Recycling The Revolution

Recycling The Revolution: 1

THE EDITOR
ChristianOrder.com
August-September 2015

Let your speech be yes, yes: no, no:
anything more than this comes from evil.
– Matt. 5:37

In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.

Cardinal Kasper, April 2013

Now I propose to those who prepare the Synod to prepare a text which can get the agreement of the whole, of the great majority. It’s the same method also we had in the Council.

Cardinal Kasper, June 2015

The Conciliar “method” beloved of Cardinal Kasper and his Comrades was a wicked one. We know it came “from evil” because His Eminence plainly admits that it was tailored to avoid the simple “si, si: no, no,” demanded by Our Lord in Matthew 5:37. Marked by verbosity, ambiguity, and deceit, we have suffered the rotten fruits of this ‘progressive’ methodology for fifty dismal years: half-a-century of strife and destruction that has exhausted everyone but the Modernist ideologues, whose levelling lust is never sated. Buoyed by a papacy of their wildest dreams, and Kasper’s assurance that it has “inaugurated a new phase” of Vatican II, they have duly recycled their evil modus operandi to serve the de-facto-Vatican III “processes” initiated by Pope Francis: to help him raze the dogmatic bastions of Catholicism once and for all.

The embodiment of Kasper’s “method,” our verbose and self-contradictory Holy Father’s ambiguous desire “to initiate processes rather than possess spaces” (Evangelii Gaudium, 223) duly revolves around a never-ending synodical talk-fest. This allows the Modernists to storm the Catholic citadel by way of “compromise formulas designed to delimit” orthodoxy and “open the door to a selective reception” of truth and heresy, unleashing “a huge potential for conflict” — “the same method also we had in the Council,” crows Comrade Walter.

No surprise, then, that Cardinal Kasper’s deceitful fingerprints are all over the Instrumentum Laboris (working paper) for next month’s Synod on the Family. Even though his frontal assault on the indissolubility of marriage and the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament failed to receive a two-thirds majority during the 2014 Synod, the Instrumentum Laboris for 2015 contains a section on his so-called “Penitential Way”; a Modernist blueprint for sanctioning sacrilegious Communions for the divorced and re-married en masse. John Vennari notes other manifestations of “Kasper’s anti-dogma style” in the working document, which

contained yet another questionnaire for the bishops. The document tells Church leaders to “avoid in their responses a formulation of pastoral care that are based simply on an application of doctrine,” for such an approach “would not respect the conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod Assembly and would lead their reflection far from the path already indicated.”

Will the Kasperites win the day and send us all down that broad path “that leads to destruction” [Matt. 7:13]? Now that the nefarious “process” and its manipulative “method” is underway, we should expect anything. Certainly, despite the supposedly large number of prelates who reject the Kasper theses out of hand, the narrow voting margins at Synod I, that barely saw off insidious doubts and ambiguities about sodomy, cohabitation, and divorce and remarriage, should give us pause (see CO, Dec. 2014, pp.28-44). Especially since those precarious voting figures merely reflect the loss of nerve and Catholic sanity in general.

Collective Chaos
Following the US Supreme Court’s recent decision to impose homosexual ‘marriage’ on all American States, a Californian Democrat swiftly introduced a Bill to remove ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ from the US Federal Code. An Evangelical leader railed: “It is as if a collective madness has settled over our nation’s elite, and they are trying hard to bring everyone under the same cloud of confusion.”

The “collective madness,” commonly termed political correctness, has not so much “settled” over Western elites as obliterated their common sense: the rational faculties that once distinguished them from animals. In the process, it has eliminated all sense of the common good. Paradoxically, in an age of hyper-individualism, it has crushed individuality: fostering chronic self-interest that ‘goes along to get along’ with any and every lunacy proposed by the mob. This secular delirium would be bad enough. But the atheistic legislative, executive, judicial and media elites who hold Western electorates hostage to their cupidity and carnality, are now aided and abetted by God’s elect.

While “diabolic disorientation” is more precise, “collective madness” truly describes the hierarchical betrayal we are living through, as foretold in the Third Secret of Fatima. It certainly captures the group-think of an episcopal herd that spins its steady deconstruction of Catholic faith and identity as a New Springtime in the Church. Orchestrated by an aggressive liberal minority and sustained by the lukewarm neocon majority, this episcopal mania has inevitably served up a manic pontiff whose eco-‘recyclical’ Laudato Si takes complicity and convergence to a whole other level. This is not to say that Francis is wholly responsible for the black hole in which we find ourselves. The “Who Am I To Judge?” papacy has merely picked up and turbo-charged a slightly flagging revolution.

Addressing Apostolic Nuncios gathered in Rome on 21 June 2013, Francis warned, without a hint of self-awareness, that “Giving in to a worldly spirit exposes us pastors in particular to ridicule.” This from a PC global-warming alarmist who insists that “live and let live is the first step towards peace and joy”! No wonder bishops who have long tailored their ‘action plans’ and ‘mission statements’ to the zeitgeist, courting worldly approval in ways indistinguishable from their political counterparts, have thrown all caution to the wind. Even as I write, a spokesman has announced that Archbishop Nichols would like the notorious Masses he has championed for unrepentant sodomites and lesbians, to be seen as a model for other parishes. Rolling out blasphemy and sacrilege, while peddling a sin that cries to heaven, now constitutes pastoral justice and mercy in Westminster. Music to the ears of David Cameron.

At the same time, across the pond, the Archdiocese of Newark confided care of a parish to a priest who had just been removed from a college chaplaincy after posting a pro-LGBT Facebook message. “Transferred,” but not sacked, insisted the archdiocese: “The Church doesn’t fire priests for tolerance; it condemns those who are intolerant.” So promoting vice now constitutes virtue, warranting promotion of a self-identified sodomite to a parish. Moreover, thanks to the Francis Effect, his new flock are not fazed by the prospect. “The pope said God doesn’t judge, so I don’t judge,” they baaed like shepherdless sheep. “If the Boy Scouts can put gays in there, what the heck is the difference?” queried a 90-year-old parishioner, as if reading out the latest papal interview. A young ‘Eucharistic minister’ at least broached her misgivings, only to dismiss them. “I know it’s against the Church,” she confessed, “but — what are you gonna do? I’m really happy.”

Well, that’s alright then. As long as we’re all happy-clappy. Never mind the Vatican’s 1961 declaration (as “a matter of public law”) that “Advancement to religious vows and ordinations should be barred to those who are afflicted [even] with evil tendencies to homosexuality.” And no matter the misery heaped upon Our Blessed Lord by ignoring that wisdom and prudence: viz., the proliferation of sodomitic degradation and profanation of His Holy priesthood, Holy Sacrifice, and Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — all in His Father’s house!

Even as He suffers at the hands of their ignorance and blase attitude, however, Christ surely weeps tears of pity for these hapless progeny of secularised ecclesiastics. What hope do they have with the papal brake disengaged and the apostasy of high-profile cardinals and bishops in overdrive?

The Pre-Synod Synod
With a view to Synod II, European bishops have been lining up all year long to oppose Church teaching, without a word of reproach from the Supreme Pontiff.

Emblematically, on 25 May, just days after the Irish voted in same-sex ‘marriage’, with the help of complicit bishops and a conspicuously silent pontiff, the presidents of the bishops’ conferences of Germany, Switzerland and France — Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Bishop Markus Büchel and Archbishop Georges Pontier — gathered at the Gregorian University in Rome for a pre-emptive synodical strike. There, together with several dozen select theologians and journalists, they spent the day aping Cardinal Kasper’s deviant party line.

An invitation-only, closed-door affair (even prominent Jesuits at the Gregorian were completely unaware of it), the normalisation of sodomy, by way of an amorphous “theology of love” separating sex from procreation, topped the agenda. Followed, of course, by further abstract acrobatics aimed at dissolving the indissoluble: sacramental marriage. But these particular issues were merely part of the overriding agenda: changing Church doctrine.

Among the speakers, reported the National Catholic Register, was Father Eberhard Schockenhoff, the (im)moral theologian “said to be the ‘mastermind’ behind much of the challenge to settled Church teachings among the German episcopate and, by implication, at the synod on the family itself.” A critic of Humanae Vitae (for all the wrong reasons), he insists that moral theology must be “liberated from the natural law” — which, when all was said and done, was the leitmotif of the presentations. In a blog post of 27 July on his MondayVatican site, Andrea Gagliarducci reported that

Schockenhoff offered a materialist reflection, one that pivoted on the difficulties of modern life, and he generously sprinkled his thesis with quotations from the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm and the Marxist sociologist Theodor Adorno.

In his remarks, Schockenhoff stressed that “one must admit that love may end,” because the “irrevocability of the choice of marrying is based on what love wants,” and indissolubility is instead “a request that spouses look after each other as long as they trust in their love.” In the end, he said, personal conscience holds the primacy, with all of the nuances of truth.

This insane call for radical autonomy, that would render dogma and the Catholic magisterium redundant, is no longer the raving of fringe dwellers frozen in 1968. Schockenhoff not only has the ear of the German episcopate but that of Francis himself, whose inner circle espouse the same views. Consider this from the Pope’s favourite theologian, one Walter Kasper:

If differences arise, between the official doctrinal teaching of the Church and the laity’s everyday experience of the faith — as is often the case today — these conflicts cannot be resolved simply by a repetition and tightening up of the traditional dogmatic formulas without discussion. The truth of the Gospel can only emerge from a consensus.

According to Cardinal Kasper, the authority of the Magisterium depends on the consensus of the faithful. More insanity. Yet the Holy Father has given Walter his head. As John Vennari points out, the Vatican questionnaire insisting that doctrine not impinge on “the formulation of pastoral care” could have been written by Kasper, who states: “The questions of the day require a new and deeper exploration of the Gospel so to stimulate new answers which are not just abstract conclusions from past beliefs.”

Doctrinal Deconstruction
Since Schockenhoff and his fellow apostates are not at all fringe but more or less engaged in running the asylum, what is their — and Kasper’s — final goal? A keen Vatican observer, Gagliarducci is in no doubt:

By looking closely at the German, Swiss and French texts from the “shadow synod,” we can see that they are pushing in the end for a theological revolution. … Briefly put, this is their rationale: given that what the Gospel asks for is an ideal that men are not always able to achieve, let’s change the ideal.

In the end, the “shadow synod’s” remarks do not deal merely with the push for a more pastoral approach to marriage, but are mostly an attempt to detach it from the Church’s traditional teaching, on the grounds that it is too difficult to follow. In the end, these positions suggested an overriding need to fit in with the world, and to make the Church fit in with the world, all the more so by adopting the world’s (secular) language.

This linguistic capitulation to the zeitgeist reached a new low when Francis dutifully intoned the “gay” word, to cover over sodomitic and lesbian acts at once degenerate, debilitating, and deadly. (How long before “termination of pregnancy,” “pro-choice,” and “fetus” enter the papal lexicon, to deflect the plain truth about murder, murderers, and the murdered?)

We are assured that nothing fundamental is happening here: that secularising language and practise will not affect doctrine. Typically, Argentine Franciscan Ramiro de la Serna, who has known the Pope for more than 30 years, insists that

He won’t change doctrine. What he will do is return the Church to its true doctrine — the one it has forgotten, the one that puts man back in the centre. For too long, the Church put sin in the centre. By putting the suffering of man, and his relationship with God, back in the centre, these harsh attitudes toward homosexuality, divorce, and other things will start to change.

Got that? The Pope simply wants to return the Church to the true doctrine: the merciful one that put people before dogma; the original teaching buried beneath centuries of nit-picking magisterial accretions. So the current doctrine is false … and so can and should be changed … but he’s not changing doctrine … ‘no, si, si, no’ (… feel a migraine coming on?)

Recycled Revolution
Contradictory and gnostic, it is the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ resurgent and rampant. Since old news doesn’t sell, however, the press makes it sound fresh and bold.

As a quid pro quo for their invite to the Gregorian, journalists spread a breathless message. A reporter for La Repubblica conveyed the routine Modernist fare as “revolutionary, uttered by clergymen.” While La Stampa quoted a participating comrade as saying that the Synod would be a “failure” if it simply continued to affirm what the Church has always taught. Who would’ve thought?!

It was indeed a shocking and execrable event. And we needed to hear about it. All the more because of its furtive nature. Yet in the scandalous light of Synod I, where the vote on “welcoming” active homosexuals into parish life failed by just two votes to get the required two-third majority, the media hype could not disguise the weary predictability of it all: viz., Modernist mutineers, pushing a recycled revolution, with recycled methods. This involved the usual lie — that their subversive ‘theology’ was a mere reflection of the lay ‘consensus’ — cooked up from the usual ‘questionnaire’ — full of loaded questions tailored to the predetermined liberal outcome. A survey despatched from Rome to the parish wastelands of the West, Lutheranised Swiss and German respondants, as per usual, led this faux common consent.

Also on cue, a French Biblicist (channelling Kasper) insisted that the Magisterium can only continue to guide consciences effectively through “a dynamic of mutual listening” which “echoes the words of the baptised” (read: ‘a dynamic of liberal hectoring’ that ‘echoes the words of baptised apostates’). Fr. Shockenhoff naturally concurred, pontificating that conscience should be shaped not by principles received from the infallible magisterium but, rather, from the “life experience of the faithful” (read: the ‘private judgement of the unfaithful’).

Episcopal Aliens
The real villains of the piece, however, were the sponsoring episcopal presidents. What a crew!

In our June/July editorial we mentioned the alleged Masonry of leftist Archbishop Pontier; an affiliation he did not deny when confronted by his flock. While just the day before this shadow synod, in his Pentecost Sunday homily, Cardinal Marx had called for a “welcoming culture” in the Church for sodomites, insisting it’s “not the differences that count, but what unites us.”

As for Bishop Büchel of Switzerland, in early August, still aflame two months after his Gregorian sortie, he nearly injured himself in his rush to contradict a brother bishop’s reminder of Old Testament condemnations of sodomy. “It is less decisive whether someone has a hetero- or homosexual inclination; rather, the responsible approach to sexuality and all the other dimensions of a relationship (such as attentiveness, carefulness, respect, or fidelity) is decisive,” he said. “Here we are permitted, as Catholic faithful, to trust the conscience of each individual.” Stressing a spurious love and affection over divine and natural law, he also mouthed the Big Lie about sodomites being ‘born that way.’

Pontier, Marx and Büchel are representative of the aliens in our midst; prelates alienated from Christ, from His Magisterium, and from His faithful flock. But not, alas, from His current Vicar on earth, who encourages them to run amuck, as we saw at the hellish 2014 Synod, and continue to see day by chaotic day.

On 1 August, the Archbishop of Hamburg, Stefan Heße claimed that sodomy and lesbianism were no barriers to “love and fidelity between two people.” As for holy matrimony, he quite likes “the ideal of marriage,” but wants the Church to devise “livable forms” for remarried divorcees; i.e., a politically correct sell out of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Meanwhile, on the same day as the Büchel debacle, a Spanish Bishop allowed a 21-year-old woman who self-identifies as a man to be a godfather at the baptism of her nephew. The Bishop of Cádiz had originally denied the woman’s request to be a godparent. He did so on the perfectly reasonable grounds that she does not live according to the Church’s moral teaching. Yet all it took to swap the Catholic faith for “collective PC madness” was a national petition of protest signed by 35,000 politically correct Spaniards. Suddenly, His Lordship was beating the emotive drum for sexual deviance. “Being transsexual does not constitute a reason for [her] being excluded from the office of a godfather,” declared the diocese, inverting the Faith and biology in one hit.

Papal Facilitator
Reporting on these relentless scandals for LifeSiteNews, the intrepid Maike Hickson notes the papal orchestration: that the madness is accelerating “at a time when Pope Francis himself repeatedly speaks about the importance of welcoming ‘remarried’ divorcees in the parishes, and not having any negative attitude toward them and their children, without once mentioning – as a pastor for all – that they live, objectively speaking, in the state of sin. Many concerned Catholics pray and hope that he will soon speak an authoritative word in order to defend, amidst this growing moral anarchy, the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, as Cardinal Raymond Burke requested nearly a year ago.”

Readers will recall that during the Sodomy Synod, Cardinal Burke condemned out of hand the Relatio post disceptationem: the scandalous interim report fabricated by the Bergoglian placemen who controlled proceedings (the pro-homo, pro-divorce-and-remarriage, pro-anything-goes crew). He said:

The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.

Calling on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic doctrine, the Cardinal said:

The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.

The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practise regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church. In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue.

It must be said that since then, Francis has indeed made many statements supportive of marriage and the family. Neoconservatives often falsely accuse his critics of failing to acknowledge this side of the Holy Father, as if their criticisms are without foundation, mean-spirited, and irrational. Yet there is no need to add, omit, or exaggerate anything. The problem lies not with his orthodox side per se but the fact it is precisely that: just one side of his papal persona; the one that speaks clearly between bouts of purposeful ambiguity and contradiction by the other side.

Ruinous Double-speak
Writer and author Atila Sinke Guimarães has written at length about Evangelii Gaudium, the rambling Apostolic Exhortation that laid out the programme of this pontificate. Quite apart from failing to quote “one single document of the Catholic Magisterium previous to Vatican II,” while also introducing “a ‘slang’ unbefitting to papal dignity,” Guimarães found the encyclical riddled with internal contradictions. Among many others, these included: clarity vs confusion; ideals vs realities; calls to not study doctrine vs calls to study doctrine; claims that EG is not a social document vs it is a social document. The contradictions alone, he writes, “constitute a sad landmark of what [Francis] is doing to destroy, by the way of facts, the papal power of teaching.”

Beyond his written output, the credibility of the Faith and the papacy is further diminished with every cringing papal pronouncement and scattergun interview, showcasing the same contradictory, confused, incoherent persona.

Having spent several years as Bergoglio’s press aide in Buenos Aires, Federico Wals asked the hapless Father Lombardi, whose Vatican role essentially mirrors Wals’s old one, “So, Father, how do you feel about my former boss?” Managing a smile, Lombardi replied, “Confused.” Wistfully comparing the Germanic precision of Benedict XVI, Lombardi told reporter Robert Draper: “It was incredible. Benedict was so clear… — two minutes and I’m totally clear about what the contents [of a conversation] were. With Francis — ‘This is a wise man; he has had these interesting experiences’.” [National Geographic, August 2015]

Now, doubtless there were pre-conciliar pontiffs who also lacked the Teutonic efficiency of Benedict XVI. Yet whatever their personal shortcomings, they all understood that clarity, precision and consistency is papacy 101; that a disordered mind and unruly tongue were to be avoided like the plague, since they invite contradictions and double-standards — and scandal!

St. Pius X pointed out that this unholy habit of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth — stating one thing only to say and do another — is a quintessential Modernist trait, utterly destructive of Catholic truth and order. Yet it defines this papacy.

There is not much point Pope Francis denouncing sodomitic ‘marriage’ as “the envy of the Devil,” for example, or decrying, as he also did before more than a thousand families in Manila on 16 January, the “new ideological colonisation that tries to destroy the family,” when homosexuals and homo-sympathisers who have colonised the Church are touting sodomitic ‘gifts’ and hybrid ‘families’ with papal blessing, even and especially at synods.

If you are sponsoring this Kasperite pro-homo, pro-divorce-and-remarriage Fifth Column, why ask the Manila faithful to “Proclaim the beauty and truth of the Christian message to a society which is tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family”? Could there be a greater temptation to confusion than the contradictory papalpresentations of sexuality, marriage and family we currently face?!

And why highlight the increasing efforts “to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life,” as Francis dutifully warned in Manila cathedral, only then to publicly deride a heroic mother who suffered to bring forth many children, as he notoriously did soon after? Indeed, why commend Humanae Vitae, as he also did, while hammering the contraceptive mantra of “responsible parenthood,” plugging “three children per family” as “the key number” for population replacement, and giving credence to the bigoted jibe about Catholics “breeding like rabbits” — all in the one considered breath?

Marital and Familial Duplicity
Recently, the present writer read nine reflections on the family delivered by Francis during his early 2015 Wednesday audiences. Starting with the Holy Family and moving through the role and contribution of the mother, father, children, siblings, grandparents and the elderly, they contained many nice passages. But once again it was impossible to read them, without recalling contradictory papal actions and omissions that effectively nullified their worth.

Undermining the entire familial series in a single swoop was the solemn multiple wedding presided over by Francis at St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14, 2014. For among the 20 couples he invited on his own initiative, were several he knew to be in irregular situations — couples in which one of the two had a civil divorce; couples cohabitating for a long period of time; couples with children out of the wedlock. Despite the public nature of this media spectacle, nothing was said about whether any repentance or penance was required by Francis to allow these persons to marry and receive Communion — which justice required, in order to avoid scandal. It was, however, the month before Synod I, so it sent a clear message, as if to say: ‘I want Catholic morals to change so that the three reported situations are no longer considered sinful. Consequently, persons in these situations should not be removed from the Church’s life or barred from receiving Communion.’ The unspoken message of false mercy was well received by one irregular bride. Ecstatic at being told she could have her cake and eat it too, she beamed: “We hope that our story gives hope to those who are cohabitating and have given up on marrying before God” (read: on our own terms, without recourse to the Confessional).

Having contradicted the truth about sacramental marriage and family life in such spectacular public fashion, all manner of papal duplicity in the Wednesday talks was only to be expected. Among many examples, the advice to fathers “to correct without humiliating… in a just way,” was particularly hard to stomach. The Holy Father is renowned not only for spraying insults all over his traditional sons and daughters, but also for his humiliation of the blameless mother mentioned above, and his ruthless and unjust dispersal of the equally innocent and wholly admirable Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate.

“When it comes to children,” Francis implored one group, “no sacrifice on the part of adults is too costly or too great.” In which case, why tell us to lower the pro-life volume and stop obsessing over the slaughter of babes in the womb? Why let the Kasperian dogs loose to savage Our Lord’s clear teaching on marriage, when children have suffered so terribly for so long from the same rabid Protestant mauling? And since “no sacrifice” for the little ones is “too great,” why the facile acceptance of ‘irretrievable breakdown,’ as if separation is always the final word?

At a more recent (5 August) audience, Francis mouthed this self-fulfilling secular mantra, referring to “those who, following the irreversible failure of their marriage bond, began a new union.” Fomenting false compassion in typically spurious fashion, he stressed that such parishioners “are not excommunicated” (as if anyone said they were!) “and must not be treated as such” (as if they are!). There was no mention of the many separations which are not irreversibly broken: no urging of those spouses to re-establish their conjugal life; no reminder that there was “no sacrifice too costly or too great” to heal their fractured marriage bond for the sake of their children.

Confusing Faith with Works
Since Francis often uses this kind of deceitful hyperbole to nudge along his agenda, we should view the stress on supposedly persecuted ‘irretrievables’ as yet another papal marker for the forthcoming Synod: the latest beat up at the service of his drive to foist on the universal Church his own disobedient practise in the villas miserias. “Communion for the divorced and remarried is not an issue there [in the slums of Buenos Aires, where Bishop Bergoglio ministered]. Everyone takes Communion,” a diocesan priest happily confirmed.

It was there, in the villas miserias, that the “Who Am I To Judge?” papacy took root; among the curas villeros (slum priests), “practically all” of whom, according to one shocked journalist, keep concubines and sons, or homosexual/transexual partners. It was there, amid chronic destitution, that the pragmatic assumed precedence over the dogmatic; where the social gospel trumped the Gospel of Christ and its Catholic theology in the heart and mind of Bishop Jorge. For unlike Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and myriad saints, who all knew a thing or two about teeming slums and the poorest of the poor, he failed to see that without Catholic doctrine, pastoral action, however praiseworthy, quickly regresses to mere philanthropy at the service of the zeitgeist: the “worldly spirit” he hypocritically condemns.

A pastoral creed “of sterile assistentialism [material aid],” concluded the above reporter from his first-hand observations and conversations in the shanty towns, “leads nowhere, keeps the poor in poverty, the lazy in laziness and the sinner happy with his sins.” The Pope does not recognise this inexorable regression for one elementary reason: he no longer holds to Catholic teaching that faith “is primarily concerned with doctrine and denotes the assent of the soul to some truth.” It is not the translation of faith into laudable works, but faith in this doctrinal sense that “brings blessing and salvation to the soul,” explains St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a Doctor of the Church.

This Catholic understanding also saves us from every emotive distortion of faith by the Bergoglian-Kasperite school: not least from its false charity, false mercy, and false compassion. Disconnected from dogmatic truths they are so much feel-good mush, imperilling the salvation of all those hapless souls upon whom it is lavished, whether they be wealthy, poor, or morally degenerate.

Or, indeed, the divorced-and-remarried. For these, true mercy entails taking Christ at His dogmatic word: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another, commits adultery” – Matt. 19:9. Equally, neither authentic charity nor genuine compassion presents marriage as an abstract “ideal” beyond the reach of hapless mortals (— as posited by the Pope’s reported view that 50 percent of marriages may be invalid, and his creation of a commission of canon lawyers to set up a speedy procedure for the processing of matrimonial nullity). Rather, they present marriage as a vocation specially blessed by God, and therefore perfectly capable of seeing through difficulties, even seemingly insurmountable ones, with His help.

In this regard, it is telling that the Holy Father rarely mentions a charming anecdote from his time in Germany (where he was exiled in 1986 by his Jesuit superiors after a disastrous stint as Argentine Provincial). Paul Vallely related in Newsweek that in a church in Augsburg, then Father Bergoglio SJ “discovered a painting that had been commissioned to celebrate the work of a wise old Jesuit who had rescued the failing marriage of a 17th-century Bavarian aristocrat. Entitled Mary Untier of Knots, it showed the Virgin Mary untangling the knots in the long ribbon used to celebrate the wedding of the nobleman and his wife.”

Rather than fatalistic talk of “irreversibile breakdown,” why not draw upon and emphasise, in season and out, the beautiful Catholic lessons to be learned from this heavenly depiction of reversibility under grace? Why promote instead a sophistic deconstruction of Catholic doctrine and morals, employing every crooked means to that end: loaded synodical secretariats and questionnaires; the suppression of Catholic counter-arguments (as with the confiscation of a book-length critique by five orthodox cardinals in advance of Synod I); or putting the Kasperite proposal on divorce and remarriage back on the Instrumentum Laboris for Synod II, despite its failing to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority vote at Synod I?

“Profound and Definitive Changes”
Why all these deceitful manoeuvres and power plays? Because that is what Modernist ideologues do: “they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy” [Pascendi, 3].

Pius X’s damning passage encompasses both the current papal disregard for the principle of non-contradiction, which undermines all authority and all restraint, and the “pride and obstinacy” of Francis in doggedly seeking to change our holy Faith; the Deposit entrusted to him to be protected and handed on as he received it.

His Jewish shadow, Rabbi Skorka, admits that he can be “a very stubborn person.” But that’s the least of it. Last September, on the eve of Synod I, addressing the supposed ‘consenus’-based approach of synods and questionnaires, an Argentine warned:

If you think that Pope Francis will bring collegiality to the Church you are dead wrong: it is his time to hold the power and he will use it. He will allow some form of collegiality but only for those things which he does not care about, and only if he has no choice. And, by the way, doctrine is one of those things.

A few months later, a priest in daily contact with Francis confirmed this assessment to a gathering of ten Argentinian and Chilean priests: “The last thing he [the Pope] told me before I came was to pray so that he can effect profound and definitive changes in the Church in such a way that they can never again be modified.” As if to complete the Pope’s message for him, another cleric declared that “What must be done is to change doctrine because, if it is not changed, in three hundred or four hundred years they could move everything backwards.”

Back to what, precisely?

To worshipping Almighty God always and everywhere in strict, solemn, manifestly Catholic manner? To a beloved Mass providentially tailored for both a universal Church and a global village? To overflowing monasteries, convents, seminaries, pews, and waves of zealous missionaries? To the days of papal ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, before the “new genre of papal speech not concerned with precision” (as Fr Lombardi categorised Bergoglian incoherence)? To the unity of orthodox faith, mind and purpose that gave rise to untold lay social apostolates and sodalities? To putting God’s Law, Rights and Justice before the mortal variety?

As both synodal questionnaires have clearly alluded: going “backwards” to all that dogma-fuelled success is a non-starter, to be avoided by endless “change” involving the evolution and adaption of Church teachings to fads and fashions (Anglicanism by any other name.) “Communion for the divorced and remarried is … only the tip of the iceberg, it’s a stalking horse,” says Cardinal Pell. “They want wider changes, recognition of civil unions, recognition of homosexual unions.” According to those who know him best, we should expect much more from Francis besides.

“I believe we haven’t yet seen the real changes [under Francis],” his old compatriot Ramiro de la Serna commented recently. Another papal confidant, Protestant pastor Norberto Saracco, concurred. “If he can survive the pressures of the Church today and the results of the Synod on the Family in October, I think after that he will be ready to talk about celibacy.” Asked by Robert Draper if Francis had told him this or if he was relying on intuition, the Pope’s Pentecostal friend smiled slyly and said, “It’s more than intuition.”

Messianic Mission
Whether the Bergoglian iron fist (increasingly visible) will be fully extracted from its papal glove of sophistic ‘gradualism’ to enforce “change” summarily, remains to be seen.

On the one hand, Francis might go for broke in October, using his supreme authority (underlined at the close of Synod I) to crush opposition and enforce acceptance of sexual deviance and Communion for the divorced-remarried.

On the other, faced with serious opposition, he may decide to keep his counsel and bide his time; “without obsession over immediate results,” as he explains in Evangelii Gaudium, since “the important thing is to initiate processes.” In that way he can let the episcopal dissent rage on unhindered, redefining and deconstructing the Faith by stealth and attrition.

Whatever happens, nothing will deter Jorge Bergoglio from his messianic mission to deracinate the Faith: to recycle and rebrand as ‘Catholic,’ the theological and moral detritus of the sexual revolution he found embodied in the priests and people of the villas miserias, who won his heart.Baptised with orthodox soundbites, their free love and false charity is now presented as a new and merciful theology of love and liberation, stripped of its Marxist bits and pragmatically tailored for our post-Christian times. On the contrary, however, this social gospel of the Latin American slums reveals itself ever more shamelessly as the earth-bound, man-fixated, exploitive, violent Socialist gospel it always was.

Testifying to that reality herein, Prince Bertrand’s filial appeal is unlikely to stop our “very stubborn” pontiff preaching his counterfeit gospel. Or to dissuade him from turning the Church into a glorified UN soup kitchen at the service of the zeitgeist and its Socialist overlords. No matter. Truth fires enlightening bullets that even God’s elect cannot dodge. And so we find that some who bought into the liberal narrative of Francis the Humble/Merciful/Great Reformer, who afforded Jorge Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt, defending him from the indefensible, have thankfully (finally!) had enough. Andrea Gallardi of the MondayVatican website is one of them. At the outset of his 27 July analysis of the Gregorian ‘shadow synod,’ he wrote:

What we are looking at now is a more secular Church that is taking centre stage, one that uses secular terms. …. once the Church loses the capacity to speak with its own language, it loses itself. … This site has until now given the best possible charitable interpretation to Pope Francis’s actions. Now even here it seems undeniable that it is theology and reason that he opposes.

The corrupt methods and degenerate content of his synodical “process” alone proves the charge. The clarifying summa of Catholic theology and reason that Thomas Belfatto has penned for us on the eve of Synod II is not a work Francis would recommend. Certainly not to the Socialist company he keeps!

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2015/12/18/recycling-the-revolution/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

2 comments on “Recycling The Revolution

  1. October 2015

    Recycling The Revolution: 2

    THE EDITOR

    [Gaudium et Spes] serves as a counter syllabus, and, as such,represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.

    Cardinal Ratzinger (1982)

    Many decades of being mesmerised by dogma, by a rule-book approach, have had their effect. Today we want to introduce a creative spirit.

    Mikhail Gorbachev (1988)

    With the upcoming synod, it is clear that the Holy Father is calling the Church to… be open to new avenues and creativity when it comes to accompanying families. … that we not settle for… ways of working that stifle creativity….

    Archbishop Cupich (2015)

    There are many words to describe the thrust of the current pontificate, most of them unmentionable. For Modernist prelates like Blaise Cupich of Chicago, on the other hand, “creativity” is the current mot juste. Far from creative ways to “teach all nations” unpopular salvific truths [Matt. 28:19], however, it is all about creatively excusing a multitude of sins. Those papally facilitated at the October 2014 Synod, for instance. There, in bold relief, we saw Bergoglian ‘creativity’ at work: deceit and manipulation(1) at the service of sealing the Modernist “reconciliation” of the Church “with the new era inaugurated in 1789” — the perverse objective plainly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger (among others).

    Spun from the same weasel-worded cloth as ‘renewal,’ ‘creativity’ is the latest hard sell of their infidelity to Christ and His Spotless Bride: their cuddling up with dissolute modernity; the atheistic artifice set in train by the Lodge through the genocidal Revolution it fomented, guided, and branded with its Masonic triplet: liberté, égalité, fraternité (— the godless principles informing all modern derivations of 1789, like the Human Rights industry). ‘Creativity’ is coined to make this treachery sound fresh and refreshing; open-minded; … modern. Yet it cannot disguise the tired and tedious agenda of the Council document proudly referenced by Cardinal Ratzinger: Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”). An amorphous blueprint for worldly compromise with the secular spawn of Madame Guillotine, its partisans have rehabilitated falsehoods dutifully condemned by Blessed Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors (1864).

    Creative Destruction
    Published as an appendix to the encyclical Quanta Cura (“Condemning Current Errors”), the Syllabus appeared just as the Masonic sons of 1789 were setting nineteenth century Italy ablaze with bloody revolution, in the process of annexing the papal states. Listed among its 80 propositions condemned as erroneous were atheism, pantheism, rationalism, indifferentism (one religion is as good as another), socialism and communism, secret societies and the idea that the secular nation-state has authority over the Church. The skewering of these sacred cows of Judeo-Masonry (especially the condemnation of proposition 80, that “The Roman pontiff can and should reconcile himself to progress, liberalism and the modern culture”) provoked a secular outcry against ‘reactionary’ Catholicism; a cry eventually echoed within the Church by the Modernists, until the Council coup that enabled them to write their own “counter syllabus.”

    Thus was the Bride of Christ press-ganged into “the new era inaugurated in 1789.” ‘Creative’ pontificates (including Ratzinger’s) continued the “reconciliation” process: confusing and compromising drop by drop, until Francis arrived to seal the deal in a rush.

    If we understand “creative” in the sense of “creative destruction” — of the sort boasted by the Zionist Neocons who engineered the catastrophic Afghanistan and Iraqi wars (CO passim) — then the current pontificate certainly fits the bill.

    The ‘creative’ Neocon project sought to raze traditional Middle Eastern societies to the ground and consign the lucrative management of their secular reconstruction — as consumer markets wrapped in docile democracies — to the “military-industrial complex.”

    For his part, Francis is seeking to raze the vestigial bastions of Tradition (to include the Syllabus), by consigning the latter stages of that ongoing demolition project — the secularisation of faith and morals — to Kasper, Cupich, Maradiaga, Danneels, Schönborn, Wuerl et. al.; arch-Modernists handpicked by Francis to attend this month’s Synod, yet for whom enough “creative destruction” of the Old Faith and its Old Mass is never enough.(2)

    We must underline once again, however, that by overseeing the final stages of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s revolutionary battle cry to “raze the bastions” of the Faith, Francis is acting in perfect continuity with his immediate predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI; both ardent Balthasarians. Although critical of those who push Vatican II as theological ground zero, Cardinal Ratzinger hypocritically/paradoxically insisted that

    …there is no possible return to the Syllabus, which could well have been a first step in the combat against Liberalism and the nascent Marxism, but which cannot be the last word. Neither embraces nor the ghetto can resolve the problem of [relations with] the modern world for the Christian. Hence, the “razing of the bastions” that Hans Urs von Balthasar called for already in 1952 was in effect an urgent duty [Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982].

    Neocons refuse to take this “razing” continuum on board. We finished Part I with the belated awakening of Andrea Gagliarducci to the unprecedented papal threat Francis poses to the Faith of Our Fathers. Yet still he asks: “Why does Pope Benedict remain silent? What possible hold could they have over him?” Certainly, in the current climate, anything is possible. But is it really constrained silence? Gagliarducci sees a fracture where there is Balthasarian continuity: at least in broad liberal strokes, if not in every detail.

    And so, as post-conciliar papacies rev up through the liberal gears, from illogically moderate to logically extreme, we have reached the final outpouring of the “new era”: a septic delta where Masonic, Marxist and Modernist effluent converge and disgorge into a sea of hail-fellow-well-met “reconciliation” with the materialistic fruits of 1789; to include new offshoots like institutionalised sodomy and rapid-fire annulments that Pius IX never saw coming in his worst liberal nightmares.

    Rank Modernism
    Appropriately, it was a true Socialist son of the Revolution who best framed the convergent mentality. “Many decades of being mesmerised by dogma, by a rule-book approach, have had their effect. Today we want to introduce a creative spirit,” Mikhail Gorbachev declared in 1988. The Bergoglians have said as much many times over.

    “The Church is not timeless, she lives amid the vicissitudes of history, and the Gospel must be known and experienced by people today,” the subversive Secretary of the Synod, Cardinal Baldisseri, informed a Belgian newspaper in May 2014. “The message should be in the present, with all respect for the integrity of the one who receives that message.” Clearly intoxicated with Mikhail’s “creative spirit” of revolt and just as tired of being “mesmerised by dogma” and “a rule-book approach,” he later provoked participants at a January 2015 conference organised by the Pontifical Council for the Family, declaring that Cardinal Kasper’s heretical proposal on Communion for the divorced-remarried “should be welcomed as a contribution.”

    Like an Angel of Light cooing what St. Pius X categorically condemned in Pascendi, the Cardinal assured his indignant audience that “There’s no reason to be scandalised that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different from the so-called ‘common doctrine'” (read de fide doctrine: a mere inverted comma-fabrication to Baldiserri!). Emboldened, he went on: “This doesn’t imply a going against,” but rather “it means reflecting, because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change…. Everything that we know today is a mystery, and since we are standing before a mystery and a mystery is not immediately known, we advance in our understanding.” (— “Thus,” warns Pius X, “the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of [Modernist] sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion.”)

    Meanwhile, the Holy Father mouths the same revolutionary line in the same slippery way, as in early September, while addressing an international congress held in Argentina to mark the 50th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council.

    A shameless litany of Modernist assumptions, suppositions and tenets that reconfirms the liberal wellspring of this pontificate, condemnatory passages from Pascendi could be juxtaposed next to every other problematic line of this address. Suffice to relate here that the Master of False Dichotomies depicted Vatican II as an attempt “to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral ministry, between faith and life” (read: ‘between a rule-book approach and a creative spirit’). Often the two had been set against each other in “a false opposition” as two “separate realities,” he claimed. This, he said, creates a false conflict between those who are pastors “on the side of the people” and academics “on the side of doctrine.” (Of course the only “false conflict” here is the one the Pope had just set up with his spurious claims!) Any attempt to limit or cut off the relationship and communication between “received tradition and concrete reality puts the faith of the people of God in danger,” he added — being careful to omit concrete sodomitic and adulterous realities that actually place souls in danger, yet which he and Comrade Baldisseri will try once more to accommodate within “received tradition” during Synod II.

    Aliens in our midst, the egregious likes of Cardinals Baldisseri and Kasper ever recall the infiltration of the Church by nefarious agents of influence. As for the Holy Father, we might hope for his own sake that he is such a perfectly malformed product of his ecclesiastical times that he does not realise the Marxist-cum-Modernist dialectic he is preaching: continually creating conflicts where none exist, in order to separate absolute truth from evolving pastoral situations, and so adapt doctrine to the culture rather than vice versa. (The goal should not be “about adapting the Revelation to the world,” Cardinal Müller recently reiterated, in the process of castigating German bishops for their schismatic attitude, “but … about gaining the world for God.”)

    The Frankfurt School
    Although in perfect conformity with Modernism, Gorbachev’s 1988 statement was not, of course, a religious one. He was anticipating developments soon to follow and dramatically symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall; namely, the existential collapse of Marxism, as an economic-political structure, and its reconfiguration as a ‘creative’ cultural entity. Yet he knew full well that that anti-cultural construct was already far advanced, having been first plotted shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution by his demonic predecessor Lenin himself. A short recap of that history will help place in broader context our present pitiful condition: exemplified by the explosive coup at Synod I by a cadre of mitred revolutionaries.

    A strategy synonymous with Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, who sought non-violent means to subvert and drag all the formative institutions of the West into the Marxist purview, Cultural Marxism was also on Lenin’s mind very early on. By late 1922 he had already organised a meeting at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow to consider why his violent workers’ revolution had not taken the rest of the world by storm. From the deliberations emerged the concept of Revolution and Eros: sexual instinct to be used as an instrument of destruction. The proposal of participant Willi Munzenburg was to “organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink… corrupt all its values and make life impossible….” One commentator has said that these Moscow meetings were “perhaps more harmful to Western civilisation than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.”

    One epochal outcome of subsequent meetings was the so-called Frankfurt School in Germany; a subversive organisation to which we often return in these pages. Consisting predominantly of Jewish Marxist intellectuals, this “School” was established within the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, to put flesh on Lenin’s revolutionary programme. In order to create the state of hopelessness and alienation needed to destabilise society and provoke a socialist revolution, they set about undermining the Christian legacy of the West by negative criticism of every facet and sphere of life (known in sum as “Critical Theory”). As we have documented elsewhere, Russian infiltrators were busily complementing this pernicious project of Western deconstruction (cf. “Consecrating Russia to Exorcise the West – Part II,” Nov. 2014). After moving to America in the 1930s, however, Frankfurt School members instilled radical autonomy, relativism, disaffection and alienation, like no other group.

    They quickly established themselves in prestigious universities and greatly influenced the emerging “entertainment-media” (which expression they typically coined), including Hollywood. Family, education, media, sex and popular culture were their main focus. In particular, its members led the 1960s sexual revolution and shaped popular culture with their toxic political/pansexual mix of Marx and Freud, even coining signature hippy mantras like “make love, not war,” and “do your own thing.” Wishing to destroy all objectivity and absolutes, they fostered widespread use of “sensitivity training” and “values clarification” techniques, along with child-centred learning, whereby teachers became mere “facilitators,” allowing pupils to develop their own subjective knowledge and wisdom.

    In this latter regard, while all authority was mocked and undermined, familial authority was especially targeted. “Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change,” the Frankfurt School determined. Accordingly, the authority of the father was attacked remorselessly, the specific roles of father and mother were denied, as were their rights as primary educators of their children. Pornographic classroom sex education figured hugely in their plans. (Even before he attended the initial Lenin meetings and later set up the Frankfurt School, Georg Lukacs had established his landmark programme of classroom sex education in then-Bolshevist Hungary.)

    Out of all this destructive Critical Theory (i.e., Socialist Revolution by other means) emerged the controlling Political Correctness of our day. Its underlying principle of ‘no tolerance for the intolerant’, preached by Herbert Marcuse, is perhaps the most oppressive and distinctively Jewish legacy of the Frankfurt School (— the ‘intolerant’ being Christians, whose ‘repressive’ religion allegedly brought about the Holocaust and so must be cleansed from the pubic square to avoid a repeat).

    Revolution as Fast-track Annulments
    Ultimately, the atheistic worldview thus imposed has formed, more or less directly, two generations of Western leaders: very many of whom view the Christian roots of their heritage as passé and intolerant at best; hateful and oppressive at worst. As the rebellious state of the Western Church embodied in the Bergoglian cabal testifies, many of our own leaders and their advisers have long shared a similar disaffection, drawing from the same godless source. During the ‘shadow synod’ held in Rome on 25 May, for instance, the influential Father Schockenhoff (referenced in Part 1) littered his heretical thesis with quotations from two Frankfurt School luminaries: psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, and Marxist sociologist Theodore Adorno.

    This meeting of restless, disaffected like-minds — the dovetailing of the Marxist cultural revolution without and the Modernist ecclesiastical revolution within — was in plain view by the time the Frankfurt School returned to Germany in 1953 (its corrosive ideas already percolating within Western institutions (3). For it was in 1952 that Hans Urs von Balthasar published what he called his “programmatic little book”: Razing the Bastions. Thirty years later, he was to tell (now Cardinal) Angelo Scola that the Second Vatican Council “adopted” much of this programme and “deepened it and taught it” [see “Broken Cisterns,” CO, March 2006].

    Since the ‘adoptees’ comprised both moderate and full-blown Modernists, barring Divine intervention it was only a matter of time before a conclave voted in a papacy of Bergoglian stripe: to apply the “programmatic” evolutionary principles to the hilt, in plain sight.

    Even as I write on the eve of Synod II, Francis has formally announced the streamlined annulment process he kicked-started shortly before Synod I. On 13 September 2014, it was announced that the Pope had established a new commission to speed up the annulments of marriages. The fact that this was announced the very day before the multiple marriage ceremony we mentioned last month, to which Pope Francis purposefully invited proudly cohabiting couples and allowed them to receive Holy Communion, showed up the stated intention — “to preserve the principle of the indissolubility of marriage” — as flagrant hypocrisy.

    Nonetheless, a year later, the commission’s furtive work done, the Holy Father still insists that the provisions of his Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (“The Lord Jesus, Clement Judge”), a motu proprio he has bulldozed through and dumped on the Church, “favour not the nullity of marriage but rather the speed of processes, along with the appropriate simplicity.” The positive spin being put about by the grossly naive is based on the document’s reaffirmation of “the indissolubility of the sacred conjugal bond.” Coming from a pontiff who promotes Kasperian conniving against that same “sacred bond,” who reportedly believes that the majority of marriages are invalid, who inserted scandalous moral contradictions into his multiple marriage ceremony, whose history of inciting sacrilegious Communions among the divorced-remarried is well known — in light of all that, we might be excused for not putting out the bunting.

    More realistically (yet without wishing to cast the slightest shadow over those who seek and obtain annulments in good faith), prioritising the “speed” and “simplicity” of the annulment process smacks of the latest nod to the post-1789 era: one more worldly concession to further undermine Catholic truth; in this case the very conjugal sanctity and indissolubility Francis claims to be upholding.

    John Paul II, who inherited the American annulment explosion after the Vatican first monkeyed around with the process in the seventies, did not seek a further relaxation. According to Cardinal Burke he actually rejected similar proposals to those now introduced by Francis. Rather, in a sincere but futile bid to put the nullity genie back in the bottle, his overriding priority was re-instruction: about the Church’s teaching on the “indissolubility of marriage — a teaching that comes from Christ himself,” as he bluntly reminded a group of American bishops during their October 1998 ad limina visit to Rome.

    “The referral of matrimonial cases to the tribunal (to ascertain if conditions for annulment exist) should be a last resort,” he told them, further warning the bishops that abuse of the declarations of nullity could cause even the faithful to misunderstand annulment, thinking of it as “divorce under a different name.” He stressed that existence of nullity must be a “moral certainty” not just a probability — thereby surely implying longer and deeper, not speedier and simpler consideration. He also insisted that the determination of mental or psychological problems rendering persons incapable of contracting a valid marriage be undertaken by a professional “who shares a Christian anthropology in accordance with the Church’s understanding of the human person.”(4)

    Would that Francis preferred to give prelates and priests similar pep talks (— not least the priest in charge of an Australian tribunal, who happily confided to the present writer several years ago that, undecided, he had finally granted one annulment based on a dream!) Instead, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus appears to tick the Modernist box corresponding to the familial objective on the Frankfurt School list of recommendations. According to Timothy Matthews (Catholic Insight, 2009), these included:

    • the creation of racism offences;
    • continual change to create confusion;
    • the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children;
    • the undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority;
    • mass immigration to destroy identity;
    • emptying of churches;
    • an unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime;
    • dependency on the state, or state benefits;
    • control and dumbing down of media;
    • encouraging the breakdown of the family.

    Although it is too early to say to what (potentially catastrophic) extent the new process will contribute to that final bullet point goal, one thing is beyond doubt: that reducing the time for acquiring an annulment to as little as 45 days, eliminating the need for a second confirming judgment, and leaving annulment decisions to the local bishop rather than canonical judges, will not strengthen the family — one jot!

    Convergence with the Cultural Hegemony
    Readers will recognise many other items on the above list as reflecting, directly or indirectly, diocesan liturgical, catechetical, educational, and social justice policies. Alone, widespread classroom sex education in Catholic schools qualifies most Western bishops as honorary members of the Frankfurt School: de facto cultural Marxists engaged in “Cultural Terrorism,” as the Communist ‘Father’ of sex ed, Georg Lukacs, described his undertaking.

    To underline the veracity of that damning charge, we need only recall the huge Irish youth vote for sodomitic ‘marriage,’ and the sickening sight of those ‘Catholic’ products of classroom sex education celebrating their referendum victory.

    Before that godless outcome, the insouciance of the Western hierarchy in general was captured in a post-referendum photo of the papal nuncio and a guffawing Bishop McAreavy seated in high spirits with the Northern Ireland Minister for Education, John O’Dowd of Sinn Fein (effectively the cultural Marxist arm of the IRA).

    The occasion was the opening of a ‘Catholic’ Grammar school, just after O’Dowd had released to all primary and secondary schools the latest diabolic Relationships and Sexuality Education Guidance. A social engineering handbook compiled by the usual array of anti-Catholic corrupters — like the Family Planning Association and radical sodomite propagandists Stonewall, whose web contact details are helpfully provided in the “Resources Directory” — it typically asserts among much else: “Recent research reveals that transgender young people become self-aware that their assigned birth sex is different from their gender identity between the ages of 3-5 years old. However, it is between the ages of 6-16 years old that transgender young people begin to understand their feelings, and can start to talk about them.”

    If the link between Mr O’Dowd’s depraved guidelines and the southern referendum result (not to mention the “millstone” in Matthew 18:6) did not occur to Bishop McAreavy and the nuncio; or that being photographed so happily with him might scandalise and disgust many faithful; or that publicly decrying the soul-destroying filth he has mandated was called for instead of a compromising photo-op … if these kinds of Catholic thoughts do not enter the minds of our shepherds, it is due not only to their manifest loss of faith, but to sheer human respect: their mortal fear of being cast as reactionary — as out of step and unreconciled with the spirit of modernity and its PC tenets.

    Indeed, that is why the hellish fusion of Modernist doctrine and the Socialist RSE guidelines occurred in the first place.(5) It is why the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, Dr Eamon Martin, met with representatives from two dissident-sodomitic groups on 22 July, stating he was committed to a continuing “dialogue” with them. And it explains his equally craven namesake, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, Archbishop Nichols of Westminster, Austria’s Cardinal Schönborn (who insists that “under civil law … we can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex, [and] to seek means to protect their living together”), and the vast majority of the Western hierarchy.

    This is all to say that whatever good intentions motivated Cardinal Ratzinger and his restive colleagues (to include Cardinal Schönborn, his former student and favoured son), rather than update and readjust the Syllabus, their counter syllabus has cancelled it out. The former defied the revolutionary zeitgeist. The latter has encouraged bishops to embrace it. In the process, they happily fool themselves by parroting variations on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s post-referendum theme: that “Dialogue does not mean compromise. It means engagement.” Yet if His Grace would only take his own infamous advice to “carry out continuous reality checks… facing the facts,” he would have to face: 1. the fact that dialogue has replaced evangelisation and led not to “engagement” but to absorption by cultural Marxism (aka ‘popular culture’); and 2. that if his flock sees nothing awry with sodomy, it is because he and his brethren have bought into that dominant Marxist culture.

    Rather than standing firm as a unified Catholic bloc against it, they have become indistinguishable from the Cultural Hegemony: “the plutocratic ruling class, who manipulate the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores” — so that their episcopal worldview reflects to a very great extent “the ruling-class Weltanschauung imposed and accepted as the cultural norm; as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.”(6)

    The Recyclical
    That is the convergent fruit of the counter syllabus. It is hardly a great leap from such rank complicity in the systematic Socialist transformation of culture to a cringing PC travesty like the Pope’s eco-encyclical Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home. Strewn with global warming alarmism that one might expect to find in the Guardian, New York Times, or a Greenpeace leaflet, it takes Modernist convergence with popular culture and craving for worldly acceptance and recognition to a new low.

    To describe the papal recyclical as rubbish sounds like a disrespectful pun. But in all charity and truth, it is so full of humanism, naturalism, Green propaganda, Teilhardian cosmic mumbo-jumbo, hypocrisy and hyperbole; so light on abortion, contraception, and population control; and so guilty of failing to put Christ the King and His Church front and centre of all considerations, that for the sake of “sister earth” and the greater glory of her forests, it is tempting not to waste any paper on it. Alas, it is so revealing of the Bergoglian agenda at so many levels we cannot but enlarge our carbon footprint.

    “In my Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I wrote to all the members of the Church with the aim of encouraging ongoing missionary renewal. In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home,” states Francis at the outset. How sad is this post-conciliar preference for “Me” over the papal “We.” Sad yet understandable and telling: “We” being seen as reactionary; redolent of chafing Tradition and constrictive continuity; signifying a sacred institution, not the personal bully pulpit Francis prefers. As for talk of “ongoing Missionary renewal” — this from a pontiff who warns against seeking out converts! While “our common home” is not ‘planet earth’ but the Holy Catholic Church; currently polluted by heresy, heterodoxy, complicity, collusion, and impending schism.

    Already hyperventilating, I was only at para 3! With an ocean of verbiage still to navigate! Yet rather than subject readers to a detailed log of my painful voyage through that vast Laudato ‘Sea’, here instead is a quick numerical and linguistic measure of its Modernist gist:

    Telling stats
    While “nature” is cited upwards of eighty times, amid the 246 paragraphs and 40,859 words (incl. footnotes and concluding prayer) the Church is mentioned only15 times, with less than 3% of the paras referencing Christ. The first of the forty-eight mentions is not until para 83, where the “risen Christ” is presented as a New Age “measure of the maturity of all things,” with specific attribution in the accompanying footnote (53) to the heretical pantheist Teilhard de Chardin. We wait till para 98 for the next lone mention of “Christ crucified” (a quote from John Paul II). While “Jesus Christ” appears only three times throughout.

    Only John XXIII and the post-conciliar popes are quoted. Unenlightened by the Council’s counter syllabus, pre-conciliar popes are ignored in toto.

    The globalist/freedom-killing/population-control key words “sustainable” and “unsustainable” appear twenty-four times, not many less than the word “spiritual” which appears in generic form thirty-one times, but only twice as specifically Christian (and once as specifically Muslim! – footnote 159). “Spirituality” is mentioned seventeen times: comprising 8 “Christian spirituality”, 4 “ecological spirituality” and 5 generic “spirituality.”

    The Catholic lexicon is stripped bare. The word “redemption” appears once (a quote from John Paul II), and “sacrifice” only four times (none of which refer to the sacrifice of Christ). One searches in vain for other Catholic terms and phrases like Mass, the Holy Sacrifice, the Real Presence, Confession, the Rosary, Paradise and Purgatory. And although the word “social” appears a whopping 94 times, the Social Kingship of Christ is not mentioned, nor is there a solitary allusion to it.

    The soul is mentioned only once, and then only to “find God in all things” (233). Sin is mentioned four times, only in connection with nature, just as the salvation of the soul is ditched in favour of four types of salvation achievable through an appropriate relationship with nature (71, 79, 79, 112). “Ecological conversion” appears three times. “Ecological virtue” is tossed in for good measure.

    The Eucharist is mentioned nine times, as a cosmic “source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment,” eight of those in a single paragraph of incomprehensible Teilhardian babble: where “the cosmos thanks God” and the Eucharist is “celebrated on the altar of the world,” healing relationships with God and with the world, encouraging us to take care of nature.

    Exasperating and embarrassing
    Truly, after two years of scandal and double-speak, it was hard to read any section of the recyclical without head-shaking, cheek-blowing exasperation. “It is not easy to promote… healthy humility or happy sobriety when we consider ourselves autonomous,… and think that our subjective feelings can define what is right and what is wrong,” Francis truly writes. Yet what is “Who Am I To Judge?” if not the new subjective standard for defining “what is right and wrong”; the Modernist siren call of a pope who refuses to take an objective stand against the singular vice of sodomy, even to adopting the insidious “gay” word to cloak the truth and protect the “subjective feelings” of its practitioners.

    To a Catholic mind concentrated on the health of Mother Church over (and infinitely above) that of “sister earth,” the para 46 warnings against “social exclusion,” “social aggression,” “social breakdown,” “increased violence,” and “the rupture of bonds” only served to call to mind yet again the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Their brutal exclusion, splintering, and defaming under Francis — to include stripping them of their right, reaffirmed by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum, to offer the Old Mass without episcopal approval — encapsulates the violent rupturing of spiritual, liturgical and fraternal bonds among Catholics over a forty-five year period, and counting.

    It is violence against nature that preoccupies Francis, however. With his garment-renting appeal to hear “the cry of sister earth, pleading that we take another course,” he sounds “like a cross between Al Gore and Chicken Little,” wrote Chris Jackson in a scathing critique. “The cry of the earth? The earth is fragile and now it’s crying? If we are to believe the pope, we are currently living on the planetary equivalent of a six-month old.”

    He finds further hyperbole, served up with the usual self-deception/contradiction, in para 61:

    There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view, for we have stopped thinking about the goals of human activity. “If we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations.”

    “First,” notes Jackson, “the pope’s own encyclical is full of doomsday predictions. Second, the only ‘points of view’ represented are those of the climate alarmists. Third, with all of the true moral outrages occurring across the globe, including ISIS beheading and slaughtering Christians, the pope is going to say humanity has disappointed God’s expectations in not turning off their air conditioners? Somehow I believe if Our Lord had a full airing of His grievances against humanity, the accusations in this encyclical would be last on His list, if they were even included at all.”(7)

    Inverted priorities and ungodly ends
    Indeed they are not listed by Christ. But how about Antichrist? Admittedly, the diabolic Frankfurt School did not include on its list of objectives items such as: ‘pseudo-scientific scaremongering to foster global centres of power and control’; or ‘the fostering of CO2ophobia and environmental phantoms to incite social conflict by emptying government coffers.’ But it may as well have done. As evinced by our October 2006 edition on environmentalism and the global-warming scam, the Green movement is the Frankfurt School on steroids: promoting in one way or another just about every anti-Christian error condemned by Pius IX.

    Bearing that in mind: amid so many crises raging within and without the Church, that the Supreme Pontiff preferred to release an encyclical incorporating the mendacious Green agenda beggars belief. While words simply fail before such salvific concerns as the danger to “coral reefs, tropical and subtropical seas, fish, crabs, molluscs, sponges, algae”… oh, and “plankton.” Not to mention the finger-wagging rebuke over “the increasing use and power of air-conditioning” (— was it switched on or off as he penned his rebuke? I think we should be told.)

    The inverted papal priorities are striking because the sound Catholic passages contained in the recyclical could have been uttered or laid out in a dozen other papal ways and formats, without the ballyhoo that distracted attention from matters of genuine life and death.

    It all amounted to gifting our enemies yet another Bergoglian social gospel opportunity to be instrumentalised for ungodly ends. We can count on the ungodliness because the Green signature is not a heavenly one marked by a disinterested pursuit of truth. On the contrary, in one scandal or tax-payer funded stitch up after another, its handiwork is repeatedly stamped with mendacity and self-serving of the most heinous kind.

    Al Gore immediately springs to mind.

    The embodiment of Green dissembling and hypocrisy, he has made a fortune since igniting the man-made global-warming industry with his movie Inconvenient Truth. A film riddled with errors and wild claims, a British High Court judge ruled in October 2007 that it could only be shown in schools if accompanied by fresh guidance notes (read scientific correction sheets) to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views. Stating that the “apocalyptic vision” it presented was not an impartial analysis of the science, the judge identified no less than nine significant errors in the film. Among them was Gore’s heart-rending reference to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice.” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” (Perhaps the Supreme Pontiff was moved by a similar fabricated sob story about plankton — its aimless drifting and pitiless CO2-induced demise… alone… unloved… in unicellular agony…?)

    Gore is emblematic. Whether scientists on government and corporate payrolls, or UN panels shaping political agendas, you can Google their lies, dissembling, and/or manipulation of data. Yet the mere fact that “man-made global warming” quickly became the indeterminate “climate change” — just as the “safe sex” lie became the ongoing “safer sex” half-lie — speaks to its subversive roots. The greatest sham in history (the world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998, by the way), it dwarfs even the Piltdown Man ‘missing link’ fabrication that ruled the scientific roost for over 40 years — from 1912 to 1953 — before it emerged as the jaw of an orangutan fitted into a human skull.

    While that particular fraud was the chief among many others instigated to prop up the evolutionary house of cards on which atheistic modernity rests — to wipe out absolute doctrinal and moral truths by eliminating God from the equation — environmentalism seeks not to wipe out but coopt religion: for pantheistic purposes that serve a global religious/political project many decades in the making. Since a certain priestly pantheist by the name of Teilhard de Chardin, SJ, loomed large in the Piltdown hoax, there is a dark symmetry to his posthumous influence on the Holy Father’s contribution to the global warming hoax; a telling aspect of Laudato Si James Larson will explain next month.

    Calculated Silence
    Slipped in to the alarmist narrative in general are particular bursts of pro-life and anti-population control utterances and allusions. Mere background noise, these kinds of salvos are a sadly familiar papal ploy. As Sandro Magister once noted:

    It is not easy to enter into the mind of Pope Bergoglio…. He makes tough and biting remarks, but never at a moment in which they could generate conflict. [Francis repeatedly says] “the view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church.” Sometimes he recalls this combatively for those who expect him to change doctrine, as in the least-cited passage of his Evangelii Gaudium, where he has the harshest of words against the ‘right’ to abortion. But he never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated.

    Magister cites several examples of the Pope’s silence and lack of support before anti-life/anti-family legislation in various countries (to which we could now add the American Supreme Court Obergefell decision, and the Irish referendum). The Pope has also remained silent, says Magister, about a UN report that exalts the current pontiff but “humiliates” the Church, calling on the Vatican to “correct” its teachings on abortion, the family, and sex. He adds: “There is a Jacobin-style attack against the Church, not only in France, that simply wants to exclude it from civil discourse,” before which the non-response of Francis contrasts starkly with Benedict XVI who “preferred conflict in the open field, with the courage of the ‘yes’ that means ‘yes’ and the ‘no’ that means ‘no’. This is why the world was so ferocious with him,” Magister concludes. “With Francis it is different.”

    Since Benedict was open to genuine environmental concerns yet hated by the worldlings, the secular praise lavished upon Francis for Laudato Si underlines Magister’s point. Even more than the Green propaganda he mouths, it is the contradictory si, no, si, no methodology of the Conciliar revolution he personifies that they truly appreciate. The recyclical’s intermittent Catholic bits, therefore, pose no serious problem to cultivating the Socialist ties that Francis perversely views as the way forward for the Church — notably by tapping in to the global web of catch-all (political, economic, cultural, social, environmental) “popular movements.”

    Like the treacherous Ostpolitik appeasement of the former Soviet bloc under Paul VI, this Vatican policy is at odds with all Catholic instinct and tradition. And yet, in view of what we have argued — that Modernist ‘creativity’ mirrors, by act and acquiescence, Marxist ‘creativity’ — we should not be at all surprised by this increasingly blatant proximity of post-13/3/13 Rome to the Socialist network; a scandalous relationship long established by ‘Catholic’ social justice groups.

    Counter-revolutionary Sustenance!
    We will pursue this theme of ideology-as-religion in our final part. Meanwhile, to bolster flagging spirits, we offer readers some counter-revolutionary fare:

    – a sturdy dose of papal conviction, clarity, and strength from St. Pius X, together with a rousing Pius X-like counter-encyclical penned by Randy Engel (both of which speak to the complicity of Laudato Si, and anaemic post-conciliar encyclicals in general);

    – Prince Bertrand’s masterly expose of the neo-Marxists being feted by Rome, and why their hackneyed rhetoric remains inimical to the restoration of Christian civilisation and order;

    – Thomas Belfatto’s scholarly review of perennial Church teaching on marriage and morality: Exhibit A in the doctrinal case against proposals by papal-surrogates like Kasper;

    – a reminder of the inspirational St Joan (where would we be without the courageous witness of our incomparable Saints!)

    – plus a recap of Our Lady’s spectacular public ratification of Fatima — which vital devotion and message the Holy Father feigned, initially, to embrace and place at the centre of his pontificate; only to contradict himself (again).

    FOOTNOTES

    (1) The synodical conspiracy was loudly boasted at a private function beforehand, by a high-ranking cardinal — see CO, Dec. 2014, pp. 26-27. In his new book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, author Edward Pentin has identified this arrogant figure as Cardinal Baldiserri, the General Secretary of both Synods on the Family; the man responsible for removing from the Synod Hall mail box of each Synod Father, a book co-authored by five cardinals in defense of Catholic teaching on marriage and family, in order to avoid the derailing of his subversive plans. Cardinal Napier told Pentin that a few months before the 2014 Synod an official at the Synod Secretariat had come to see him to share serious concerns. The official told Napier that he was “very disturbed” by what he had witnessed and commented that “this thing is being manipulated, it’s being engineered. [They] want a certain result.” Cardinal Baldisseri has been at pains to point out that he is merely the Secretary and the Pope, as President of the Synod of Bishops, is his close-controlling boss. “Pay attention, as this is something one really should know” sneered Baldiserri, informing his critics that Francis presides over all the council meetings of the Secretariat, and saw and approved all the (scandalous) documents associated with the 2014 synod, before they were published.

    (2) Archbishop Cupich is representative of this favoured heretical band. Before Francis appointed him to Chicago, then-Bishop Cupich even forced a 200-strong Traditional Mass congregation to hold their Good Friday ceremonies on the pavement outside their Rapid City church. He also forbade his Spokane clergy from participating in a major pro-life vigil. Today, he defends the rights of sodomites, and the giving of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians.

    (3)”The heirs of [Frankfurt School members Herbert] Marcuse and [Theodore] Adorno now completely dominate [US] universities and there are very few books on arts, letters and language published today in the US or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School” (— Michael Minnicino, Fidelio Magazine, 1992; quoted by Tim Matthews, in Catholic Insight, 2009).

    (4) This psychological evaluation is a very low threshold, however. Under the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law (developed during a notorious era of Masonic activity and influence within Italy and the Vatican – cf. “Chronic Covergence” Part I, CO, Aug-Sept. 2012), annulments have been easy to obtain on the assessment of ‘immaturity’ as to understanding what was known/believed about entering a marriage contract. The new procedures just make a bad situation worse.

    (5) See “Wake up Ireland!”and “Sensual Catechesis: Irish Bishops in Bed with the State” (also other accompanying articles in the February 1999 Christian Order.)

    (6) The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition, 1999.

    (7) “Why I’m Disregarding Laudato Si and You Should Too.” The Remnant, 19/6/15.

  2. November 2015

    Recycling The Revolution: 3

    THE EDITOR

    Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution…. that which I fear is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavours to unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and water ….

    Blessed Pius IX (1871)

    [W]hat has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organisation… is now [part] of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world… the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak…

    St. Pius X (1910)

    [W]e are unable to ignore the Second Vatican Council and its consequences… With all our hearts we support the Revolution of John XXIII… This courageous concept of the Freedom of Thought that lies at the core of our Freemasonic lodges, has spread in a truly magnificent manner right under the Dome of St. Peter’s.

    Yves Marsaudon (1964)

    Before Vatican II, in theology, as in other areas, the discipline was fixed. After the council there has been a revolution — a chaotic revolution — with free discussion on everything. There is now no common theology or philosophy as there was before.

    Cardinal Danneels (2001)

    A crude revolutionary timeline, the opening quotes reveal at a glance our rapid rapprochement with “the new era inaugurated in 1789”: which is to say our descent into the revolutionary pit.

    Within eighty years of the French Revolution and the prideful, hateful, destructive masonic spirit it unleashed, Pius IX could not have sounded more contemporary in denouncing three of its primary acids eating away at faith, truth, and life:

    Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism.

    These, he wrote on 18 June 1871 to a French deputation headed by the Bishop of Nevers, “are the true causes of the destruction of states.” He well understood, however, that the last item was the most frightening and destructive of all:

    That which I fear is not the Commune of Paris — no — … I have said so more than forty times, and I repeat it to you now, through the love that I bear you. The real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism….

    Within another forty years, the rebellious spirit of naturalism had gained such a grip on the hearts and minds of the clergy that St. Pius X was forced to issue his powerful intellectual and disciplinary counterpunch, Pascendi (1907).

    It is testimony to the preternatural anti-spirit of the Revolution that even the mighty Pope Saint failed to eradicate its clerical partisans and fellow-travellers in toto. It did not stop the liberal torch of “the new era” being passed to succeeding generations: not least to the ‘moderate’ faction of bastion-razing Balthasar acolytes (Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, Christoph Schönborn, et. al.) Yet if Pascendi tragically failed to knock the Modernists out for the count, it at least felled them so heavily that they retreated to lick their wounds and bide their time, as Pius X turned from their false philosophy and theology to their socio-political errors.

    The Sillon
    “What has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?” he asked several years later, in his 1910 Apostolic Letter Nôtre Charge Apostolique (“Our Apostolic Mandate).” He was referring to Le Sillon (“The Furrow”), a social movement established in 1894 by Catholic students and supported by countless French bishops and priests. Seduced by the zeitgeist, it soon came to place democracy on a pedestal, and priests and laity on the same egalitarian footing during study workshops. Concurrently, its publication went from being a “Catholic review of social action,” to a “Review of democratic action,” in which a Catholic tone gave way to populist democratism pursuant to the principles of 1789.

    “A socio-political set-up resting on [the] two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which Fraternity will presently be added), is what they call Democracy,” wrote Pius X, alluding to its Revolutionary roots. In a scintillating analysis, he laid bare the Sillon’s Catholic pretensions to reveal their false (masonic) democracy rooted in the radical autonomy of man. “Le Sillon places public authority primarily in the people, from whom it then flows into the government in such a manner, however, that it continues to reside in the people,” he wrote. The divine and natural truth, on the contrary, is that some men can command others only because “their authority to do so derives from, and is a participation in the supreme authority of God.” Or as St Paul put it to the Romans [13:1]: “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.”

    “By ignoring the laws governing human nature,” wrote Pius X, the Sillonists lead society “not toward progress, but toward death.” They “dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles; and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.”

    The “chaotic revolution” mainstreamed
    In a brutal coup d’etat just fifty years after this masterly papal rebuke, resurgent Modernists, still bearing deep-seated scars and anti-Thomistic bitterness from their Pascendi-pummelling, revived the same deathly Sillonist programme at Vatican II; replacing the supernatural Gospel of salvation with the naturalistic gospel of social reform.

    The Lodge was exultant. Having long planned and prophesied this seismic shift, they knew what was to follow. “If there are still some remnants of thought, reminiscent of the Inquisition, they will be drowned in a rising flood of ecumenism and liberalism,” declared Yves Marsaudon in his 1964 book, Ecumenism As Seen By A French Freemason. “One of the most tangible consequences will be the lowering of spiritual barriers that divide the world.”

    That was the nub of the “chaotic revolution” so fondly recalled by Belgium’s Prince of Darkness, Cardinal Danneels: the post-conciliar revolt that jettisoned traditional theology, philosophy, discipline and customs in search of secular chimeras. “More terrible than the Revolution” itself, it was Blessed Pius IX’s definition of Hell: the “scourge” of Liberal Catholicism officially sanctioned as ‘Catholicism.’

    How perfectly their modus operandi mimicked the Sillonists — who, wrote St. Pius X, presented their errors “in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words… set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”

    “Vague,” “ambiguous,” “emotional,” “high-sounding” … the spirit of the Sillon coalesced in the Council documents, spewing forth and mainstreaming the very Liberal Catholic anti-spirit Blessed Pius IX condemned “more than forty times.”

    The making of Don Jorge
    In that respect, Jorge Bergoglio is just one more egregious product of his liberal times. Pope Francis, however, is the creation of Godfried Danneels and other Modernist cardinals united in their opposition to Cardinal Ratzinger and then Benedict XVI. Speaking on 23 September 2015 at the launch of his authorised biography, Danneels laughingly described this cabal as “a mafia club that bore the name St. Gallen,” the Swiss city where they secretly met from 1995 until 2006. These mafiosi — comprising all the usual suspects: Kasper, Lehman, Martini, Hume, Murphy-O’Connor, Silvestrini, et. al. — wanted a drastic reform of the Church, said Danneels, to make it “much more modern.” Jorge Bergoglio was to be their capo di tutti capi.(1)

    Over many years, using their individual networks which almost saw him elected at the 2005 conclave, they finally engineered the elevation of Don Jorge as papal Godfather.

    Before such arrogance, readers must understand that these elite ecclesiastical revolutionaries have been a law unto themselves for half-a-century. Faithless. Untouchable. Living well at lay expense (their regular airfares to St. Gallen included), they do what they like. The notorious Cardinal Danneels is wholly representative.

    There is a whiff of brimstone about Danneels. With a smile like the winter sun glinting on a coffin-plate, you wouldn’t be surprised to find he had steel teeth. In 2008, he proudly admitted having dressed in ritualistic masonic garb to deliver a lecture at a Belgian masonic temple.(2)A man who completely separates political decisions from moral norms, in 1990 he even tried to persuade King Baudouin to sign the Belgian abortion bill into law (— the devout Baudouin told him to bug off, then briefly abdicated in protest while they passed their murderous ‘law’.)

    He has also referred to ‘gay marriage’ laws as a “positive development,” stating that the French people should “obey the law” and not oppose it. In 2010, recordings revealed him urging a victim not to reveal 13 years of sexual abuse at the hands of his friend Bishop Vangheluwe of Bruges. While it goes without saying that he promotes the deadly condom-AIDS nexus.

    This, dear reader,is the sulphurous ringleader of the “mafia club” that conjured up the startled figure prodded onto the papal balcony on 13 March 2013 (— with “discreet king-maker” Godfried Danneels close by, noted Belgian newspaper Le Vif).In a last ditch effort to realise the “nefarious” Sillonistic ideals denounced by Pius X, they now had their mouthpiece to “set ablaze the hearts of men” with heightened levels of “vague, emotional, high-sounding” post-conciliar verbiage, and doctrine be damned.

    Their plan reached a crescendo last May with the papal cry “to move forward in a bold cultural revolution” predicated on eco-alarmism that pushes “a true world political authority… empowered to impose penalties for damage inflicted on the environment.” Not a Catholic counter-revolution, mind. Not a movement of personal conversion and adherence to Catholic moral teachings in order to topple the devastating sexual revolution engineered by the cultural Marxists. Not a concerted drive to establish the Social Reign of Christ the King by widespread preaching on the proper understanding of political power, according to which the Church becomes the conscience of the State, and Her teachings the salvific yardstick of all cultural, social, political and economic activity.

    On the contrary, in his rush is to preach appeasement, compromise, inclusivity and non-judgmentalism under the Green umbrella, Francis proposes instead a further acceleration away from the Social Kingship of Christ, towards a New World Order “empowered” to cleanse the last remnants of Catholic faith, conscience, and reason itself, from the public square.

    Seamless garment sell out
    Just two-and-a-half years ago it was impossible to imagine a Church “much more modern” than the Liberal Catholic horror we already suffered at the hands of Danneels & Co.: a hyper-protestantised Church of girl altar boys, syncretic Assisi extravaganzas, institutionalised sacrilege, worldly clergy, empty convents, seminaries and parishes, and every kind of heretical dysfunction. It took the papal poster boy of the St. Gallen crew to broaden our horizons. And how!

    Ever since Jorge Bergoglio’s contrived election, this magazine has been a running factual record of his self-contradictory efforts to unite principles “as repugnant to each other as fire and water.” The May 2015 publication of Laudato Si was the most spectacular effort to date. Mixing truth and error, Catholicism and Socialism, God and Mammon… Modernist ideology made papal common cause with Green ideology to offer souls ideology as religion.

    As noted last month, the recyclical does include intermittent pro-life passages, and due warnings against gender ideology and population control. But these token contributions are deliberately outweighed and cancelled out by a preponderance of eco-propaganda, with all its tiresome clichés and Teilhardian gobbledygook masquerading as spirituality.

    Effectively, Laudato Si is a jumbo-sized application of Cardinal Bernadin’s perfidious ‘seamless garment.’ In particular, it let the population-controllers off the hook (as brilliantly underlined last month by Randy Engel), while marginalising the pro-life cause in general: refusing to highlight and differentiate the genocide of unborn children from a catch-all eco-ethic of ‘sustainable life’. Even with the US abortion industry on the skids, Francis pushed the same line during his recent American visit, most notably during his address to Congress. Amid wild media applause, John Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews summarised what really transpired:

    The timing of Pope Francis’ speech to Congress could hardly be seen as anything short of divinely planned – coming on the same day as the Senate is scheduled to vote on whether to defund Planned Parenthood, the country’s number one killer of unborn babies.

    Meanwhile, on Monday, Democrats halted a ban on most late-term abortions. On Friday, the House voted to pass a bill making it 1st degree murder to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion. Add to this the fact that millions have watched those undercover Planned Parenthood videos in recent weeks [revealing PP’s selling of organs plundered from the babies they kill], and it becomes clear that the groundwork has been laid for an unprecedented national conversation on abortion.

    Hopes that the pope’s address could help sway public support in favor of life at this critical moment were raised when he spoke to the assembled lawmakers of the need to protect life at “every stage of development.” Those watching naturally assumed that this remark was prelude to some additional words addressing the abortion issue, and perhaps even the Planned Parenthood scandal.

    However, in a curious bait-and-switch that left many pro-life politicians in the chamber in puzzled silence, the pope instead turned his attention immediately to the death penalty, describing how “this conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.”

    Even the New York Times took note of the unexpected change of direction, describing how, “instead of continuing on to talk about the need to end abortion, he pivots to the
    death penalty.”

    Another clear opening to speak specifically to the abortion issue came when the pope spoke about “money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.” The phrase is a perfect encapsulation of the Planned Parenthood aborted baby parts scandal. Disappointingly, however, the pope connected these words only to the arms trade. [LSN, 24/9/15]

    And so the baby-trafficking Planned Parenthood lived to abort and traffic another day — on the American taxpayer’s dime. Way beyond “disappointing,” a more heinous sin of omission is hard to imagine. Even ‘diabolic disorientation’ does not adequately convey the enormity of this seamless garment sell out. To sidestep such a momentous — historic — opportunity to speak Catholic truth to power, underlined and encapsulated everything we have observed and documented about Pope Francis. Not least his calculated retreats to the Quiet Zone: where he “never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated,” as Sandro Magister put it.
    The papal silence was even more deafening after Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix ordered his flock to man the barricades! Shortly after the Congressional non-event, in a plea to his flock of 29 September, His Lordship did not hold back:

    As I write this exhortation, videos are being released documenting the barbaric practice of selling baby body parts by Planned Parenthood. Since this infamous agency receives around half a billion dollars each year from the U.S. Government, funds to carry on their slaughter of innocents, no American citizen, and certainly no man, can remain silent about this travesty of our times. We need to get off the sidelines and stand up for life on the front lines. We need faith like that of our fathers who defended the children of previous generations and who gave up their own lives rather than abandon their faith in Christ. My sons and brothers, men of the Diocese of Phoenix, we need you to step into the breach!

    ‘And so I withstand Francis to the face,’ he may as well have signed off, ‘because he is to be blamed’ [Gal. 2:11].

    Bait-and-switch
    The key phrase in Mr Jalsevac’s report is “bait-and-switch.” Together with his retreat to purposeful silence whenever a raised papal voice is required, Francis employs this tactic with devilish dexterity.

    To deflect attention from his shameful antics and corrosive Liberalism, the Pope tosses out scraps of orthodoxy and tradition; soundbites and token gestures for which neo-conservatives eagerly scavenge, hold up, and acclaim, even as their hero turns away to undermine the Faith once again. Hence they rejoiced over the few pro-life lines contained in his Congressional address, ignoring the dismal fact that “only 75 words out of the 3,400 words” of the Pope’s address to Congress “had anything to do with anything even close” to life and marriage, as leading US Evangelical Albert Mohler noted with a heavy heart.

    President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mohler was most alarmed that in Congress the Pope “never even mentioned Jesus Christ.” Alarming indeed. And telling. Yet hardly a surprising omission for a pope who has refused to make the Sign of the Cross over non-Catholics for fear of offending them! (A pontiff whose pectoral cross also drops under his sash and out of sight, with alarming regularity, in the company of rabbis.(3))

    “Furthermore,” added Mohler, “among the things he didn’t mention were specifically the Catholic Church’s concern about abortion and its definition of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Instead what the Pope referenced in terms of those issues was a very fuzzy and evasive approach that left many people wondering if he was actually talking about either abortion or marriage at all.” (Which of course was the purpose of the exercise, and precisely why the “mafia club” chose Jorge!)

    Mohler explained that while Francis did mention marriage, “he never defined it and he certainly didn’t draw attention to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church identifies marriage as and only as the union of a man and a woman.” (That he also avoided the elephant in the room — diabolic sodomy — goes without saying.) Mohler continued:

    Instead he offered a statement that can be interpreted by virtually anyone as that individual may wish to interpret it, mentioning marriage and the family without defining either. And speaking of the future of marriage in such a way that virtually no one regardless of their position on the moral revolution can disagree with him. Furthermore, even though the sanctity of human life is a fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, it was virtually missing from the Pope’s statement; explicitly missing was any reference to abortion and to the fact that abortion is now one of the most controversial frontline issues in America today.

    Commonality and common ground
    The American President was quick to exploit the loophole-laden address, especially the papal warning about a “temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.” Obama immediately shoved that compromising passage in the face of Republicans fighting to defund Planned Parenthood, while using it to justify his own fight to maintain hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for America’s leading abortion provider. “I would just ask members to really reflect on what His Holiness said,” he piously intoned,

    — not in the particulars, but in the general problem that we should be open to each other, we should not demonise each other, we should not assume that we have a monopoly on the truth or on what’s right, that we listen to each other and show each other respect and that we show regard for the most vulnerable in our society.

    This meeting of presidential and papal minds also reflects their mutual delusion: viz., the familiar refrain of personal humility, deference, and respect. Apropos Francis, we have comprehensively exposed the falsity of his high humble self-regard. While for his part, the narcissistic bisexual Obama lost his moral compass long ago.(4)

    Either promoting or complicit in every degenerate political campaign, Barack Obama has no regard whatsoever for “what’s right,” and so little “respect” for the “most vulnerable in our society” that he zealously defends the killing of babies in plain sight (just as they are emerging from the womb). He is also the most mendacious and divisive president in American history; an Alinskyite “community organiser” trained to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” using systematic deception and the language of morality to conceal Saul Alinsky’s destructive Marxist agenda.

    That short bio puts the hypocritical magnitude of the presidential moralising above on a par with the epic papal duplicity we regularly critique. Noting that Obama’s call echoed similar words he made on the campus of Notre Dame in 2009, when he said both sides of the abortion debate must speak with “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words,” LifeSiteNews pointed out that

    pro-life advocates say the president has demonized them with an endless stream of federal actions: prosecuting sidewalk counselors, gathering intelligence on the pro-life movement, and branding pro-life Americans as potential domestic terrorists in numerous federal reports.

    Even more significant than the common double-speak, however, is the fact that both are front men for vested New World Order [NWO] interests: Francis for the heretical St. Gallen crew, and Obama for more venal Wall Street varieties. This commonality explains how such a degenerate President can find genuine succour and encouragement in the words of reigning Pope. In other words, if Francis appeared to ‘drop the ball’ in Congress — to miss a one-off chance to strike a major blow against the Culture of Death (which isthe NWO) — it was only to allow his like-minded political counterpart, and cultural Marxist par excellence, to pick up that ball and run with it. Albert Mohler explained the underlying papal intention well enough:

    It represents an opportunity to avoid having to get to the hard edges of Christian truth. It is an intentional effort to avoid a direct confrontation with the secularising culture. It is an effort to try to get along in terms of this moral revolution, not so much at this point by changing the teachings of his church, but by soft-pedalling them or in the case of his address to Congress not even mentioning them. Not even daring to define marriage which is so central to the Catholic Church that it is actually one of the sacraments recognised by the church, but the Pope didn’t reference marriage and he didn’t define it and that is incredibly telling.

    Under the Green umbrella
    Unlike our neocons, Protestant Evangelicals, for all their many faults, are not blind to Catholic events unfolding before their eyes. They are not distracted by the mass of contradictions that define Francis, nor fooled by his bait-and-switch tactics. Like Mohler, they understand that the convergence comes to pass more by papal soft-pedalling or omission than actual denial of the Faith.

    A simple cartoon captured the mentality and the process. Sitting on one side of a confessional screen, Obama confesses: “I’m the most pro-abortion President in history.” Comes the papal reply from the other side: “But where do you stand on Climate Change?”

    Voilà! — the naturalistic sea change, in orientation and emphasis, by Francis and his backers. As St. Pius X said of the leaders of the Sillon, the zeitgeist has “carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Saviour.” The false gospel in question is of course the social gospel. “A chimera, bring[ing] Socialism in its train,” warned St. Pius, the social gospel joins up infidelity with godless political outcomes like night follows day. And so the syncretic Assisi abominations eventually — inevitably — found the Church ensconced under the Green umbrella, where all the ideological strains of Socialism make common socio-political common cause.

    Environmentalism — as opposed to normal healthy concern for good stewardship of the environment — is an all encompassing ideology that has taken cultural Marxism to a new totalising level. Materialistic, messianic, implacable, dripping with emotional appeals and utopian global designs, it mirrors common garden Socialism. However, tapping into the same wellspring of liberal shame and guilt that gave us abortion on demand (through self-justifying feminists), it has been able exaggerate and exploit modern misgivings about environmental degradation in order to mainstream Socialism as never before.

    Boasting 50+ million legally-sanctioned surgical murders of unborn children each year, and countless more chemical abortions, the current Age of Unreason & Genocide has far outdone Marxist and Fascist regimes in its expedient disregard for human life. In order to rationalise this mass killing of the unborn, and the culling of the vulnerable ‘useless eaters’ who survive the womb (to spare the planet more bodies, consumers, and CO2 than it can handle), the West is happily comforted by Environmentalism: which acts to numb, comfort, and distract the amoral Western conscience. At the same time, a quasi-religious reverence for Mother Earth fills the spiritual void in empty, affluent Western lives.

    Against that background, the Green juggernaut and its media lackeys are free to dictate contemporary terms: to shout down scientific findings that do not fit its pre-determined agenda; to eschew fair and open debate in favour of demonising dissenters; to fabricate, distort, and/or bury facts to suit itself.

    Instead of condemning this Green ideology out of hand, in the way pre-conciliar popes denounced its doctrinaire Red and Brown lineage,(5)Laudato Si as good as sanctioned the neo-fascism/neo-communism underpinning the NWO.

    Firstly, by marginalising and misrepresenting Catholic teaching throughout the document, while soft-pedalling urgent priorities — e.g., reducing the abortion tsunami to this single, tepid mention: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion” (#120). As if his Facebook ‘friends’ will take any more notice of that lone reference than they will of the few allusions to population control, also buried under the 40,000+ other words.
    Secondly, by accepting at face value and parroting false Green claims — e.g., “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system” (#23). This fundamental falsehood requires elaboration.

    An M.D. from Harvard who did postgraduate work at Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California, the late best-selling novelist Dr. Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame), was no dilettante. In a 2003 lecture he famously noted: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    A post by Brad Miner on The Catholic Thing recounted that the title of that Crichton lecture was “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” and its message was a cautionary tale about how “science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.” Crichton took on popularisers of scientific fads such as Carl “Nuclear Winter” Sagan and Paul “Population Bomb” Ehrlich. The popularity of their doom-and-gloom prophecies was based on a kind of peer-pressure, consensus politics that endured until the prognosticators were proved false (— just as the 40-year Piltdown Man fabrication was enforced as untouchable ‘science’ until finally exposed). After applying actual scientific discipline to the global warming scare, Crichton concluded his talk with a common sense view that totally escapes the Holy Father:

    Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

    It often seems that way. Yet while the Holy Father may have lost his faith, he still possesses the mental capacity to establish the lack of “A very solid scientific consensus.” Prior to publishing Laudato Si, a quick Google search for scientific dissidents would have alerted him, for instance, to one petition co-signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers (including more than 9,000 PhD’s), which states that CO2 (“carbon”) is “harmless” and “beneficial” to the biosphere; that there is no downside to more CO2; that it’s still just a very tiny trace gas, as essential to all life on earth as H2O. They also declared as one that

    there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of… carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    Every co-signer of this Oregon Petition was vetted, each one has a degree in the hard sciences (including climate science itself), and each one is named, along with their degree.

    Let us not forget, too, that just before the release of the recyclical, 100 environmental scientists sent Francis a letter imploring him not to allow himself to be misled by the arguments of radical environmentalists and by analyses that have not been demonstrated by environmental science. Dated 27 April, the letter added that, under the pretext of helping the poor, revolutionary environmentalists are actually contributing with their proposals to increase misery around the world.

    “Consensus”? With just as little effort the Holy Father would also have found dozens of scientifically reviewed reasons why “global warming” is some distance beyond farce, never mind “very solid consensus.” Moreover, he would have quickly discovered that the foundational statistic repeatedly championed by the disreputable Al Gore and a host of others, such as President Obama — who even tweeted on 16 May 2014 that “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” — is a total fabrication. The Wall Street Journal reported that “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.(6)

    Green payola
    We could devote many entire editions to exposing the Green hoax: its lies, exaggerations, endemic hypocrisy, and corruption. Also the hugely expensive energy projects which have cost the peoples of the West trillions in subsidies and associated costs. CEOs and executives rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns, and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going, all courtesy of taxpayers.

    Typically, after accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions, President Obama made sure to include his “global warming” plans in his victory speech: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” he pontificated (as if a ghost writer of Laudato Si). The palm-greasing in this case involved the failed Solyndra green-energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million and created a lot of flack for Obama. A little-known side of the Solyndra story, explains Tom Luongo, is that

    Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign, by funneling it through Solyndra. You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors, Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.”

    Green payola is endemic. General Electric is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO US taxes in 2011. First Solar received $646 million in US government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.

    And so it goes. In America alone, writes Luongo, a former scientist with the University of Florida, $22 billion of taxpayer money is redistributed every year to greedy scientists, politicians, and corporations for “global warming” initiatives. But these initiatives have ripple effects, mainly the regulations (from government agencies like the monolithic US Environmental Protection Agency) that shackle free enterprise and force reliance on foreign energy. According to Forbes magazine, the total cost of these ripple effects is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually.

    Al Gore is the personification of the whole wicked sham. A wealthy Green demagogue who decries the supposedly apocalyptic carbon footprint of ordinary folk, the hypocritical Gore racks up annual electricity and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national American average. In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has accumulated $100 million, almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies, 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration. The Telegraph reports Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies, all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming” according to the Gospel of Al. Which is to say that his multibillion-dollar “carbon offset” scams are based directly on his own predictions of inevitable climatic meltdown!

    Since the apocalypse never comes, he can continue to preach it to lucrative effect. For example, in 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Gore made a striking prediction: “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,” he cried. “It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.” In 2014, Tom Luongo yawned and duly noted: “It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted, they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%. Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: ‘An area twice the size of Alaska — America’s biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice’.”

    Empire of lies and self-serving
    So much for “the oceans are getting warmer,” another Gore whopper endlessly repeated by other Green scammers riding the same mendacious gravy train. We know about the mendacity because the evidence of outright lying has leaked out of trustworthy scientific agencies. In the years since our October 2006 ‘environmental-CO,’ thousands of emails and documents from leading “global warming” scientists have revealed potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.

    One leading scientist, Kevin Trenberth, admitted: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding. According to NASA’s own 2014 data, the world has only warmed a trifling 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979) and we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998. During the subsequent 17 years there hasn’t been any “global warming.” In fact, as mentioned in passing last month, the world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.

    In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature. While a study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed the absurd extent of data manipulation by “climate scientists.” He said: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. (The entire “global warming” empire was constructed on a foundation of wildly inaccurate predictions derived from the notoriously flawed process of computer-modelling.)

    Recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — revealed to Breitbart News that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!

    In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published will say exactly what they want it to say. Although despicable, on a purely human level, the servility of these scientists is understandable. “If you work for the government and you stand up and say, ‘Man-made climate change is all nonsense’ you can kiss your government job goodbye,” says Dr John Casey, a former White House space program advisor, and one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. “They’ll either make it hell to work there, or fire you outright,” he said.

    In the end, mortgages and school fees trump scientific integrity.

    Epic waste and lethal failure
    It seems Pope Francis was not interested in discovering any of this: who is using actual science; who is lying and fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame; and who is so concerned about keeping government or corporate grants that they will say exactly what their paymasters want them to say — undertaking (pseudo-)scientific research with an end goal in mind, only using data points that support that end goal.

    When a pontiff makes great play of being for the poor and against capitalist greed (capitalism is “the Devil’s dung,” he railed on his recent Latin American jaunt), one might reasonably expect him to highlight, and even denounce in strong terms, the social and familial cost of capitalo-socialists like Gore lining their Green pockets at taxpayer expense.

    Again, America is indicative. Tom Luongo figures that the $22 billion the US government spends annually financing “global warming” initiatives works out at $41,856 a minute going to waste. While Forbes’ $1.75 trillion flow-on figure equals $3,329,528 wasted every minute! Moreover, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says these regulations could ultimately cause gas prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, send 3 million Americans to the welfare line, and reduce average household income by a whopping $4,000 each year. Apparently, the dire myriad consequences of all that were not worth any papal consideration; not even to refute them.

    Beyond the financial cost of policies and programmes adopted to fight the “global warming” phantom, Francis just as studiously ignored the body count. The recent Volkswagen diesel-emission scandal is simply the latest in a long line of lethal consequences of Green zealotry.

    According to German newspaper Bild, VW project engineers determined there was no way to meet both emission standards and cost controls. Their solution was to apply illegal software, a so-called defeat device, that switched on emission controls only when a car was being tested. The scandal has wiped almost €30 billion off the company’s value and prompted a raft of government investigations and lawsuits around the world as the carmaker issues a mass recall. VW could be hit with as much as $18 billion in fines under the Clean Air Act in the US and is already facing more than 190 lawsuits by individual car owners.

    Standing amid these recriminations, and renting of garments by VW stockholders, the towering Green Elephant — the lethality of eco-targets obsessively enforced — was ignored. “The European switch to diesel engines was a top-down decision as a direct result of exaggerated fears about climate change,” said Tory peer Matt Ridley. Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he elaborated a parable of our times:

    Convinced that the climate was about to warm rapidly, and extreme weather was about to get much worse, European governments signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and committed to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the hope that this would help.

    In the event, the global temperature stopped rising for 18 years, while droughts, floods and storms also showed no increase. But in 1998, Britain happily signed up to an EU agreement with car makers that they would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent over ten years….

    As subjects of Brussels, we in Britain obediently lowered tax on diesel cars, despite knowing that they produce four times as much nitrogen oxides as a petrol, and 20 times as many particulates, both bad for human beings.

    This is becoming a repetitive story. Almost every policy adopted to fight climate change has been a disaster, doing more harm than good — all without making a significant difference to emissions. And now it is clear that giving tax breaks to diesel cars made urban air quality worse than it would otherwise have been, killing possibly 5,000 people a year in this country alone.

    […] The Paris climate conference in December will be [another] perfect example of this. For the umpteenth (21st) time, a swarm of politicians and green hangers-on will haggle over words designed to ‘bind’ the rest of us into a top-down commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions — whatever the cost in money and human lives.

    Silent Spring: recycling the panic
    The Supreme Pontiff did not need the Mail on Sunday to learn about death tolls triggered by wild and unsubstantiated environmental claims, however. Long before Al Gore there was Rachel Carson and her deadly Silent Spring. The original template for eco-alarmism, Laudato Si, like Gore’s Earth in the Balance, is a mere recycling of its spurious, panic-stricken message.

    A Green icon, Carson was a well-known naturalist who convinced herself that the chemical known as DDT was a malignant threat to her beloved natural world. In her eagerness to make her case, vital facts went out the window and unsupported assertions were invited in. She added cancer to the mix, implying the “rise” in cancer rates in the 1950s, attributable to improved detection programmes, was due to pesticides. Based on a couple of dubious cases in which exposure to DDT allegedly led to cancer in a man and a woman, Carson derived a universal threat of cancer, particularly involving children.

    Published in 1962, the opening chapter of the book threw in an apocalyptic scenario for good measure, depicting a small idyllic town that is suddenly overcome by unseen forces that kills local birds and threatens all other forms of life. She also suggested that DDT leaking into the ocean would kill off phytoplankton, depriving the earth’s atmosphere of oxygen. Silent Spring spent 31 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. It set the pattern for all the eco-crusading fighters of smog, ozone depletion, mobile phones, or “global warming”. Indeed, Al Gore, who wrote the introduction to the thirtieth anniversary edition in 1992, learned all he knows from Rachel Carson. Including which inconvenient truths to omit!

    Nowhere, for instance, does Carson mention the hundreds of millions of lives saved from typhus, yellow fever, and malaria by DDT, both during and after the war, including the prisoners freed from concentration camps. According to Indian medical authorities, control of malaria in and of itself increased national life expectancy from thirty-two to forty-five years. In the end, the global eradication campaign involving DDT spraying and antimalarial drugs saved a minimum of 100 million lives, and perhaps as many as 500 million. In less than twenty years, DDT had largely defeated malaria, one of humanity’s greatest scourges.

    Carson not only ignored this, she went to some lengths to downplay the pesticide’s beneficial effects, even completely misrepresenting successful spraying campaigns. DDT had no redeeming qualities. And since the book appeared at a time of great anxiety over fluoridation of water supplies, the thalidomide tragedy, nuclear testing, and the Cuban missile crisis, the political ramifications were immediate. Within a year, dozens of bills regulating pesticides were pending in state legislatures. Carson herself made several appearances before appreciative congressional committees. The apocalyptic tone of the ensuing government scientific reports echoed Carson, and spraying programmes that would have eradicated pests were shut down.

    Only after rigorous scientific examination in the ensuring years were Carson’s claims shown to be baseless. Exhaustive studies proved that DDT was not a carcinogen. There was no cancer epidemic triggered by DDT. Not even one solitary case. Even DDT’s alleged poisoning of birdlife, Carson’s primary concern, was proven false in relation to songbirds, and very doubtful as regards raptors.

    But Carson’s dishonest, ill-conceived book left its deadly legacy. DDT had been ideologised and made a focus of public fears. Spraying programmes shut down worldwide, and countries threatened with aid and trade sanctions if they did not drop DDT. As a result, malaria returned with a vengeance to pre-DDT levels, until the WHO reported at the end of the 1990s that “more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history.” The usual suspects like Greenpeace had campaigned furiously against DDT, the most effective insecticide ever formulated. It took years of behind the scenes attempts to defeat the Green lobby that held back the means of saving countless men, women, and children. When DDT was finally reintroduced, the unspeakable Greenpeace turned 180 degrees, stating: “If there’s nothing else and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.” In fact, as ever, the Socialist dogmatism they personify had resulted in the deaths of millions.

    Following his summary documentation of the Carson case in Death by Liberalism: The Fatal Outcome of Well-Meaning Liberal Policies (2011), J.R. Dunn sums up the deadly ideological pattern it established:

    Without a single exception, every last sector of the liberal establishment was tried and found wanting. The media, the academy, the scientific community, the politicians, the bureaucrats, all collapsed one after the other into a form of mob hysteria that not only still prevails (global warming), but has become part of the very essence of liberal identity and belief. American liberals allowed themselves to be stampeded by a book, and as a result millions suffered and died.

    The crowning irony is that Rachel Carson never called for the banning of DDT. “We must have insect control,” she said shortly before her death [from complications of cancer in 1964]. “I do not favor turning nature over to insects, I favor the sparing, selective and intelligent use of chemicals. It is the indiscriminate, blanket spraying that I oppose.” But in Silent Spring her rhetoric outran her ideas, and her followers took it as a given that this malignant threat to all that was natural must be abolished. And for that reason, Carson takes her place beside Marx and Engels in that small elite of writers who triggered death by their words alone.

    What was the cost? The commonly quoted number, derived from multiplying estimated yearly deaths by thirty years, is 30 to 50 million. But not all of these victims could have been saved. … But if the money had been spent, if the effort had been made, if the single useful compound had been available, then the ancient parasite would often have been cheated of its prey, and many who died would have lived. We have no idea how many millions that number encompasses, but it must be very high.

    Ideology as Religion
    Carson’s blueprint for evoking baseless fears and catastrophic policies has either been very well understood and cynically re-applied for personal profit (Al Gore), or completely ignored in dealings with the Green industry (Pope Francis). “You’d look long and hard to detect any vanishing trace of logic, rigor, or discretion in the DDT saga,” notes Dunn. Yet the Holy Father has fervently embraced the apocalyptic tone, claims, and centralising goals of the ideological heirs of that saga.

    In thrall to self-serving alarmists touting a non-existent “consensus” about a non-existent “crisis,” he has displayed no discernible interest in the counter-arguments and scandals which utterly discredit environmentalism and its proponents. Rather, casting aside all discretion, prudence and objectivity in his rush to demonstrate his Green credentials, he has scandalised the faithful and degraded the Faith, turning the Vatican and the papacy itself into ideological instruments that discount rational objections to Carson-like claims, for fear of having to account for them.

    This narrow outlook has long supplanted the Thomistic mindset that once enabled Rome to weigh up, dispassionately and systematically, all sides of an issue or dispute. A pope with a self-professed “reckless” streak, Francis is the antithesis of Thomistic discipline and the orderly orthodox mind it instilled in his papal forebears. The faithless, chaotic state of the Vatican is testimony to how such disorderly minds are primed for Liberal ideology rather than Catholic theology (— for the curse of “Liberal Catholicism” rather than Catholicism, as Pius IX would put it).

    One thinks immediately of the attempt to bulldoze through a revolutionary Modernist agenda at the October 2014 Synod. The October 2015 Instrumentum Laboris was also an ideological exercise “to try to push forward the agenda of a certain clerical pressure group in order to change the Divine law,” as Bishop Schneider described it. To achieve this end, its drafters illicitly listed propositions rejected by the first Synod; included spurious interpretations of the Catechism; dissembled and lied (as in stating there is “a common accord” in favour of Kasper’s “penitential way” to sacrilegious Communions — which recalls the global-warming “consensus” lie); ensured key omissions and silences (on sodomy in particular); and generally compromised Catholic Truth.

    Even more blatantly, it was revealed prior to last month’s Synod that the Bergoglians appeared to be already drawing up the post-synodal documents required to implement their pre-determined outcome! Italian journalist Marco Tossati reported that

    around thirty people, almost all of them Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian [guess who!], are working on the themes on the Synod, in a very reserved way, under the coordination of Father Antonio Spadaro, the director of Civiltà Cattolica, who spends a long time in Santa Marta, in consultation with the Pope. … One possibility is that the ‘task force’ works to provide the Pope the instruments for an eventual post-synodal document on the theme of the Eucharist to the remarried divorced, on cohabiting [couples], and same-sex couples.

    As we noted in Part 2, the last secret ‘task force’ set up by the Holy Father, just prior to the first Synod, produced the catastrophic ‘Catholic divorce’-Motu Proprio that Francis was determined to foist on the Church; not even consulting the CDF in the process. Speaking of which Congregation, Cardinal Müller, too, frames the narrow, this-worldly perspective of those pushing heretical synodical agendas (like Communion for the divorced-remarried) in stark ideological terms, recently stating:

    In view of so much talk about dialogue and its long processes, one cannot overlook in reality an ideological constrictedness or crampedness. The goal of such an ideology is to enforce at least a change of practice, even if it damages truth and the unity of the Church.

    Always the first casualties of ideology, a curia boasting enough ‘gay’ ideologues to turn Family Synods into Sodomy Sin-Nods is hardly bothered by truth and unity! Long before Francis brought in his unspeakably arrogant crew (see “Iron Fist,” Aug-Sept 2015), “truth” and “unity” had become elastic and expendable; empty words spouted by Vatican organs like the dogmatically evolutionist Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which expels and demonises advocates of Catholic creation theology rather than debate them (— see Peter Wilders, CO passim).

    Wherever we look, Modernist ideology rooted in false ‘pastoral theology’ has defined the post-conciliar Church. Just as Socialist ideology rooted in false sociology and false biology has defined Marxist and Fascist regimes respectively. Michael Brendan Dougherty recently reminded his readers that “the entire Mass — the central act of Catholic worship — was re-written according to shoddy, ideologically motivated scholarship.” Modernist jackhammers and jackboots finished the job: smashing the altars; sacking the churches; trampling over faith, morals and piety; crushing all Catholic opposition to the world, the flesh and the devil.

    Naturally, Francis and his surrogates depict us — defenders of Tradition and the Faith of our Fathers — as the dangerously unyielding. narrow-minded problem! “The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation,” enthuses Francis, wearing his Lib Theol hat and portraying the Novus Ordo, unwittingly,as the sterile construct it is. “… What is worrying, though,” he adds sombrely, “is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo [Traditional Mass], its exploitation.”

    In order to rationalise his support for sodomy, contraception, divorce-and-remarriage, and sacrilegious Communions, Cardinal Kasper also beats the drum about “fundamentalism” in the Church. At the pre-Synod launch of his latest book, he again caricatured the mentality of his “fundamentalist” (read faithful Catholic) critics: “You take one line of the Gospel and this becomes an ideology to support your case,” he sneered.

    He is wrong on both counts.

    Firstly, like most of his de facto schismatic German brethren, His Lutheranised Eminence confuses his sola scriptura view of theology with the Catholic view he has abandoned — which cannot “take one line” of Scripture without reading it in the balanced, authoritative light of Tradition and Magisterium.

    Secondly, since ideology is essentially about defending lies and denouncing truths, it is the arch-Modernist Walter Kasper who fits the ideological bill. Consider his mendacious attempt to cover his tracks at Synod I, after he told a journalist that the African bishops “should not tell us too much what we have to do.” Having thus written off the African bishops’ concerns as somehow peripheral to the real synod discussions, or as unworthy of serious consideration, Kasper later tried to distance himself from his statements, besmirching the reputation of the journalist, Edward Pentin, by denying he ever made the comments. Mr Pentin duly produced a voice recording of Kasper’s remarks and posted it online, thereby achieving the very considerable feat of rendering Walter speechless.

    Socialist alliance
    By making papal common cause with ideological enemies of the Faith, Laudato Si has merely ratified this Modernist status quo shaped by the zeitgeist instead of St. Thomas. Were she still alive, we can be morally certain that Francis would have invited Rachel Carson to the Vatican along with her Green progeny: the rogues gallery of ‘progressive’/’liberal’ neo-Socialists of every stripe from whom he seeks counsel.

    Whether capitalo-Socialists like American libertarian economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon, or liberal-left Socialists like Canadian feminist Naomi Klein, his new comrades are notorious pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-population control, anti-life, anti-family figures. That Laudato Si has energised these creatures is a red flag (literally speaking).

    Naomi Klein, the anti-capitalist eco-crusading author of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, said the encyclical spoke to her and should inspire those who use the Bible to defend human domination of nature and deny climate change, to change their ways. “As a secular Jewish feminist,” she admitted her surprise at being invited to Rome in early July, where she attended a conference organised by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and an international alliance of 17 Catholic Development Organisations. “People and Planet First: the Imperative to Change Course,” was the breathless conference title. “This is an alliance on a specific issue. It’s not a merger,” Ms Klein assured one and all. “But when you are faced with a crisis of this magnitude, people have to get out of their comfort zones.”

    And head where, precisely? Into the post-1789 killing fields comfortably occupied by Klein and her pro-abort pals? In fact, as detailed in Cliff Kincaid’s summary report herein, for a very long time Vatican and national ‘Catholic’ social justice-development-peace agencies, like those that co-hosted the July conference, have been merrily colluding (at our charitable expense) with the international Marxist network that controls those killing fields: where humanistic philanthropy at the service of death and dissolution is dressed up as Christian charity.(7)

    Global Governance
    Behind all the media hype and liberal excitement generated by Laudato Si, what we find is a strictly ideological fact-free zone strewn with inconvenient and unpalatable truths. In order to “get out” of their own “comfort zones,” Naomi and her new Vatican allies would have to ruin their love-in by actually addressing those unsavoury and unsettling realities. Such as the fraudulent windmill subsidies that fill the pockets of opportunists(8), shred birdlife, ruin landscapes, and tear communities apart with division and strife. Needless and useless, these monstrous turbines embody the monstrous lie that wants to place nature and the control of climate and CO2 at the centre of our lives — all under a global authority that will certainly punish dissenters just as they are now penalising Canadians, Americans, Australians and Europeans who refuse to march in sodomitic lockstep.

    You heard correctly. Instead of good Christian stewardship directly related to conservationism, based not on hysteria, media manipulation, and a huckster’s morality but on an honest, rational, and clear-eyed understanding of the natural world and man’s place in it, centralised global control of Naomi’s fact-free-zone-cum-money-trough is peddled instead. Amid its hectoring eco-rebukes, Laudato Si repeatedly pushes this revolutionary goal of the New Totalitarians; the fulcrum of their New World Order:

    People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. [#55] … All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. [#114] […] there is an urgent need of a true world political authority [#175], … empowered to impose penalties for damage inflicted on the environment. [#214]

    The totalising call is reinforced several times as Francis seeks “an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of so-called ‘global commons’” (#174); recommends “think[ing] of one world with a common plan” (#164); promotes “a global consensus … for confronting the deeper problems, which cannot be resolved by unilateral actions on the part of individual countries” (#164); and calls for “stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions” (#175).

    Empowering creepy crackpots
    It obviously does not bother the Holy Father that the sort of “functionaries” routinely “empowered to impose sanctions” are anti-Christian social engineers like Hillary Clinton. At an April 2015 summit, she typically declared that “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs… have to be changed.” Lenin himself could not have been clearer.

    Certainly, Al Gore and Jeffrey Sachs would be delighted to oversee all these empowered functionaries. “We must all become partners in a bold effort to… make the rescue of the environment the central organising principle for civilisation,” declared the messianic Gore in 1992. To that globalist end, Sachs champions a “global tax” that would doubtless require a large army of well-paid functionaries to administer.

    And then there is the atheist neo-totalitarian Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. Labelled “a doomsday crackpot who calls himself a physicist” (by Czech physicist Lubos Motl), this abortion and contraceptive-abortifacient advocate helped Francis shape and launch his recyclical. Simply put, globalists don’t come more extreme, better connected, or scarier than Herr Schellnhuber. According to First Things:

    The sole scientist participating in the unveiling of Laudato Si, Schellnhuber is a member of the Club of Rome, an international clique of Malthusian alarmists. (Obama’s advisor John Holdren is a former member.) Acolyte of [nature goddess] Gaia and a darling of George Soros, Schellnhuber is a zealous promoter of the theory of man-made climate change and advocate of population control.

    He has lobbied for an Earth Constitution to replace national constitutions and the UN Charter. He seeks creation of a Global Council, and establishment of a Planetary Court. This last would be a transnational legal body with enforcement powers on environmental and population issues. Everywhere. In short, … Schellnhuber is the Vatican’s advance man for bureaucratic tyranny on a global scale. His appointment is as contradictory as it is ominous. The “global regulatory frameworks” desired by Laudato Si will crush orthodoxy without scruple when it suits.

    Oh, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has welcomed the Darwinian Schellnhuber into its evolutionist ranks for good measure; an appointment that only makes sense, writes First Things, “if we ask ourselves an unwelcome question: Is the Academy risking — if not engaged in—guerilla war against the pro-life movement?”

    Danneels, Baldisseri, Sachs, Bank Ki-moon, Schellnhuber… it’s as if Bond supervillains have been handed the keys to the Vatican, and SPECTRE is running the show! When the spooky background to Laudato Si is finally revealed, and it transpires that Schellnhuber wore an eyepatch and stroked a white cat (with a diamond collar) as he cast his good eye over each draft, I for one won’t flinch.

    Viva la Revolución!
    Just in case we didn’t get the message, shortly after releasing his Green manifesto, Francis embarked on his notorious Latin American tour. There he fomented social revolution, delivering long and impassioned speeches against capitalism and private property to the applause of Marxist revolutionary leaders and followers of Liberation Theology and the Marxist “Popular Movements” — a number of whom he had already invited to the Vatican, as Prince Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza detailed in our recent editions.

    The jacket worn in the Pope’s presence by Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, bearing a large picture of blood-thirsty “Che” Guevara, captured the spirit of a tour that surely had Pius XI on his knees: begging Almighty God to ignore this papal spitting on his mighty encyclical Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism).

    In a fiery speech on 9 July 2015 at the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia, Francis placed the goals of their socio-economic revolution together with those of his own ecological revolution, giving primacy to the latter, “perhaps the most important thing we should take up today.” Mutual backslapping followed. “Our faith is revolutionary,” cried Comrade Francis before these revolutionary shock troops. “I have carried you in my heart.” Comrade Juan (Pedro Stedile) responded: “Chavez died and Fidel is sick. Francis has

Leave a Reply