show trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way,...

Beware of NOChurch cardinals, especially when they come saying the Tridentine Mass - Sunday 10th to Saturday 16th of June

In a week which contained a lot of major news from the secular world, it might seem odd that my highlights are to do with an event that didn't even take this week - the Chartres pilgrimage. My primary concern is for the Church, for only the Church can save the world, and with that in mind I shall go on to address some of the events on the Chartes pilgrimage.

It is rather significant that the Chartres pilgrimage has become so famous. I had not even heard of it until som 4 years ago or so, but I shall have to agree with Michael Matt that it is one of the most significant events taking place in the Church today, although in his case he plainly states that it is the most significant, with which I do not quite agree. Along with its increasing profile, the mass has attracted higher profiles of celebrants. Last year it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is probably the closest thing we have right now to a champion of the faith. When Cardinal Burke celebrated though, it was without a position in the Curia, having been unceremoniously kicked out of his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court) so that Bergoglio could railroad his full-throttled assault on marriage through easy annulments and sacreligious Communion.

This year's celebrant, therefore, would have to count as the most high-profile yet. In Cardinal Sarah, we had the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, the man in charge of not only the Mass but the administration of all sacraments. Yes, there are bureaucratically speaking other higher-profiled cardinals - the secreatary of state comes to mind - and even with regards to Catholicity the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ranks higher. However, in his capacity as head of worship, he ranks second only to the pope, so one is entitled to say that they don't come much higher than Cardinal Sarah. Also in terms of standing up for the faith, Cardinal Sarah is one of only 2 cardinals under the age of 80 - the other being Cardinal Burke - who have consistently stood up against efforts to water down the faith, or to outright corrupt the faith (however tepidly).

It was therefore with great sadness that I read a piece written by Peter Kwasniewski titled Traditional Clergy: Please Stop Making “Pastoral Adaptations”. It quickly became clear that the piece was about the final High Mass at the Chartres pilgrimage, of which Cardinal Sarah had been the main celebrant. Among the 'pastoral adaptations' on show was reading both the Epistle and the Gospel in French, instead of Latin, and not bothering with having the proper orientations when reading Sacred Scripture, instead turning towards the people, and not even bothering to chant but rather speaking it out instead. These were grave liturgical abuses. It is unclear who was in charge of these abuses - the master of ceremony, the local bishop, or the cardinal are all potential agents. What cannot be denied, however, was that in perhaps the most prominent Tridentine Mass in the world today, we were being confronted with a very well-orchestrated Novusordoisation, and that ought to trouble us all.

If there is anything that the Novus Ordo has taught us, it is that slippery slopes are real, and once embarked upon one will quickly find oneself close to the bottom. It is therefore inexcusable that at the most prominent Tridentine Mass the celebrants would embark upon the same slippery slope which led us to where we are in NOChurch today, i.e., little if any reverence at Mass, with priests who treat the Mass as if it is their plaything, and laity who froth in anger at hearing that there are authentic Catholic alternatives. Another point that Dr. Kwasniewski made which is worth repeating is that Latin is the language of the Church, and the Chartres pilgrimage is the most international pilgrimage that we have today. It therefore makes little sense to have the readings in French when many of the attendees will be non-French. They could, if they so wished, read out in Latin according to the rubrics and then afterwards read in French (which is allowed by Ecclesia Dei, it turns out, although even that is a slippery slope) but that's not what they did. In other words, I am quite certain that whoever made the decision did it knowing full well that it was against the liturgical laws and against the spirit of the Tridentine Mass, yet did it anyway, perhaps to force the point that the Tridentine Mass has to get along with the Novus Ordo mass.

This being NOChurch times, of course, not everyone was upset. As I have previously mentioned, Catholics as a whole have lost the ability to get angry at anything directed against the faith. In "WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T " (I've no idea why he insists on capital letters for his headlines), a response to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's Why we Say The Black and Do The Red, which was in turn a commentary on what Dr. Kwasniewski had wrriten , Fr. Allan McDonald chimed in that Cardinal Sarah was right to make adaptations in order to get people to feel at home, once again showing that the Novus Ordo has poisoned the minds of even many of those who say the Tridentine Mass occasionally. We don't adapt the Mass to ourselves; rather we adapt ourselves to the Mass, and the arguments he was making were well-adressed in Dr. Kwasniewski's original piece, which it seems blew completely over his head.

The best commentary on Fr. McDonald's piece came from Henry , who wrote:

A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the

...
Subscribe to show trials