Vatican mistrust

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The assessment by Murray is spot on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

Subscribe to Vatican mistrust