God made you like this

 

Pope Francis explains what is happening and why.

No, he has not broken his self-righteous silence, but if we look back on a recent event, we may understand his motives. Pope Francis is not going to back down from his complicity with the Lavender/St. Gallen Mafia which put him in office. In the first place, he is as he boasts, “by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful”. And that he enjoys, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”.

In the second place, he believes that for an older homosexual man to force his will on a young, but physically mature boy is beneficial to the boy. This is not a new concept, it is thousands of years old. And today, sodomy between a man and a boy is a well respected tradition of initiation within the very circles that have gained control in the Church.  As we explained in The Pitchman“:

“God made you like this”

“Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are.”

Pope Francis said that during an interview with Juan Carlos Cruz, one of the victims in in the Chilean clerical sex abuse scandal. Cruz, who now declares himself a homosexual, is thus lauded by Pope Francis in a way that echoes the talking points of NAMBLA.

According to NAMBLA, one of their stated goals includes: “to educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love, and to support men and boys involved in consensual sexual and emotional relationships with each other.”

Passing strange isn’t it? The Vicar of Christ speaking as though he were a “card-carrying” member of NAMBLA, (the North American Man Boy Love Association). They firmly avow that they are doing young men a service; as one member once assured me, “I was making good citizens of them.”

Pope Francis uttered that blasphemous lie in the same breath with which he assured Cruz that he is the Pope. That is to say, he used his position as Vicar of Christ to deceive a young victim of a homosexual priest-predator.

Oh yes, Juan Carlos Cruz must “be happy” with who he is, for “God” made him that way. Whose “God” might that be? Why, the “God” of Pope Francis, of course. This demonstrates to us that this pope will not in any substantive way hinder the homosexual agenda in the Church. And Catholics throughout the Church are angry and betrayed as they should be. He does not believe that he can be removed from his position. “Supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful!”

Most Catholic commentators realize this, and are in favor of the civil and criminal investigations which are cropping up across the United States and beginning in other countries as well.  Their sentiments were reflected by a commentator I admire very much, Rorate’s Joseph Shaw, “Yes, let it all come out, even if some of the abusers turn out to be people we like and have trusted. As St Catherine of Siena said: “We’ve had enough exhortations to be silent. Cry out with a thousand tongues – I see the world is rotten because of silence.” (LINK)

Of course, he is right. These sins do cry out to heaven and the truth must be told. But we should bear in mind also that there is an agenda behind this.  We will soon see this crisis used to strip the Church of her properties, her wealth and her very last shred of dignity. And tragically, our Pope of Affliction will do not one thing to defend the pure and holy Bride of Christ. For this is the hour of Judas, and the power of darkness. The ancient enemy of Christ and His Church holds all the power of the world’s nations, as well as all the earthly power in the Church. Since those who lead the Church now and even most of the laity, no longer believe in the spiritual power of the Church, no longer wish to avail themselves of the powerful but humble weapons given to them by Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, it seems that we must proceed, as Jesus Christ our Savior did, to trudge the path to Calvary. How long, oh Lord, how long?

†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculata.

Note to my friends and loyal readers. I have worked overly hard to share with you an interpretation of what is happening and why it is happening in order to emphasise one thing only. All of this, every single item of every event that is occurring is for one reason only. In every event, God Who loves you so much that He willed to save you at the cost of His suffering and death, wants you to turn from your own ways of doing things, your own solutions to your problems, and avail yourself of His mercy and Hig generous graces, which are ONLY to be found in the one, true faith He established.

The Church remains pure and holy, even as Her founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ. When He lay in the dirt, bruised, bleeding, spit upon and seeming defeated, He remained the pure and spotless Victim, offered for our sins. And when His dead body was laid in our Blessed Mother’s arms, even then, He was preparing His Resurrection. The devil rejoiced to see His broken body and His Sorrowful Mother’s copious bitter tears. He rejoices now, as he sees Catholics fleeing the Church in disgust.

By leaving, they deprive themselves of the sanctifying grace which is essential for their soul’s survival in these times. Despite what they may think, sanctifying grace, the true life of God for your soul, only comes from the true sacraments in the true church. Those who have broken from the faith are abandoning the only means for their salvation. We are obligated to pray and offer penance for them, but do not look back at them.

Let them go, for Our Lord knows His own and they know Him. Those who insist on following Him in their own way, well, they are dross, let them go. Only by obedience to God’s merciful message of Fatima, through devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, ever obedient, will we be saved.

Please do not allow others to mislead you by spreading errors about the Society of St. Pius X. It is the true Remnant that will save the Church. Do not take my word but pray your Rosary and Our Lady will lead you to the Truth!

I will rest a while but have arranged for several re-posts of popular articles at the appropriate time. I do hope that you will continue to pray for our priests who are suffering a white martyrdom now, perhaps to prepare them for what is to follow.

I pray for you always, thank you for reading.

Pope Francis Must Resign

Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.

 

I’ve added an update at the end of the article. Please note the significance: Abp. Vigano issued this Testimony on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

When I arose this morning at 3 a.m., a reader had texted me the link to the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,  the former apostolic nuncio to the United States which has been made public thanks to Lifesite News and writer Diane Mantagna’s translation. Please refer to the Lifesite News article for the complete story. That link is HERE.

Archbishop Viganò stated that “The main reason why I am revealing this news now is because of the tragic situation of the Church, which can be repaired only by the full truth, just as she has been gravely injured by the abuses and coverups. I do this to stop the suffering of the victims and to prevent new victims, and to protect the Church: only the truth can make her free.” Viganò said the second reason he chose to write his testimony is “to discharge my conscience before God of my responsibilities as bishop of the universal Church. I am an old man and I want to present myself to God with clean conscience.”

I have taken the liberty of emphasizing pertinent sections as it is lengthy.

TESTIMONY

by
His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio

In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.

To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever you have said in the dark … shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3).

I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until end of May 2016.

As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.

To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the

1

Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.

The office that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State.

Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the Holy See.

In writing up a memo1 on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.

In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:

• Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the United States,

• and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2 ̊, “ipsius Romani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”;

• I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.

I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.

1 All the memos, letters and other documentation mentioned here are available at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See or at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.

2

My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any actual decision by the superiors on this matter.

Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month later, on May 24, 2008.

The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken.”

I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state.

This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006.

But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.

In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d’Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’ s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

3

Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance.

The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick.

It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the cover- up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned.

Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.

Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any reply!

4

The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick.

Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretary of State.

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a different ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it!

5

Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?

Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility.

***

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.

In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my first meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.

On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the red- trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”

At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.

The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!” Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had

6

upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation.

At the end of the audience the Pope announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me.

On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The Pope told me to ask if you are free now!” Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: “We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.

7

Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction.

It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position!

The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”

The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.” McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.

8

These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.

Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.

In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.

The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.

By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.

In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: “It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.

In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public.

Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I received worrisome information about him.

9

In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.

Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.

Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should resign.

But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated,as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.

I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.

Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance: Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!

In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin.

I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so

10

many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do … If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.

In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.

Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and dedication.

It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance.

Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!

Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”

Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit!

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!
Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us!

Rome, August 22, 2018
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary

11

Official translation by Diane Montagna

Note from evensong: Readers, Abp. Vigano issued this Testimony on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary! We have been expecting something of this sort for some time now as we wrote in several posts

Lethal Wounds Festering.

 

Presage of Victory?

An interesting thing happened on October 7, the day we honor Our Lady by her preferred title, Our Lady of the Rosary. You surely remember that 99 years ago, on October 13, 1917, our Blessed Mother identified herself as Our Lady of the Rosary in her last visit to Fatima.

Our Lady of the Rosary has won many battles against enemies of the Church. The earliest that I have found was the victory of Simon de Montfort on September 12, 1213 over the albigensian heretics who were in many respects similar to the neo-gnostics of modern times. Montfort’s mere 700 knights were victorious over many thousands of albigensians because Saint Dominic had taught them the power of the Rosary and had prayed for their success the entire time they fought. After their victory, Simon de Montfort established a Chapel to Our Lady of the Rosary at the Church of Saint-Jacques. Then there was the great victory of Lepanto where Catholic forces empowered by the holy Rosary trounced the muslim Turks and sent them running, thus saving Christendom from annihilation at the hands of the “religion of peace”. Even as recently as 1964, in Brazil, the power of the Rosary was used successfully to rout a pro-communist dictator after Cardinal de Barros Camara and Dona Amelia Bastos led Catholic women in a Fatima-inspired Rosary Crusade. Ah, but that was before the Springtime of Vatican II, wasn’t it?

Yes, the Rosary, when combined with reparation and a firm will to prevail for the glory of God, will conquer all enemies. At present we do not yet see it being used effectively, but perhaps we may before long. The Rosary and Reparation Crusade of the Society of St. Pius X is proceeding and even many who are not supporters of the Society, but simply concerned diocesan Catholics are joining in. Our Lady, as we have been assured by Sister Lucia, has promised us that nothing we ask for by this means will be denied.

“The Rosary is the prayer that always accompanies my life; It is also the prayer of the simple and the saints … it is the prayer of my heart.”

As Eponymous Flower reported,  for her feast day Pope Francis “honored” her with his tweet, “The Rosary is the prayer that always accompanies my life; It is also the prayer of the simple and the saints … it is the prayer of my heart.”

And we know that what the Holy Father says is true because as he himself told us in 2014, he snatched the rosary from the hands of the body of his dead confessor, saying, “give me half your mercy.” He keeps it in a pouch under his cassock, perhaps near his heart? So who says that modernists do not love the Rosary?

And so we have another example of lightning striking the dome St. Peter’s on the same day of the Pope’s tweet to honor Our Lady of the Rosary. That makes twice in recent times, and never before in recorded history. The last time was on the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes, February 11, 2013, when the St. Gallen Group triumphed with the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Funny how these episodes correlate with modernist popes and Our Lady’s feast days.

It does give one pause. If things run in threes, we might ask what is in store for December 8th.

Please, pray the Rosary and confound satan and all those who serve him,

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.

~ by evensong, for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin. Give me strength against thine enemies.

 

 

The Mysterious Necessity of the Mystery of Iniquity

It would seem that we have not yet exhausted the implications of Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication. Sandro Magister has picked up on an aspect that has tended to be overlooked.  In Tuesday’s article (here) he notes the significance of Archbishop Gänswein’s comments of May 20.

Benedict XVi Resigns and Lightning strikes, Feb. 11, 2013.
Benedict XVi Resigns and Lightning strikes, Feb. 11, 2013.

Gänswein – with the weight of one who is in the most intimate contact with the “pope emeritus” in that he is his secretary – had said that Joseph Ratzinger “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry.” …

“As of February 11, 2013, the papal ministry is no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and nonetheless it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed in his pontificate of exception (Ausnahmepontifikat).”

The formula, emphasized by Gänswein with the use of the German word, is not accidental. It contains a transparent reference to the “state of exception” theorized by one of the greatest and most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

According to this theory, a “state of exception” is the dramatic hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own. …

A word to the wise. Where Gänswein, citing the book by Regoli, refers to the “group of St. Gallen” and its role in the conclaves of 2005 and 2013, the reference is to the cardinals who used to gather periodically in the Swiss city of St. Gallen and who first opposed to the election of Ratzinger and then supported the election of Bergoglio.

The group included the cardinals Carlo Maria Martini, Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Achille Silvestrini, Karl Lehmann, Walter Kasper, and Godfried Danneels, the last two of these being particularly dear to Pope Francis, in spite of the fact that Danneels was proven to have attempted in 2010 a cover-up of the sexual offenses of the then-bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, against his young nephew. (end quote Magister)

The above remarks are merely a preface to introduce an analysis by Guido Ferro Canale, which Magister then offered.

Excerpts below; for entire article, please see Chiesa.

Continue reading “The Mysterious Necessity of the Mystery of Iniquity”

The Figure of a Woman, anticipating 2017

St. Hildegard’s Vision of the Five Beasts includes another vision, that which she refers to as, “The Figure of a Woman”. This is the strange figure in the woodcut below:

https://www.returntofatima.org
From Vision Eleven, Scivias, The Figure of a Woman.

 

And I saw again the figure of a woman whom I had previously seen in front of the altar that stands before the Eyes of God; she stood in the same place, but now I saw her from the waist down. And from her waist to the place that denotes the female, she had various scaly blemishes; and in that latter place was a black and monstrous head. It had fiery eyes and ears like an ass’ and its nostrils and mouth were like a lion’s; it opened wide its jowls and terribly clashed its horrible iron-colored teeth. And from its head down to her knees, the figure was white and red, as if bruised by many beatings; and from her knees to her tendons where they joined her heels, which appeared white, she was covered with blood.

And behold! That monstrous head moved from its place with such a great shock that the figure of the woman was shaken through all her limbs. And a great mass of excrement adhered to the head; and it raised itself up upon a mountain and tried to ascend the height of Heaven. And behold, there came suddenly a thunderbolt, which struck that head with such great force that it fell from the mountain and yielded up its spirit in death. And a reeking cloud enveloped the whole mountain, which wrapped the head in such filth that the people who stood by were thrown into the greatest terror. And that cloud remained around the mountain for a while longer.

The people who stood there, perceiving this, were shaken with great fear, and said to one another: “Alas, alas! What is this? What do you think this was? Alas, wretches that we are! Who will help us, and who will deliver us? For we know not how we were deceived. O Almighty God, have mercy on us! Let us return; let us hasten to the covenant of Christ’s Gospel; for ah, ah, ah! We have been bitterly deceived! And lo, the feet of the figure of the woman glowed white, shining with a splendor greater than the sun’s.

Continue reading “The Figure of a Woman, anticipating 2017”

The Destroyer Pope

A reader , Terry McCarthy, remarked on our last post,

“Regarding the current pontiff, I see the purpose of his almost daily heretical pronouncements as a way to destroy the concept of papal infallibility, and along with it, the immutability of doctrine. The fact that most Catholics do not seem to be much concerned about his heresies shows that they probably have already lost faith in the Church’s unchanging doctrine and are heretics themselves. The pope will soon be declared just another fallible church leader like the Anglicans’ Archbishop of Canterbury and all his declarations will be considered mere personal opinions subject to challenge by the “faithful”. Without the umbrella of infallibility, there is no genuine Vicar of Christ to unify the Church, thus Father Martin’s prophecy of the scattering of the sheep will be fulfilled.”

“…not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

We wholeheartedly agree. This pope is the “destroyer pope” of prophecy. John Vennari has an excellent column on the demonic words and actions of Pope Francis, see here. And we have, in many previous posts, discussed the prophecies, both scriptural and from approved private revelations which foretell of just such a time as this. Just search on he category, Catholic prophecy in our search bar on the right side.

In fact, earlier this year, we covered a bit of it in our post, “The Judas Complex and Pope Francis”, where we remarked on this apostate pope’s “homily” wherein he described Judas as a “poor, repentant man”.

Thinking on this strange Pope’s even stranger affinity for Judas recalled to mind Father Malachi Martin’s writing about the Judas Complex among the Modernist Churchmen who infest the Church. His 1990 book, “The Keys of This Blood”, has a final portion titled “Coda, the Protocol of Salvation” which contains a fascinating analysis of the precise situation in which we find ourselves today, under a pope who asserts himself as more merciful and practical than Jesus Christ, whom he insists he represents. Indeed, as he himself reminds us, he is “by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful”. And that he enjoys, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”.

In the earlier post, “The Judas Complex and Pope Francis”, we said,

Continue reading “The Destroyer Pope”

Malachi Martin’s Three Possibilities

In this article, we are considering possibilities proposed by Father Malachi Martin for the present and near future of the Passion of the Church.
Make a mess!

Continuing with the Coda portion of Father Malachi Martin’s book, “The Keys of This Blood”, Fr. Martin lists three possibilities, actually weaknesses, which are likely to be exploited by the enemy within the Church to destroy her. Each of the three would serve to sow doubt and confusion and scandalize the faithful, effectively disintegrating the vital unity of the Church.

The first possibility is if a sizable body of Roman Catholics, clergy and laity, become convinced, rightly or wrongly, that Pope was not elected validly.

The second is similar; if a sizable body of Catholics become convinced that the Pope has become a heretic.

In either of these cases, the primary source of disintegration in the Church would be that the Church, as designed by Her Master, lacks any earthly authority other than the pope to settle the issue decisively. As Fr. Martin expresses it,

“There is no official mechanism within the structure of the Church that is authorized to pass judgment on pope and papacy. Indeed, the Church’s official code of ecclesiastical law, canon law, expressly denies to anyone the right or duty of passing official judgment on pope or papacy.”

Now, that is, admittedly, a contentious subject and I do not expect to be allowed to let it stand. I am merely quoting Father Malachi Martin here. But perhaps most readers will agree, that even if there were a few Bishops and Cardinals who still had a staunch enough faith to stand up publicly and confront the Pope on these issues, [Such as the four Cardinals of the Dubia]  the Pope and his faction would simply rally their defenses – which are legion!

Then, do you think everything would just settle down nicely and the faith would be restored? No, the result would still be a shattered Church. Because the Pope is the key.

As we see, both of these “possibilities” foretold by Fr. Martin have come to pass, to varying extents.

The papal election has been cast into doubt, first by Ivereigh’s book and then by Cardinal Danneels, head of the so-called St. Gallen Mafia himself. And there is certainly no dearth of heretical statements and actions from this unfortunate pope. And so now, we have the catastrophe of many Catholics confused and arguing against each other, widespread disunity, a Church torn asunder. But there is an even more serious threat, the third possibility, which we alluded to in our post, “The Judas Factor and Pope Francis”.

Continue reading “Malachi Martin’s Three Possibilities”

Itching Ears

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy, 4,3).

In previous posts, we spoke of the warning of Father Gabriele Amorth, unless the Pope and Bishops consecrate Russia as requested by the end of October, the Chastisement will occur soon after. That, like all spiritual warnings must be understood within the context in which it is spoken. Since it refers to the Consecration of Russia, the context is Our Blessed Mother’s Message of Fatima. That is to say, the call for a renewal of penance and the Rosary among the faithful. For unless the faithful Catholics in sufficient numbers renew their efforts to obey in humility and true contrition, the Pope and hierarchy will not be able to repent and obey the Blessed Virgin.

Now, as 2015 draws to a close and October and November pass without the expected “fire from heaven” the multitudes of shallow and lukewarm catholics will return to their constant facebooking, twittering and endless search for ever more titillating prophecies, ignoring the by-now trite and “outdated” call to humble themselves, turn from their sins and do penance. And so the Pope and his backers, the “St. Gallen Mafia” of Danneels, Kasper et al, will proceed to gut the faith, offending God ever more.

Many catholics, perhaps even most, do not grasp that the immense falling away from the faith is the Chastisement. They do not see that the perversion of the doctrine and practice of the faith, the perversion of the liturgy of the Mass and the sacraments, and the lustful perversion of the priests, Bishops and Cardinals is a horrendous Chastisement. Indeed, the majority of Catholics value the purity of the faith and the personal purity of consecrated souls so little that they take it all in stride. They, themselves have lost the sense of faith. They have therefore, the Church which they deserve.

Now, inasmuch as the great mass of Catholics is so unperturbed by this spiritual Chastisement, God will in His own good time, grant them a Chastisement of the material world, which seems to be the only chastisement which will catch their attention. But they will not see it coming, for they will be too caught up in worldly things. Even those who consider themselves faithful to the traditions of the faith, who seek for always more information, when we already have all we need. Ignoring the hard and humbling work of penance and prayer, especially the Rosary, which holds so little attraction for the overly active Catholics today, they will be caught unawares.

For those who seek prophecies, this site is replete with prophecies, but they are wasted on those who do not understand that all prophecies have but one end, to urge us back to the right path, as did Jesus from the very first of His public ministry, “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This post-synodal time is the very last, truly the last opportunity we shall be given to mitigate the disaster brought about by the Holy Fathers’ refusal to obey God’s own Mother’s message of Fatima. It appears as though we are all to pay a horrid price for the   faithlessness of the majority of Christians.

“Have in mind therefore in what manner thou hast received and heard: and observe, and do penance. If then thou shalt not watch, I will come to thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know at what hour I will come to thee.” (Apoc, 3, 3).

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

Was Pope Benedict SWIFTed?

I recently read an interesting item  regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, on Maurizio Blondet’s blog.  That link takes you to his full article, excerpts of which I reproduce here. Excuse the poor translation.

From Maurizio Blondet, “Ratzinger Could Neither Sell Nor Buy”.

When, in February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI resigned suddenly and inexplicably, the IOR (Vatican Bank) had been excluded from SWIFT; thus, all the Vatican payments were made impossible,  and the Church was treated as a state-terrorist (secondum America), such as Iran. It was the economic ruin, well prepared by a violent campaign against the IOR, which was confirmed by the opening of criminal investigations of the Italian judiciary (which never fails to obey certain international orders).

Few know what SWIFT is (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication – Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication): in theory, is a world “clearing house”  uniting 10,500 banks 215 countries. In fact, it is the most occult and sole center of American financial power-globalist, stick to blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of economic espionage and political (to the detriment especially for us Europeans) and means by which the most feared global finance crushes legs to states that do not obey. (…)

The Belgian site Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium) in giving the news of the SWIFT alternative launched by Beijing and Moscow, April 5, recounted as an example:

When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.

There was a blackmail come from who knows where, through Swift, exercised on Benedict XVI. The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church .

This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have (considered) an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state “terrorist”, but worse –  note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “are not excluded from SWIFT” and continue to be able to make international transactions – and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions – in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had in fact been blocked. The Church of Benedict could not “neither sell nor buy”, its economic life had counted the hours.

Resignation under duress

It just has to sign (indicate) what Saura Plesio says: Ratzinger  “who fought against the prevailing relativism, never would accept” openings “on gay and gender policies. He never would prostrate to the “world” (and globalism) as this pope (Bergoglio), which competes with the prevailing secularism of the EU to create a form of “divorce sacramental” through “the short cancellation”.  He never would have (been) paid to do the great farce of Lampedusa made by his successor, which moreover is not even its territory, but the Italian state. The great powers have globalists quickly and Ratzinger was a blatant obstruction, a slowdown on their meteoric trajectory.”

How quickly was implemented the expulsion of Ratzinger also suggests that a particular drew out Luciano Canfora. Sympathetic unrepentant communist, but good historian of the Roman and Latin scholar, he has noticed in the motu proprio with which Benedetti has justified his resignation with age (“worsening Aetate “) a series of errors of Latin elementary errors in the concordance of the cases, as to blush a schoolboy. Now Ratzinger can not have committed these errors. The text was written by others, and he was sent away from the Vatican blatantly, helicopter resumed broadcast worldwide?

Immediately after his departure,  SWIFT unlocks Vatican transactions, reopens ATMs, back to the honor of the world the IOR. They did not wait until Bergoglio’s election; all it took was the expulsion of the “white terror”.

In the salons and unreachable between Wall Street and Washington and London, already they knew that the conclave would give the throne to a modernist, one they could trust. Why? The SWIFT sanction had been coordinated with the “conspirators” in purple, led by Carlo Maria Martini (a cardinal who requested euthanasia for himself, remember ..) (1) Bergoglio had marked as their candidate for years? There was an agreement of the conspirators with a strong external power, which are close to ideology? [NOTE: Here he refers to the St. Gallen Group, or Mafia-Club as per Cdl Danneels]

Maybe the election of Bergoglio will not be invalid. But it understands that the resignation of Ratzinger is – was forced to come down from the throne of Peter …. The ambiguous behavior of the same Ratzinger,  maintaining  the white robe and the title of the Holy Father, can confirm it: he wants to give a signal to those who can understand, without being able to say, that was driven out, not gone voluntarily. Now, as a marriage is void if one of the spouses has signed under duress, it will also be a Pope who surrender under duress, and also knows that he is Pope ….

This hypothesis explains very well the triumphal reception that Bergoglio received in America, the UN, Obama, the standing ovation in Congress – already, because then a reigning pope was invited to the US Congress? The thing is very strange and unusual. The relationship of Washington with the Vatican have always been from bad to very bad; not only for Protestant hatred against “popery.” Now, they have become excellent. The Pope is ‘willing mediator of the United States in Cuba’,  its the “radical battles”, opens the new morality compulsory, short stops being the antagonist moral that “this world” hates.

That would explain also the astute management to win the sympathy of progressive media; and the brutal but accurate “purge” that Bergoglio (with his council of Eight) has worked in the Vatican, as if he had in his hand a list long prepared. His willingness to dissolve Catholicism (into) Protestantism in general, vacuous, secular and worldly …

Bergoglio enjoins Christians to accept more immigrants, without limits, with total “welcome” and charity – Well: “With an official statement, signed by as many as 28 different allegiances (including as many as eight French and one Italian, the Grand Lodge ‘ Italy ), the Masons call on European governments to accept immigrants, indeed to embrace more and more. Thus demonstrating a convergence of intent with few precedents not only each other, but also with respect to the new strategies adopted by the Member States “(Correspondenza Romana, 11 September). here he presents the evidence from the Masons themselves. Rorate posted on this earlier this year.

It’s no lie that some cardinal contexts not elect Bergoglio, but invalidates the resignation of Benedict: money is at stake, and the risk of being at the head of a Church “holy” but put into misery by SWIFT definitely makes’ hesitation also the more traditionalCardinals .

As a believer, it calms me this idea: we still have a Pontifex, although speechless. The promise made to Peter is still maintained; the apostolic line is not interrupted, given the sacraments remain valid. And this only matters in the storm.

As men of this generation, we have better identified the false lamb of Revelation 13, with the power to starve and to block, so that “no one could buy or sell” without “The mark on the hand and forehead.” SWIFT, and the bank number (BIC) revealed even more clearly the essence of anti-Christ, and the true purpose of globalization. And you do not call it more conspiracy … But what plot? Here are acting openly, blatantly, without hiding more – and very quickly. Because he “knows he has little time.”

A few days ago, the Fed Chairman Janet Yellen has suffered a sudden illness as she spoke at the University of Massachusetts. On that occasion, as if by accident, we learned from the newspapers who would replace if not possible: the number two, Stanley Fischer, who was governor of the Central Bank of Israel until 2013, and has left that position to assist the Yellen . Even more fans pretend.

Apocalypse 13: 11-17: [11] And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. [12] And he executed all the power of the former beast in his sight; and he caused the earth, and them that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose wound to death was healed. [13] And he did great signs, so that he made also fire to come down from heaven unto the earth in the sight of men. [14] And he seduced them that dwell on the earth, for the signs, which were given him to do in the sight of the beast, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make the image of the beast, which had the wound by the sword, and lived. [15] And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain. [16] And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads. [17] And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Note

1) Painful truth foreshadowed in the letter of the nephew of Cardinal, Giulia Facchini Martini, published in the “Corriere della Sera” on September 4. The text reads: “You were afraid, not of death itself, but the act of dying, of death and of all that precedes it. We talked together in March and I, as a lawyer I also deal with the protection of the weak, I’d be called upon to clearly express your wishes and the care that you wanted to receive. And so it was. You were afraid, afraid above all of losing control of your body, to die suffocated. (…) With the shared awareness that the time was approaching, when you did it more, you asked to be asleep. So a doctor with two clear eyes and clear, an expert care that accompany death, you sedated “(Mario Palmaro and Alessandro Gnocchi With the death of Cardinal Martini was canonized theology of the doubt, Correspondence Roman, 12 September 2012).

Dear Readers, note that SWIFT is based in Belgium, home of Cardinal Danneels – and also Marc Dutroux who steadfastly held that he was only a henchman for prominent men in international finance. Our post, “The Vatican’s Lavender Heel” shows that the Vatican’s Lavender Lobby is linked to its international financial corruption. The two go together. The most recent homosexual orgy also involved drug smuggling using a car with Vatican license plates to avoid searches. For the latest on the Vatican’s most recent homosexual orgy see this post.
 But events are hastening to their conclusion….

For a similar post, we recommend: Grace Has Fled

Another post you may like: The Centenary of Fatima and the  Passion of the Church

Thank you for reading, I pray for you always.

Remember, pray the Rosary and confound the devil!

†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.

  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy Kingdom come, Viva Cristo Rey!

†  St. Joseph, guardian of the Holy Family, protect our families, protect our priests!

†  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

The Danneels Papacy

While most Catholics were distracted by the media circus surrounding Pope Francis’ visit to the United States, Marco Tosatti reported on a biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium. The story was picked up by Rorate and Edward Pentin, and others.

Among the information brought forward is that Danneels himself claims credit for the election of Bergoglio to the papacy. Quoting from Danneels himself, the authors of the biography state that Danneels affirmed he was part of a “‘Mafia-club’ called St. Gall” which worked for years to get Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope. Tosatti then quoted from the Belgian newspaper “Le Vif”,  “On March 13, 2013, an old acquaintance was at the side of the new Pope [at the St. Peter’s Basilica loggia], Francis: Godfried Danneels. Officially he stood there in his role as the dean of the cardinal-priests, but actually he had operated for years in secret as the king-maker.”

The Danneels Papacy
The Danneels Papacy

And now we know that Pope Francis has once again appointed Cardinal Danneels to this final Synod to start in a few days. For the time being, let’s ignore the discussions over whether this additional information, indicating manipulation of the papal conclave affects the validity of Bergoglio’s papacy. Let’s focus instead on:

What sort of man is Danneels, the man behind the Bergoglio Papacy?
What does it tell us about the Synod on Marriage and the Family?

Today, we’ll look at just a bit of information. If at all possible, I hope to follow up with at least one more on this crucial issue.

Elizabeth Yore is an internationally known advocate for children. Let’s see what she says about His Eminence Cardinal Danneels. In an article on November 4, 2014, she wrote:

“During his 30 year reign from 1979-2010, as primate of Belgium, Cardinal Danneels oversaw the disastrous free fall of Catholicism in the once strongly Catholic country. Danneels presided over the precipitous secularization of Belgium which instituted abortion on demand, same sex marriage, and euthanasia. In June 2013, Danneels indicated his support for providing legal recognition for same-sex couples. … Not surprisingly, under his episcopacy, religious vocations sunk to a historic low and church attendance dropped to a pitiful 6%. Continue reading “The Danneels Papacy”