Saturday, November 30, 2019

Canon Law and Latin Language Expert: "The only Sane Conclusion is, therefore, that Munus and Ministerium are Distinct Terms with Different Meanings. They cannot Substitute for one Another"

"The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office."
- Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says the only correct way to approach the validity or invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is an objective reading of what the two words ministerium and munus mean by means of using canon 17's criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

When I read that I thought it would be extremely helpful if he could go into detail on the above by going into canon 17, canon 332 S2, canon 145 S1 and canon 41. He has done just that.

But, before we get to that it is important to understand that Pope John Paul II promulgated the current canon law which is the supreme law of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, it is important to understand that canon 17 is the key to understanding the supreme law of the Church.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains:

"Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.'"
(CatholicWorld Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

Now, finally, we get to Br. Bugnolo who has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….

The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law


This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.

For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.

Let us take a look at each, briefly.

Ministeria:

The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..

Ministerii:

The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:

In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.

And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.

This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.
Ministeriis

The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.

And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English  is:

Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:
  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.
Ministerio

 The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.
Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.

This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.

Ministeriorum

The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.

And finally the Nominative Singular form.

MINISTERIUM

Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.

First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.

Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.

To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.

This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.

In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law


Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.

The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).

While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.

I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.

But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:

First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.

This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1.  An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end. 
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.

Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!

Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!

This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.

The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.

Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.
——
(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Canon Law Expert on Benedict's Resignation: "[T]he Petrine Succession [is]... like the Last Will and Testament" not "Matrimony... Contractual Law"

One of the great heroes in the present crisis canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo recently stated:

"I think, humanly speaking, most canonists only have habitual experience of the canonical proceedures in annulment cases which regard the Sacrament of Matrimony, which falls under the norms of contractual law."

"But the Petrine Succession is totally different. It is not a sacrament nor a vow kind of a thing. It's like the last will and testament of your father. If he did not say he gave it to you, you do not get it. Some other sibling gets it. Or his estate keeps it."

"Benedict gave away the ministerium, the doing of the office."

"But he never on any occasion before during or after Feb 11, 2013 said he gave away the munus petrinum."

"That means that the Petrine Succession has not yet occurred. The train left the station with all the Cardinals and hoopla, but Benedict and his papal office are still on the platform."

Br. Bugnolo stated this in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article:

Does Canon 17 Refute LifeSiteNews' Theologian: "Benedict [must have]... thought: I only want to resign the Ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the Munus"?
LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation according to the website claims that Benedict's abdication could only be invalid if he thought ministerium and munus were "distinct":

"Benedict's abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is distinct from the munus.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Did Benedict really resign? Ganswein, Burke and Brandmuller weight in," February 14, 2019)

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo appears to says this is not a correct way to legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains "Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

I studied some law in college and I am not in any way a canon lawyer, but this is my understanding of what the LifeSiteNews' theologian and Br. Bugnolo are saying.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Why is Francis's Reportedly "Gay Lobby" Private Secretary "leav[ing] his Position"?

Vatican News reported Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio the "Pope's personal secretary to leave his position" with Francis.
(Vatican News, "Pope's personal secretary to leave his position," November 25, 2019)

AdnKronos.com said Pedacchio's resignation was accelerated for unknown reasons:

"[A]n acceleration in his replacement for reasons which are still unclear."
(Gloria.tv, "Francis' Private Secretary about to Resign," November 24, 2019)

Might his resignation be connected to his reportedly being a member of the Vatican "gay lobby" and issues dealing with that immoral membership?

In 2013, at the beginning of Francis's pontificate according to the Monday Vatican blog, known for its insider knowledge of the Vatican, Francis was already reportedly promoting the gay lobby which included Pedacchio:

"Ilson de Jesus Montanari... catapulted to the number two position in the Congregation for Bishops... rumored to be a close friend of Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio Leaniz... the Pope's personal secretary... [by] Battista Ricca... [Ilson was]... introduced to Cardinal Bergoglio... Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?.. Ricca was appointed ... prelate of the IOR... [Is the] Pope Francis... promotion of people presumably part of a gay lobby... a strategy to keep everyone under control?"
(Monday Vatican, "Pope Francis wants to govern the Curia. And possibly with an absent Secretary of State," October 21, 2013)

Gay activist Frederic Martel in his Vatican book wrote of the "magic circle" hotel which is run by Ricca who is "presumably part of a gay lobby" whom Francis promoted:

"The director of the Casa [del Clero] and all the Vatican residences, Mgr. Battista Ricca, also lives there... you can also bump into Fabian Pedacchio, a private secretary to Pope Francis, who has lived at the Domus for a long time, and who is said to keep a room where he is able to work calmly with the Brazilian bishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari... A couple of boys, dinkies and bio-queens who listen to Born this Way by Lady Gaga, live there too... A Basque priest also enjoys some delightful associations within this 'magic circle'... sometimes, holy offices have been celebrated by gay groups."
(In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, Pages 305-306)

When Pedacchio Leaniz and Montanari apparently aren't at the "magic circle" hotel room in Rome they "spend holidays together":

"Pedacchio... the Pope's private secretary, Pedacchio and Montanari are... great friends; they also spend holidays together, and in the past years Pedacchio introduced Montanari to familiarity with what would become pope."
(La Stampa, "Bishops, the mystery revealed...," 10/16/2013)

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in his September 27 statement said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Perfect of the Congregation for Bishops, is undermined "by two homosexual 'friends' of his dicastery."

Vatican expert Marco Tosatti according to Gloria.tv reported how Francis's "private secretary" (and Montanari) apparently undermine Ouellet:

"Ouellet categorically excluded one of them [from episcopal nomination] for moral reasons. But the next day Pedacchio told Ouellet, 'The Pope wants him."
(Gloria.tv, "Two Homosexuals are bypassing Cardinal Ouellet," September 28, 2018)

If Viganò's and Tosatti's reports are true then apparently Francis's allegedly gay private secretary helps him appoint morally questionable bishops.

Are Francis and his allegedly gay private secretary expanding the gay lobby by appointing and promoting gay bishops?

Is there growing evidence that Francis may be a member of the gay lobby?

Remember the question asked by the Monday Vatican:

"Was also Ilson part of the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be?"

Is it possible also that Francis is part of the gay lobby as his soon to be former private secretary is accused to be?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Homosexualist Cupich & Martin want "Complete Solidarity with Victims," Solidarity Synonyms: Oneness & Union

Homosexualists and gay activists Cardinal Blase Cupich and Fr. James Martin want "complete solidarity with victims." Today's Tweet by Martin:

"@CardinalBCupich: Confronting sex abuse in the church the only real way: through solidarity with victims."

Here are some synonyms for solidarity from Dictionary.com:


  • unification
  • oneness
  • union

Since the overwhelming percentage of abuse by priests, bishops and cardinals is homosexual sex abuse it might be a bit inappropriate for these two homosexualists to signal they want unification, oneness and union with victims.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.






Friday, November 29, 2019

"Are you also going to Leave?"

The Catholic Church following the doctrine and example of Jesus Christ teaches the true path to happiness in this life and the next. Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei writes:

"[T]he conception of existence, that inseparably links the happiness of man to the glory of God"

Catholic doctrine... teaches us... effort, suffering, sacrifice, struggle can give us an interior joy... Outside the cross no real happiness or sweetness is possible."
(The Crusader of the 20th Century: Plinio Correa de Oliveira, pages 1-2)

Anyone considering leaving the Church founded by Christ please go on your knees and answer this question of Jesus:

"Are you also going to leave?"
John 6:67

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Do Shea & Giunta think the Naked Images could be the Naked Blessed Mother & Francis is "Indefatigably Ignorant" for calling them "Pachamama"?

Renew America writer Eric Giunta who has written for the the Catholic Herald in his blasphemous claim that the naked images that were bowed down to in the Vatican gardens might be images of the Blessed Virgin Mary said:

"[I]t is unclear whether this indigenous icon of a [naked] pregnant woman is a [naked] representation of the Mother of Jesus, or... 'life, fertility, [and/or]Mother Earth.'"

"... [T]he indefatigably ignorant Pope Francis... referred to the stolen and desecrated images as 'pachamama.'"
(Laboravi Sustinens, "No, 'Mother Earth' Is Not 'Pagan,'" no date given)

It appears that Mark Shea agrees with the Giunta blasphemous post that claims the naked images could be the naked Blessed Mother since he promoted the above post by him and said:

"Giunta is no fan of Pope Francis by any stretch. But he is honest and he recognizes a Right Wing Lie [which "the indefatigably ignorant Pope Francis [called]... 'pachamama'" not Mary or Mother Earth]."
(Catholic and Enjoying it, "Hard Core Traditionalist Eric Giunta Rebuts the 'Pachamama' Nonsense One Last Time," November 27, 2019)

Does Shea thinks Francis is a liar or "indefatigably ignorant" for admitting the naked images are 'pachamama'?

Apparently, Shea blasphemously thinks the naked images could be naked images of the Blessed Virgin Mary despite what Francis said.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.








How many Masses by Bishops like Stika are possibly Invalid or is such a Doubt likely Wrong?

- Updated November 29, 2019

On November 25, Bishop Rick Stika on Twitter said:

"Mass is Not the worship of Jesus."
(Gloria.tv, "After the message, the Bishop has gone on lockdown," November 28, 2019)

The Council of Trent infallibly taught:

"If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema."
(history.hanover.edu, "The Council of Trent, The Seventh Session," Canon XI, 1995)

This is what canonlawmadeeasy.com says on the matter:

"If the priest [or bishop] actually decides that he does not intend... does not want to effect a consecration in the way that the Church intends, well that would be pretty defective [invalid]!"
(canonlawmadeeasy.com, "What Makes a Mass Invalid?")

How many Masses by bishops and priests like Stika are possibly invalid?

Ironically, Francis apologist Bishop Stika who believes "The Mass is Not the worship of Jesus" in defense of the Francis Pachamama Amazon Synod proposal to allow married priests on Twitter said:

"I feel sorry for those who would deny the Sacraments [which is "Not the worship of Jesus] to those who desire them. I am sure at your judgement you will have some explains to do."
(Crux, "U.S. bishops at odds over Amazon synod's married priests proposal, July 9, 2019)

It appears that Stika at his "judgement... will have some explains to do."

At the very least, doesn't Stika's statement plant a doubt about his intend to do what "the Church does"?

However, Fr. VF in the comments section below who I have found to be a very sound theologian says such doubts are unwise and most likely wrong because "invalidity is unlikely... except by a direct, explicit intention not to do what the Church does. Please read his full comments below in the comment section.
(This paragraph was added on November 29, 2019.)

Even so, it's getting to the point where all the bishops needs to be given dubia questions like Francis was given so the Catholic faithful don't have to doubt if their bishops are Catholics or heretics?

Remember that during the Arian heresy crisis only a handful of bishops joined St. Athanasius in being fully faithful to the Catholic faith and were not Arians or Semi-Arians. Even the pope at the time signed a semi-Arian document and excommunicated Athanasius.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Does Canon 17 Refute LifeSiteNews' Theologian: "Benedict [must have]... thought: I only want to resign the Ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the Munus"?

LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation according to the website claims that Benedict's abdication could only be invalid if he thought ministerium and munus were "distinct":

"Benedict's abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is distinct from the munus.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Did Benedict really resign? Ganswein, Burke and Brandmuller weight in," February 14, 2019)

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo appears to says this is not a correct way to legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains "Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

I studied some law in college and I am not in any way a canon lawyer, but this is my understanding of what the LifeSiteNews' theologian and Br. Bugnolo are saying.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



Monday, November 25, 2019

NCRegister Armstrong's Blasphemy on Naked Pachamamas: "There is a Strong case to be made that they Represent the [Naked] Blessed Virgin Mary" against the Words of Francis

On October 25, LifeSiteNews reported the words of Francis:

"I would like to say a word about the pachamama statues that were removed from the Church of Traspontina."
(LifeSiteNews, "Full transcript of the Pope's comments on pagan 'Pachamama' statues," October 25, 2019)

The National Catholic Register's contributing writer Dave Armstrong (according to the journalism website muckrack.com) is in a dilemma because either he is calling his beloved Francis a liar or he is saying statues which Francis called "the pachamama statues" are not what he called them, but instead "a strong case can be made that the naked images "represent the [naked] Blessed Virgin Mary":

"There is a strong case to be made that they [the naked images Francis called "pachamama statues"] represent the [naked] Blessed Virgin Mary."
(patheos.com/blog/davearmstrong, "'Pachamama'. [?] Statues: Marian Veneration or Blasphemy Idolatry?," November 5, 2019)

How dare the so-called pro-family National Catholic Register have a writer who claims the naked images Francis called "pachamama statues" can by "a strong case to be... [naked images of] the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Maybe someone needs to organize a Catholic boycott of the National Catholic Register.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Did LifeSiteNews admit that Benedict’s Resignation could have been Invalid & Implicitly admit that an Imperfect Council is Needed?

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the "abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.'”

The "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity," also, appeared to implicitly say the issue of the validity of the Benedict resignation could be solved by an imperfect council of cardinals or bishops to give a "judgement of the Church" on the matter. The LifeSiteNews theologian said “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church."

Here is the essential part of the LifeSiteNews article:

"A theologian who spoke to LifeSite on condition of anonymity argued that supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities. “If you think that ministerium means only acts of teaching and governance, then it would indeed seem to be different from the munus, which normally designates an office, that is, a kind of state,” he said. 

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

"He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is “not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid."

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”

He said that people who insist Benedict’s resignation was invalid “therefore seem to be in a position similar to that of a Catholic spouse who is personally convinced that his or her Church marriage was invalid.”

“However convinced the person is of this, he or she is not free to marry again until an ecclesiastical court has declared that there was never a marriage,” he said. “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church before acting on this belief, e.g. a priest in that position should continue to mention Francis in the canon of the Mass.”

As for the argument that Pope Francis can’t be Pope because he clearly has no graces of state, the theologian said this forgets that “grace is normally offered in such a way that it can be refused.” 

“You might as well say that a man who beats his wife obviously can’t be validly married to her,” he said.

Other theologians see Benedict’s use of the title “Pope emeritus” as a point in favor of the resignation. 

Can. 185 of the Code of Canon Law (on the loss of ecclesiastical office) says: “The title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”

As one theologian explained, every bishop when he retires becomes bishop emeritus. He is the emeritus bishop of the last diocese of which he presided. By creating the “pope emeritus” title (it is argued), Benedict is saying “what every bishop does, I’m doing too.” 

LifeSite also asked noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei for his thoughts on arguments invoking “substantial error.” Seconding the first theologian’s line of thought, Professor de Mattei noted that: “The Church is a visible society, and canon law does not evaluate intentions, but concerns the external behavior of the baptized. Canon 124, §2 of the Code states that: ‘A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.’”

“Did Benedict XVI intend to resign only partially, by renouncing the ministerium, but keeping the munus for himself? It’s possible,” he said, “but no evidence, at least to date, makes it evident.”

“We are in the realm of intentions,” he added. “Canon 1526, § 1 states: “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit” (The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation.) To prove means to demonstrate the certainty of a fact or the truth of the statement. Moreover, the papacy is in itself indivisible.” 
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo apparently disagrees with the LifeSiteNews theologian that Catholics need to "wait for the judgement of the Church." He says that "the validity of a papal renunciation is determined by the law":

"It is true regardless of who declares it or does not declare it, because the validity of a papal renunciation is determined by the law itself, not by the acceptance or rejection of anyone. Here many Catholics get confused and are being gaslighted by the lavender mafia. Because it is one thing that a canonical act is or is not, or is or is not valid, its another thing that it is judged to be valid or not, to be or not. In the case of matrimonial vows, the Church puts their validity under its judgement. But in the Case of a papal resignation, the Church does not put this under anyone’s judgement, because a papal act is what it is, there is no one who can judge it to be other than it is. So when the Pope says I renounce the Ministery, those who say that means he renounced the Papacy ARE ARROGATING JUDGEMENT over the Pope, and not only err but sin mortally and merit eternal damnation, because the Pope can only be judged by God. However, though we must recognize that He did renounce the ministry, we do not need authority to know whether that is or is not a papal resignation. We have Canon 332 §2, which says it is not. And to say that is simply to reiterate what the law says. That is why those who say Pope Benedict XV is still the pope not only do not err, but they neither sin or arrogate judgement to themselves, while those who say he is not pope, do both, and thus must attack either the Law or those who uphold the law.'
[https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/24/will-the-mafia-of-st-gallen-triumph/]

Journalist and Vatican expert Antonio Socci in his new book presents the case that Francis may have implicitly confirmed that Benedict's "resignation is invalid, because doubtful and partial" by saying "Benedict... has opened the door of popes emeriti":

Socci wrote that Benedict XVI's personal secretary Georg Ganswein said:

"He [Benedict] has not abandoned the office of Peter."

And thus according to Benedict's closest collaborator Ganswein Benedict became a pope emeritus which has never existed except for retired bishops who still held the munus or office of bishop.

An unexpected thing happened when Team Francis went into "damage control" and denied there could be a emeritus "to the office of Peter."

Unexpectedly, Francis at some point in time contradicted the "ultra-Bergoglians" assertion that that there couldn't be a emeritus "to the office of Peter."

Socci's book says after Ganswein made the above statement in 2016 the "ultra-Bergoglian website Vatican Insider" went into "damage control" by interviewing Team Francis canonist Monsignor Giuseppe Sciacca who said emeritus "regards only the 'episcopal office'" and "'cannot be applied to the office of the Pontiff.'"

The book quotes Francis contradicting the Bergoglians or Team Francis by saying:

"Benedict... has opened the door of popes emeriti."

Socci explains the predicament that Team Francis is in:

"The dilemma which the Bergoglians find themselves in is without solution: if, in fact, they recognize the title of 'pope emeritus,' they must recognize that Benedict XVI is still pope; but if they deny this title and contest the declared intention of the 'resignation' (which was not a resignation of munus [office], but only of the active ministry), it means that they would have to hold that the resignation is invalid, because doubtful and partial."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 92-94)

In 2016, One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec actually defended Ann Barnhardt's integrity in it appears saying the "abdication would be invalid... if he... resign[ed] the ministerium [which is]... distinct from the munus" against a statement from pro-life attorney Chris Ferrera in the comment section of that website.

In response, Ferrara appeared to agreed with the LifeSiteNews theologian who said "So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope [or if someone is convinced that Francis is a manifest heretic], he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church." 

Moreover, the attorney called for a "conclave" or imperfect council to judge if Francis is a manifest heretic who has deposed himself and, also, apparently to judge the validity of the Benedict resignation:

" Chris Ferrara: To declare that Francis is not the Pope... make[s] for good click bait..."

"... Steve Skojec: "Ann writes things that certainly come across as sensationalist... This is who she is. I don't believe she ever publishes something she doesn't truly believe in. I don't think it's fair to call this clickbait... "

".... Chris Ferrera: "My only objection is any of us making final forensic determinations based on 'overwhelming evidence' and then announcing our verdict of one. It's a rather silly exercise."

"Perhaps a better approach is to amass the evidence and send it to every cardinal, demanding they convene [an imperfect council] and issue the kind of judgement Bellermine contemplated in this situation: not that the Pope is deposed, but that he has deposed himself. Such a hypothetical conclave would offer the Pope an opportunity to explain himself."
(One Peter Fives' comment section, "If Francis is an Antipope, We Can't know it Yet," June 21, 2016)

The only prelate in the world to take attorney Ferrara's legal advice was Bishop Rene Gracida who "amass[ed] the evidence" and wrote a Open Letter to all the cardinals "demanding they convene [an imperfect council]."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and demand that the cardinals convene an imperfect council.

Did Francis bring Abortion to Argentina which may be the next Venezuela?

The Financial Times reported that the pro-abortion leftist Peronist party factions by the engineering of Francis were reunited and won the elections due to his meddling in Argentine politics:

"Francis encouraged Alberto's reconciliation with Cristina [Fernandez de Kirchner], said a close adviser of [the next Argentine president] Alberto Fernandez."
(Financial Times, "Argentina's opposition reunited with Pope's blessing," August 17, 2019)

It appears that Francis is helping to bring abortion to Argentina:

"Fernandez, a leftist Peronist, pledged last week he would move to legalize abortion."
(France24.com, "Argentina's leftist president-elect reignites abortion debate, November 23, 2019)

Moreover, the pro-abortion Fernandez appears to be following Francis's lead in being friendly to the Venezuelan Socialist dictatorship.

Francis who has never condemned the dictator and has continued to be friendly to the regime leader Nicolas Maduro calling for "dialogue" which has helped the strongman stay in power even as he continues to starve his country.

The Buenos Aires Times reported:

"Fernandez said this week that his government would seek to create a dialogue with Venezuela, rather than call for Maduro's immediate ouster."
(Buenos Aires Times, "Alberto Fernandez to break with Macro's approach to Venezuela crisis, if elected," August 23, 2019)

It appears that the leftist Peronist Fernandez is not just friendly to the Venezuelan Socialist regime, but might make Argentina the next Venezuela.

The prospect of a leftist Peronist victory in the next election at the time caused the collapse of the Argentine peso.

Is Argentina going to follow Venezuela as the next major Latin American country to fall into economic collapse?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Are the Chile & Ecuador Riots caused by the Francis promoted Climate Change Policies really about Marxist "System Change"?

On September 26, 2019, the Communist website Marxist.com couldn't have stated it more clearly that climate change is only a means to "system change" or revolution:

"Marxists join biggest-ever climate strike: for system change, not climate change!"
[https://www.marxist.com/marxists-join-biggest-ever-climate-strike-for-system-change-not-climate-change.htm]

Journalist  explained that the Marxists and leftists are using the very climate change policies promoted by Francis which caused the Chile and Ecuador riots as an excuse for "system change" or revolution through riots their policies caused and the ensuing Marxist propaganda:

"Forget the propaganda from leftist apologists blaming the Chile riots on “unequal wealth,” the catalyst for the riots was a rise in Santiago Metro prices made necessary by carbon dioxide taxes and a conversion of the Metro from conventional power to renewable energy. Worse, those programs have no measurable impact on global temperatures. The programs amounted to nothing more than high-cost climate change virtue signaling at the expense of the Chilean people. And now Chileans are letting their displeasure be known."

"... The Chilean government should have learned a lesson from the Yellow Vest protests in France that began last year and the riots in Ecuador this past month that forced the Ecuadorian government to flee the capital. Each of those events was sparked by rises in energy prices fueled by alarmist government climate policies."

"Widespread riots are the repeated price paid for climate change virtue signaling. It is the price climate alarmists would like all of us to pay for battling a fictitious climate crisis at the heart of the environmental left’s Climate Delusion."
[https://www.cfact.org/2019/11/05/chiles-riots-are-the-price-of-climate-virtue-signaling/]

Might climate change policies be not so much about climate change, but pushing for a Marxist one-world government?

Might Francis's main agenda at the Amazon Synod be not so much about undermining Catholic doctrine (which has already been greatly accomplished with Amoris Laetitia), but pushing for a Marxist one-world government?

Socialist Adolf Hitler wanted a one-world government so he inspired the Hitler youth and others with the propaganda and scare tactics against the Jews and all the so-called racially inferior useless eaters.

So, now, is it possible that the Marxists, global elite and Francis apparently want a one-world government and are attempting to inspire green youth and others with propaganda using the big lie scare tactic of the end of the world is near unless the world accepts a "'green dictatorship" one-world government.

On August 9, Francis in an interview with the Vatican Insider showed that he had joined climate extremists in shamelessly exploiting the youth Greta Thunberg for a "regressive green dictatorship" one-world government.

"He praised the increased awareness and movements among young people, such as Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager whose #FridaysForFuture campaign asks students to hold a strike to demand swift action on climate change. Francis had met the 16-year-old environmental activist at a weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square in April."
[https://international.la-croix.com/news/cardinal-blase-cupich-voice-of-the-pope-in-the-united-states/9292]
agnst-nationalism/]
Scientist and doctor Laurent Alexandre according to Climate Changed Dispatch in the article "French Doctor Exposes How Militant Climate Extremists Are Exploiting Greta Thunberg" said "people who follow Greta Thunberg are the useful idiots of the green dictatorship”:

"In a stinging commentary at Le Figaro here, Dr. Laurent Alexandre, surgeon-urologist, a graduate of Sciences Po, HEC and ENA, and co-founder of the Doctissimo website, asserts that teenage Nobel Prize nominee Greta Thunberg is being shamelessly exploited and “is playing into the hands of economic interests."

"Laurent Alexandre first comments that “the young people who follow Greta Thunberg are the useful idiots of the green dictatorship” much in the same way Lenin called left-wing bourgeois “useful idiots of the revolution” and that the failures of all Marxist models have 'left the anti-liberals in turmoil.'”

"He writes that ecology today serves as 'the ideal instrument to propose a new utopia that is a substitute for the Marxist dictatorship'. He adds: 'By exploiting the youth, we are imposing a liberticidal agenda in the name of good feelings.'”

"... Alexandre implies that Greta Thunberg is unwittingly promoting 'the interests of China and Russia' and that her demands would make us “highly dependent on rare metals needed for wind, solar and storage installations, of which China has a near-monopoly.”

"The French urologist and book author describes Ms. Thunberg as 'a shamefully manipulated victim' who needs to be protected, but adds that her radical ideas 'must be attacked relentlessly'”.

"... Finally, Alexandre comments that following the green path will backfire because it would ,aggravate global warming, increase the waste of public money, lead to a regressive green dictatorship and put us at the mercy of China and Russia. All liberal democrats, all Raymond Aron’s heirs, must combat the deadly utopias it conveys.'”
[https://climatechangedispatch.com/doctor-greta-thunberg-climate-extremists/]
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Saturday, November 23, 2019

Is Francis "Reminiscent of Hitler"?

In a scholarly article for the Remnant, Helen Weir, MI, showed that Francis is "reminiscent of Hitler":

"It might be objected, at this stage, that playing the 'Hitler Card' against the Amazon Synod is a bridge too far.  After all, Bergoglio is purportedly the Vicar of Christ on earth.  Many quotes could be adduced to show that he is a believer (if those quotes, quite conveniently, happen to escape juxtaposition with their own stark and copious self-contradictions)."
 
"Moreover, many of the loquacious Argentinian’s less palatable statements are typically excused by fans and critics alike with the assertion that they do not represent what Bergoglio really means, or by the insistence--as though the one justification doesn’t abjectly invalidate the other—that they are amenable to realignment within the parameters of perfect orthodoxy."

"The problem comes in when we recognize that Adolf Hitler once wrote and spoke in what has come to be known as 'word salad,' too.  His habit of presenting himself 'publicly as a Christian'[7] was calculated, and took the form not only of being seen and photographed leaving church, but especially of mixing Catholic theology into the lethal ideological cocktail of his overall message."
  
"The Führer made about as much sense, in other words, as Bergoglio does, and like the latter took predatory advantage of the confusion occasioned by his subversion of Christian-sounding verbiage.  As incredible as it sounds, people at the time believed Hitler when he claimed that, in serving capital-n Nature, he was “fighting for the work of the Lord”.[8]  "

"The 'good Germans' were incapable, evidently, of drawing the distinctions necessary to tell the 'vague religiosity'[9] of Mein Kampf’s hijacked theological terminology from the real thing—to borrow the apt phrase by which Cardinal Müller has characterized the verbal smokescreen found specifically in the Instrumentum laboris.  The fact, in other words, that Bergoglio is ambiguous in his statements of belief doesn’t make him less reminiscent of Hitler, but more so."
Is Francis "reminiscent of Hitler" in his "self- contradictions"?

Francis compares abortion to Nazi eugenics:

“The murder of children. To have an easy life, they get rid of an innocent... Last century, the whole world was scandalised by what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves.”
[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/18/pope-francis-was-right-to-compare-abortion-to-nazi-eugencis/]

But then he in a Hitler-like "word salad" promotes the foremost one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders:

Pope Francis's Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has "called for forced abortion and mass sterilization" according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Francis said he is "gratified" by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which "promote universal access to abortion" according to Voice of the Family.com.[http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-francis-gratified-by-un-goals-that-demand-universal-access-to-sexual-and-reproductive-health/]

In 2015,  LifeSiteNews reported:

"Pope Francis has appointed controversial German Professor John Schellnhuber as an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  Schellnhuber was one of the four presenters of the new encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, on Thursday. He is also scheduled to chair a session of a Pontifical Academy for Sciences educational workshop on “Children and Sustainable Development” set for November."



"... Schellnhuber is also known for his advocacy of a one-world government.  In order to avoid his catastrophic predictions for unchecked climate change."


"... Schellnhuber is also a full member of the Club of Rome."



"[T]he Club of Rome in 1972, was one of the starting points for the worldwide attempt to reduce the population by aggressive methods of promoting birth control and the killing of pre-born children."



Francis is in alliance with the United Nations, the Club of Rome and Schellnhuber in calling for a one-world government.


On May 9, the New American reported on the "unholy alliance" between the one-world regime globalists and the Pope:

Francis said "'When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,' his holiness told those gathered to discuss 'Nation, State, and Nation-State,' the conference theme."

"Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by 'an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.'"

"... Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for 'international organizations' to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the 'state interests' with the will of the United Nations, he stated."

"... Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government."

"That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be."

"In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable?"
[https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/32245-pope-francis-calls-for-end-of-sovereignty-and-establishment-of-global-government]

Also, apparently in alliance with Francis and the Club of Rome is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in their attempt to bring about a abortionist eugenicist one-world government:

"Ocasio-Cortez is the leading champion of the Green New Deal, in collaboration with a Rockefeller-funded left-wing astroturf advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement [SM]... "

"The Green New Deal is exploiting the popularity of social democratic ideals as sugar coating to disguise the globalists’ poison pill. According to reporting by Inside Philanthropy, institutional funders made up about 55 percent of Sunrise Movement’s 2018 budget, which includes donors like the Rockefeller Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and the Winslow Foundation. The Wallace Global Fund was originally founded by former US Vice-President Henry A. Wallace. Winslow is run by Wren Winslow Wirth, who is married to former politician Tim Wirth.[3] SM was launched in April 2017 by six principal co-founders—veterans of the Occupy Movement—who had developed a friendship with Michael Dorsey of the Rockefeller-funded globalist institution, the Club Of Rome; Dorsey  was also a former Sierra Club board member, whom President Barack Obama had appointed to the EPA’s National Advisory Board in 2010 and 2012."
Who is Dorsey who is apparently one of AOC's major players behind the scenes pulling strings with his Rockefeller connections which are funding Ocasio-Cortez?

The Rockefeller-funded Club of Rome Dorsey "is a recognized expert on global governance and sustainability."
It appears that Ocasio-Cortez is a fellow traveler with the abortionist eugenicist one-world agenda of the Club of Rome who promote "birth control and the killing of pre-born children":

"'Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,' Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. 'And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"
By coincidence it appears that Ocasio-Cortez's former Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti is a fan of a ally of Hitler:

"Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:"
Also, by coincidence Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Chakrabarti happen to be pro-choice like the one time wannabe one-world government abortionist eugenicist leader Adolf Hitler.

As the German Media covered up Hitler's many eugenic scandals, the Nazi Media proudly promoted the pro-choice Hitler.

In 1933, when the Nazis came to power, one of Hitler's first acts was to legalize abortion for the "health of the mother" which meant abortion on demand. By 1935 Germany had 500,000 abortions a year.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Pro-choice Hitler's next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Getting back to Francis who appears to be in alliance with Ocasio-Cortez in achieving the goal of the Club of Rome to have a abortionist eugenicist one-world government; we need to remember that Francis's Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has "called for forced abortion and mass sterilization" according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Author and visiting lecturer at the University of Illinois Allen Chase wrote that the Francis Vatican hosted Ehrlich was:

"[A]n open and blunt advocate of genocide political policies... Dr. Ehrlich has neither the intellectual right and professional right... to speak for biology in particular and for the scientific community in general. Genocide remains genocide, whether advocated in a Munich beer hall in the 1920 or in a Texas college auditorium in 1967."
(Counterpunch, "Population Bomb or Bomb the Population?," April 3, 2019)

The New Atlantis showed the racist implications of Ehrlich's policies:

"In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, 'I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self sufficient in food by 1971, if ever'... By 1972-1973, the number of sterilizations in India reached three million per year."
(The New Atlantis, "The Population Control Holocaust," By Robert Zubrin, Number 35, Spring 2012, pp. 33-54)

When most people think of eugenics and forced sterilization they think of Nazi Germany, but tragically Francis's Vatican is hosting and promoting the foremost one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders of those same policies such as Ehrlich.

The Francis and the Club of Rome agenda for a one-world regime is also Ehrlich's goal according to Fox News:

"President Obama's 'science czar,' John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, 'compulsory sterilization,' and the creation of a 'Planetary Regime.'"

"... [Holdren propounded this 'Planetary Regime' policies in a] textbook he co-authored in 1977, 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,' a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com"

"The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich."
(Fox News, "Obama's 'Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions," Published July 21, 2009, Last Update January 27, 2015)

Remember that Hitler's next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews for a one-world government or "Planetary Regime" for the master race "new world elite."

Moreover, Gloria.tv said the "new world elite" are acting "like a new master race":

"Among the so called political elites, there is an 'unleashed hatred' of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Gerhard Müller at a November 21 book presentation in Weltenburg Abbey, Germany."

"The elites want to create a 'unified religion' as kind of 'spiritual union for all people in material wealth but without any transcendence,' Müller explained."

"He added that the 'new world elite' can hardly resist the temptation to act like a new master race."
[https://gloria.tv/post/DiYg3CDFKTEr3VMvNXvnZJUTi]

Sadly, Francis appears to be a member of the "new world elite."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.