Bergoglio and his gang. This time, in other words, there is unlikely to be the rousing of righteous indignation which the midterm report produced last  year, since there is not likely to be a mid-term report. There will not be a tally of votes on synod propositions since we are told the synod will not table any, and in any case, they will be kept secret.

It will be a rough 3 weeks. Bergoglio and his gang of rapists will once more attempt to rape the Church, scatter her children and sever her witness to Christ. They will in many cases succeed, but just like last time around, I think there will be a surprise around the corner. The Eastern Europeans have awakened, the Church in Africa is also awake. Many cardinals have spoken about the papal rape project. Whatever Berglio intends to do will not stay behind closed doors for long.

I remain convinced that whatever disasters strike the Church during this synod will soon be rectified by the next faithful pope we have, which I optimistically expect to be the one who follows Bergoglio. It says a lot about the Novus Ordo church, that the best I can hope for is that the damage that Pope Francis will cause will be reversed. I should be hoping that it will be averted at the very minimum, but the only way to avert it is through the end of this disastrous pontificate. Even if no declaration was to come, if no paper was to be released after the synod, good or bad, the damage Bergoglio has made is undeniable, and will have to be rectified by the poor man who takes over after Bergoglio.

The 2 leacherous judges were punished by death for their transgressions. Nobody will sentence Bergoglio to death for his. All he will get is plaudits from a world which has turned its back towards the LORD. Rather, it is the poor laity which will have to face the culture of death without having...

An emeny speaketh sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he lies in wait, to throw thee into a pit

An emeny speaketh sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he lies in wait, to throw thee into a pit. An enemy weepeth with his eyes: but if he find an opporunity he will not be satisfied with blood.

That is a quotation from the  Ecclesiasticus 12:15-16. I did not know before today that the same book is also called the "Book of Sirach". On top of that, the numbering of the verses seems to differ. So in the RSV, we find the corresponding verse in Sirach 12:16, which combines both verses into one:

An enemy will speak sweetly with his lips, but in his mind he will plan to throw you into a pit; an enemy will weep with his eyes but if he finds an opportunity his thirst for blood will be insatiable.

The topic today is that of the 2015-2016 Holy Year of Mercy, announced some time ago. In particular, I wish to address the developments which came about yesterday when Pope Francis wrote a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation. I still haven't figured out what the "new evangelisation" is supposed to be, by the way. If you ask me it seems to be another way of saying "no evangelisation", a point which has been made by others.

In any case, most of the letter is surprisingly Catholic, apart from somewhere in the middle where Pope Francis addresses the issue of abortion, writing "I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision". I am unsuere of which pressure Pope Francis speaks, but he makes it seem as though all women are forced into it through outside pressure or threats. For some it may be the case, but one may be hard-pressed to argue that it is the case for most. Many do it so that a baby won't interfere with their leisure activities, such as interfering with one's volleyball aspirations - and I don't even mean sex, which for most people in the West is just one leisure activity among many. In typical Pope Francis fashion, the sin is someone else's fault, although at least he does seem to think it is a big issue, although using words such as "tragedy of abortion" again give the impression that is is something brought about by external forces and not through the conscious choice of the women who make the conscious decision to kill an unborn child.

I especially liked the part about those who have been incarcerated, and are therefore unable to make a pilgrimage to obtain the Jubilee Indulgence. I liked it that the letter did not take the opportunity to rail against incarceration and instead speaks of those who "despite deserving punishment, have become conscious of the injustice they worked and sinceredly wish to re-enter society and make their honest contribution to it". That statement entails a kind of culpability which Pope Francis does not seem to think can be attributed to those who have their unborn children killed. The indulgence "can also be obtained for the deceased" so without a doubt we are looking at one of the few Catholic documents released in the name of Pope Francis.

Given that the letter is quite concise and without many contradictions, I am inclined to agree with Mundabor that it has not been written by Pope Francis. I am sad to conclude that, but I have a very hard time believing that the man who when he is allowed to speak freely cannot bring himself to uttering perhaps as little as 2 consecutive sentences or an Orthodox bent can write a document which is very much to the point and does not attack Catholic orthodoxy.

I write though regarding the SSPX, which is the very topic that Pope Francis addresses before concluding the document. Pope Francis makes it clear that "This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one" and that "those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins." That is all well and good, and the SSPX has taken time to respond, thanking the pope for his gesture while insisting that they did not need to be granted special permission during this  year of mercy as they have "extraordinary jurisdiction", as granted by canon law in emergency situations. One can hardly argue that the post-Vatican II period does not consitute a period of emergency - one which Pope Francis has made all too visible-, but I am not going to go into the particulars.

My point is that I simply don't buy that Poper Francis is being well-intentioned to the point of being generous. The synod is but a month away and Pope Francis has shown his cards very clearly. It is very clear that in his mind, Church discipline should have nothing to do with Church doctrine or Church teaching, or even obedience to Our Lord. I cannot help but detect a rather sinister ploy in which Pope Francis will turn around some time soon and say that since the year of mercy "excludes no one", and he has proven this by granting the SSPX special jurisdiction during the course of that year, that he would have to extend it to those in adulterous relationships as well. This is, after all, the same pope who said just 2 days prior to this that:

With these words, Jesus also wants to put us, today, on guard against considering that the exterior observance of the law may be sufficient to be good Christians.

The literal observance of the precepts is something sterile if it does not change the heart and is not translated into concrete attitudes.

Those are words which would not trouble us if they were said by a...

Where there is no governor, the people shall fall: but there is safety where there is much counsel.

Synod 2015 approaches: All hands on deck!

Where there is no governor, the people shall fall: but there is safety where there is much counsel.

Thus says Proverbs 11:14, as rendered in the Douay-Rheims version. The Revised Standard Version renders it:

Where there is no guidance, a people falls; but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

This article begins my attempt to headline every article I write with a quotation from Sacred Scripture. There is much good in the Good Book and I hope this decision will force me to study it a bit more.

As I do not comprehend either ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew, I am at the mercy of translators. I felt compelled to include both English translations because although the RSV renders it in the sense I would have wanted for my piece - for it is the notion of "guidance" and not "governor" I wanted conveyed - , I have decided to use the Douay-Rheims because I deem it more trustworthy from a fidelity-to-the-deposit-of-faith point of view.

Speaking of "trustworthy"; "trustworthiness", indeed, is a good word for what is lacking in the Church hierarchy today, and it is precisely that which compels me to write a piece before the upcoming synod of 2015, ostensibly on the family. Anybody who has been paying a close eye on what is happening will know that there is much to be concerned about. The reasons for the concern are very obvious.

For quite a while, although not anywhere near as long as the neo-Catholics or professional Catholics, I was compelled to hold my tongue a bit and not name the enemies directly, instead hinting at them. The time for such subtlety has long since passed, and I am even ashamed that I have been forceful enough in fighting back against the assault that we see on the Catholic faith from high ranking prelates, including the very highest.

There is little trustworthiness for the hierarchy among the faithful, for the simple reason that the barque of St. Peter is headed at this moment in time not by a faithful captain seeking to steer us into calmer waters where "there is safety", as the Proverbs tell us, but rather by a pirate, seemingly intent on crashing the Church onto the rocks and that is, when he is not content with sinking her by blowing holes in her hull. We thus have a twin-danger; on the one hand destroying the ship up - sometimes covertly, other times quite overtly - from inside, but lest the crew manage to repair the damage quickly enough, the pirate insists on launching the barque of St. Peter full steam ahead towards the rocks, all the while choosing the most troubled waters as his preferred course.

I would give much to never have to mention Pope Francis on this website, but the situation forces me to join forces with other faithful Christians who have made no secret of their resistance to him, often at great personal cost. A man does not sit idly by while others fight his battles. For this reason I feel compelled to write a few words about Pope Francis and his Bergoglian mutiny before the synod. After that it is my sincere intention never to write about Pope Francis or his gang of co-conspirators ever again, or at least  until his pontificate ends - which I obviously hope will be very soon. Of course, my end could come before that of Pope Francis, in which case the words I shall have written regarding Pope Francis before the synod will have been my last on him and his gang.

What will hopefully follow is a 3-piece series of  articles detailing precisely why it is very obvious that we are in the days of papal piracy. In these I shall attempt to show that Pope Francis is following the blueprint perfectly of one who commandeers the barque of St. Peter with the intent of sinking her. That he will not succeed we can be sure of: Indeed, we have divine assurance. However, it is very likely that the waves he causes will throw many overboard, and the explosions he keeps hurling - growing in size with remarkable consistency - in trying destroy the Church from within will dishearten many onboard. As the Book  of Proverbs tells us,  "the people shall fall".

Now, one might ask: Given that so many high-profile Catholics have had their say on Pope Francis, what exactly do I bring to the table that is so important that I had to write about it? Well, as I have written previously, this blog is mainy for personal reasons, and I have hardly any visitors, so swaying public opinion is certainly not my intention. Still, what else can I do? I cannot exactly denounce Pope Francis from the high altar at St. Peter's Basilica, any more than I can lead a large protest to warn Pope Francis and his gang that many of us are onto him. What I can do, however, is try and give a proper analysis of the situation, such that when someone comes along and says that "Pope Francis has not said anything heretical", I can point out that he has. When someone comes out and says "Pope Francis is trying his best" I can point out clearly that he is not, or rather that perhaps he is,  but not his best in proclaiming the Gospel, rather in undermining it.

I can do this because I have a reading of Pope Francis like few others it seems, and truth be told he never fooled me for long. There is a remarkable consistensy to Pope Francis that only becomes clear once one stops deluding oneself that he is trying his best for the Church. One only needs intellectually honesty, some historical knowledge and a grasp a healthy dose of scepticism.

Let us, however, be honest, and perfectly clear: Pope Francis did not grow...

The Communion of Saints - where men and women are held in equal glory

Not so long ago I watched a news piece on a Swedish channel- probably TV4. It was lamenting that the history books are biased towards men, which is to say that not many female figures feature prominently in history books. The claim was that even in more recent times, men get more mention in the media and history books, and sports in particular were mentioned as one arena in which men get more attention even though there are many prominent sportswomen.

The implication seemed to be that the history books have to be re-written in order to include more women. This would, naturally, come at the expense of many of the towering male figures that we have had. It is the leftist's creed all over again: If the truth doesn't fit, we must re-write!

As I have previously mentioned, feminism is the lens through which much of Swedish debate takes place. That men feature more prominently in history books because the major events of human history have been shaped by men seemed not to interest the makers of that piece, for the opinion did not even make a mention. That we would have to dislodge real historical figures to invent false ones does not seem to bother these people, nor is the fact that history ought to be the study of what has been, not what we would like to have been.

I would like to make it clear that I do not for one moment think that history books are skewed towards men and against women. That history books are skewed we know very well, but claiming that there is a bias against women is as absurd as claiming that they are biased towards humans and against animals; or less hyperbolically, at least as absurd as claiming that there is a bias in favour of adults over childen. History books can be skewed in favour of or against people for various reasons, and normally the victors get to write history books: "History is written by those who have hanged heroes", the narrator of "Braveheart" says very presciently.

However, be that as it may, the main protagonists of the main events of human history - until at least very recently - have almost invariably been men. History has been written by warriors and conquerors, by warrior kings and maybe even warrior poets, but the warrior has been at the forefront and men will almost always make better warriors - save for one exception of which I know, to which I shall return presently.

So the theory that women have been edited out of history books is patently absurd.

Nonetheless, it did get me thinking of one thing, and that is that there is a community, and a rather large one at that, in which men and women are held in equally high esteem, and have been held so for as long as one cares to remember. The list of these protagonists is not dominated either by men or by women, and women have been esteemed members throughout all the ages. This community is, of course, the Communion of Saints.

In this communion we also find our warrior poets (if there is such a thing),  our warrior kings and even our warrior priests. We even have a warrior virgin - the most esteemed Jean d'Arc. If one ever wanted to highlight an all-conquering woman then surely Jean d'Arc would tower above all of them. Tales of her achievements absolutely beggar belief: She was as good as any warrior, and better than most yet one finds very little mention of her. That must have more to do with the fact that in the end she was another loyal daughter of the Church, a young maid who wanted nothing more than a quiet life in the quiet village, a woman who despite that put her duty towards God before everything else. That she was French in a mostly Anglo-Saxon narrative doesn't help; for sure there would be much more of her if she had been an English-speaking woman.

She will not do, however, and neither will all the other women we proudly revere as our sisters and mothers in the faith, our torchbearers on Earth and our intercessors in Heaven, because you see, if feminism is the lens through which all political discourse takes place in Sweden, anti-Christianity - and especially anti-Catholicism - is the creed which holds all the contradictions of Swedish political discourse together. When feminism runs out of fashion - and it probably will - then (if the very same people who shape public opinion get to decide),  the fashion will just shift onto something else equally un-Christian. I am tempted to write "more un-Christian" but it is not apparent to me whether there exists such a thing.

So all our female saints, from the young to the elderly, will be edited out of history books, and proudly so by these people, because writing about them does not fit into the anti-Christian creed of the modern political establishment and its minions,. What they want is one which lures gullible women into thinking that women have always been oppressed by the patriarchal and paternalistic Church and that they have to buy into every debasing fashion that is drudged along nowadays to avoid getting back to 'the dark old ways'.

That is the real tragedy of history books.


Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS