Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV and His Boys in the Band

Oh, the horror.

Oh, the humanity!

Oh, oy vey!

Come on with the “worst case scenario” outrage already.

So what?

So “Father” James Martin has confirmed that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has told us with his own Modernist lips on May 8, 2025, the Feast of the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel, when he said that was going to continue the “legacy” of his wretched, demonic little predecessor. Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

This is news:

Well, for some, sadly it is:

Father James Martin, S.J., has said that Pope Leo XIV will take a similar approach to “LGBTQ Catholics” as his predecessor, Pope Francis, following an audience this morning.

The Pope met with Jesuit priest Martin, known for his fervent pro-LGBT promotion within the Catholic Church, in audience at the Apostolic Palace on Monday morning, according to the Holy See Press Office. Following the meeting, Martin shared on social media platform X that he is “profoundly grateful” for the audience with the Pontiff, adding that the “message” he took from the meeting “was that Pope Leo will be continuing with the same openness that Francis showed to LGBTQ Catholics.”

Martin, famed for his LGBT activism and incorporation of homosexual lifestyles within the Church, praised Pope Francis after his death as an “imperfect” “champion” for gender-confused and homosexual people, writing in the New York Times:

Francis’ pastoral outreach helped L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics feel more at home in their church. But it also meant that a far larger group – their families and friends – also felt more at home. It potentially forced Catholics around the world, even in cultures where homophobia is more entrenched, to ask themselves: If Pope Francis is so welcoming, why not me?

Martin has also commended Pope Francis on his 2023 declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which endorsed “blessings” for homosexual “couples” under certain circumstances and carried out one such “blessing” just a day after the document was officially published.

In the hours after Pope Leo was elected, Martin took to X to congratulate the former Cardinal Robert Prevost on his succession and to comment that the new Pope is “committed to continuing this process (of Synodality) of Pope Francis to make the Church more listening, more welcoming, and more inclusive.”

LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen noted that Martin’s Monday morning meeting with Leo XIV represents “the nightmare scenario” he warned of at the commencement of the new papacy. “As I told Glenn Beck,” Westen stated, “a less bombastic pope could quietly cement a false new direction. The James Martin approach defies Christ, His Church, Scripture, and 2,000 years of tradition.”

Nightmare scenario?

Enough with the hysterics.

Robert Francis Prevost’s support for the sodomite agenda of “inclusiveness” of “nonjudgmental inclusive” is but a byproduct of the fact that he is a Modernist, and Modernists have expelled themselves from the bosom of the Catholic Church, no less serve as true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

Robert Francis Prevost defects from the Catholic Faith by supporting the entirely of the conciliar agenda, which includes (yes, another reprise):

The honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, which has been profaned by the worldly nature of liturgical rites that are designed to appeal to the “people” and not to reflect the reverence due to Him in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and the sacrality necessary to raise the people out of the muck and mire of this passing world, The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service celebrates the world, sacralizes the profane, and profanes all that is holy and sacred (please purchase G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship if you have done not so already). God’s honor and glory has also been blasphemed and profaned by the abundant praise heaped upon false religions, their false doctrines, their false leaders and by the esteem shown to idols by the conciliar “popes” and “bishops.”
God’s immutability, which has been rendered mutable by dogmatic evolutionism’s different contemporary appellations (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open embrace of dogmatic evolutionism by means of distorting and misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, each of which ignores the condemnations of dogmatic evolutionism found in The Third Council of Constantinople, Singulari Vos, May 15, 1834, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the Decree on the Doctrine of the Faith issued by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominicae Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestatia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
The unicity and infallibility of Holy Mother Church, which has been granted a “perfect immunity from error” (e.g., cf. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
The ends proper to Holy Matrimony, which have been inverted by the conciliar revolutionaries according the “personalism” of Father Herbert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned directly by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944.)
The very nature of the papacy itself, which was become an object of derision, ridicule, and abject disobedience in the past sixty years with the recrudescence of the Gallicanism by the Society of Saint Pius X and then by scores of others in the “resist while recognize” movement.
Religious liberty and the separation of Church and State.
New ecclesiology.
Episcopal collegiality.
Ecclesial synodality.
False interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
Misrepresentations of the teachings of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Apostles, Martyrs, Doctors, and Confessors.
False Mariology.
False Eschatology.
False Canon Law.
False Ecumenism and inter-religious “prayer” services.
A rejection of the fact that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on Good Friday.
Endless praise of pagan religions that deny the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity and thus of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacred Divinity.
An embrace of the very language of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity:

Liberty, equality and fraternity

103. Fraternity is born not only of a climate of respect for individual liberties, or even of a certain administratively guaranteed equality. Fraternity necessarily calls for something greater, which in turn enhances freedom and equality. What happens when fraternity is not consciously cultivated, when there is a lack of political will to promote it through education in fraternity, through dialogue and through the recognition of the values of reciprocity and mutual enrichment? Liberty becomes nothing more than a condition for living as we will, completely free to choose to whom or what we will belong, or simply to possess or exploit. This shallow understanding has little to do with the richness of a liberty directed above all to love.

104. Nor is equality achieved by an abstract proclamation that “all men and women are equal”. Instead, it is the result of the conscious and careful cultivation of fraternity. Those capable only of being “associates” create closed worlds. Within that framework, what place is there for those who are not part of one’s group of associates, yet long for a better life for themselves and their families? (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Fratelli Tutti, October 3, 2020.)

John Henry-Westen’s “worst case scenario” has nothing to do with his “pope’s” endorsement of “Father” James Martin’s “outreach” to those involved in unnatural vice as he does not realize or as yet understand that each conciliar “pontiff” has been a worst case scenario, something that I will endeavor to show, if ever briefly, concerning the vaunted dogmatic evolutionist considered the “restorer of tradition” named Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has endorsed the entirety of the conciliar agenda of apostasy, including Fratelli Tutti and the Abu Dhabi document. Why, oh why, does anyone have to look for “clues” about what “Pope Leo XIV” really believes or says as anyone who propagates the errors of conciliarism, which are the errors of Modernism with the contributions to Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “new theology,” is not a Catholic.

Prevost/Leo’s assurances given to “Father” James Martin are no surprise as it was as Robert Francis “Cardinal” Prevost that Leo retweeted a few of Martin’s observation, and I can assure one and all that the “inclusive” Southside Chicago fan of the Chicago White Sox, who are having another terrible season even if not as epically bad as 2024, will do nothing to punish the retired conciliar “bishop” of the Diocese of Saltillo, Mexico, Raul Vero Lopez, whom recently permitted an a “married” lesbian “priestess” to “concelebrate” a Novus Ordo liturgical abomination with him during which the perverted woman mouth the words of the alleged consecration:

SALTILLO, Mexico (LifeSiteNews) — A lesbian Anglican “priest” who “married” a woman received the Holy Eucharist after dipping the Host in the Blood of Christ during a recent Mass in Mexico. Throughout the liturgy, she also stood alongside a Catholic prelate and appeared to “concelebrate” the liturgy.

Canadian “pastor” Emilie Teresa Smith came down to Mexico for a Mass on August 26 with Bishop Emeritus Raúl Vera López, OP, at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Saltillo.

Smith is involved in Latin American “ecumenical” activities and previously appeared vested in liturgical vestments in March, causing controversy.

She “married” another woman, Patti Powell, in 2018 and regularly posts pro-LGBT content on social media.

The Mass, which can still be seen on Facebook, shows Smith standing next to the prelate throughout and sitting next to his presider’s chair. “During the liturgy, Ms Smith, wearing a stole (a liturgical vestment), joined in parts of the Eucharistic Prayer, whispered words of consecration, raised her hand in blessing and elevated the chalice containing the Precious Blood of Christ,” the Catholic Herald reported. LifeSiteNews also observed that Smith appeared to be wearing a white clerical collar.

Smith also appeared to read the Gospel, which is reserved for deacons and priests, and give a homily. She also kissed the altar at the end of Mass.

López defended his inclusion of a female “pastor” during Mass and attacked those who criticized his actions.

“They talk about sacrilege, heresy, indecency, indiscipline, laziness. Please, it’s common sense!! She carries her stole everywhere she travels around the world,” the bishop wrote.

The bishop also criticized “people who pretend to be Christians, [who] wrote insulting things to us on different social networks,” and cited Pope Francis’ “climate change” encyclical Laudato si’ to justify his decision.

All this prompted the titular bishop of the Diocese of Saltillo to call me. He knows that the Mass is recorded and I repeated the context in which the Emilie Teresa Smith visit is given. But by the way, not only does she work with the poor, she has a parish, has a theological background, she is a writer, she is qualified to participate in a meeting of the United Nations and with God’s people, around the defense of our Mother Earth, but besides all that her homily yesterday was excellent.

I hope that the community through my homily and through my word to the press, can understand what this is about. It’s not just about ecumenism, but about being true sisters and brothers, not just with a narrative, but with actions of love and inclusion. We are no longer in witch hunts and bonfire times. The word of our sister Emilie, gives us light, life and guidance as Laudato [si’] asks all the people of this planet.

In a follow-up post, he wrote: “I admire and respect you Emilie Teresa Smith I wish you no more bad -tastes in your mouth- on your way. We will be always at your service when you return to the Mexican northeast.” (Mexican bishop ‘concelebrates’ Mass with lesbian Anglican in homosexual 'marriage' who received Eucharist.)

Yes, I will grant you that this is truly sick and outrageous even considering the fact that Raul Vera Lopez is neither a true bishop or priest (he was “ordained” on June 29, 1975, the same day that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained the then Reverend Mister Donald Sanborn to the Holy Priesthood, and “consecrated” a “bishop” on January 6, 1988, after he, Raul Vera Lopez, had been appointed by Karol Jozsef Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the “bishop” of Ciudad Altamirano, Guerrero, México—see Bishop José Raúl Vera López [Catholic-Hierarchy]) and that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service is both invalid and sacrilegious.

I will also grant that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, such as, say, Pope Saint Pius X, would not hesitate to excommunicate and defrock Raul Vera Lopez, if the latter did not repent of his actions presuming the validity of his orders and of the liturgical rite in which the sacrilege took place.

Such will not be the case with Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV as such was not the case when Jose Raul Vera Lopez worked with groups advocating the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing fourteen years during the “pontificate” of none other than a chap named Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI even though a Vatican “investigation” took place that left Jose Raul Vera Lopez in place as the conciliar “bishop” of Saltillo, Mexico, until he resigned when he turned seventy-five years of age in 2020:

MEXICO, August 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an extensive interview with LifeSiteNews.com conducted last week, His Excellency Raul Vera López, bishop of the Diocese of Saltillo in the northern Mexican state of Coahuila, answered questions about his involvement with organizations that promote the homosexual lifestyle and the decriminalization and government provision of abortion services.

Bishop Vera is the president of the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Center, based in Chiapas, and is the founder of the Saltillo diocese’s Fray Juan de Larios Human Rights Center. A spokesman of the Fray Bartolomé Center has confirmed to LifeSiteNews that the organization supports both the decriminalization (or “depenalization”) of abortion and the provision of abortion by the government. Both groups are members of a pro-abortion alliance of civil organizations called the All Rights for Everyone Network (“Red Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos”), and the names of both organizations have appeared on various pro-abortion “human rights” statements.

Bishop Vera recently acknowledged that he is under investigation by the Vatican for his sponsorship of a homosexual organization that is accused of denying the Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality. The group has also been associated with pro-abortion forces, including “Catholics for the Right to Decide.”

Not pro-abortion, but pro-depenalization?

After this reporter mentioned the fact that the names of two “human rights” groups led by Bishop Vera López appear on a 2008 declaration denouncing a pro-life constitutional amendment for the state of Jalisco, the bishop answered that the declaration was not pro-abortion, but rather against the penalization of abortion, something he regards as distinct. He called the penalization of abortions “the persecution of people who have abortions.”

“No, no, no, the penalization,” said Vera López regarding the document. “What is debated here is the penalization or depenalization of abortion in Mexico. That’s something else. The penalization is the persecution of people who have abortions.”

The bishop added that he knows “perfectly” that abortion is “a crime, a murder, of a child in the womb of his mother.”

“What might be subject to debate is the penalization or non-penalization, and do you know why? Because of the frightful failures we have in Mexico in the judicial process. And they have imprisoned indigenous women for miscarriages, they have imprisoned them, there, in the state of Guanajuato, indigenous women who have had miscarriages, and they are in jail.”

“So, knowing the type of justice system we have in Mexico, and that they are going to manage that, for that reason we…I personally have never entered into a discussion about that, never have entered, never have entered.”

era López repeated his contention that women have been imprisoned in Guanajuato for miscarriages later in the interview. This reporter observed that pro-abortion organizations had accused the government of imprisoning women for miscarriages, but in fact (in accordance with the evidence presented at their trials) the women had killed their babies following birth at full gestation. See LifeSiteNews coverage here. The bishop claimed that he knew nothing about those cases, and insisted that women had been imprisoned in Guanajuato for miscarriages.

Asked about the new Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teaching that abortion should be prohibited by law, the bishop claimed that the if the Church evangelized people properly, the government’s laws would be of no concern. He repeated his contention that it was not pro-abortion to advocate the depenalization of abortion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, in paragraph 2273, that “As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

Asked if he therefore opposed the pro-life constitutional amendment for the state of Jalisco, in accordance with the document that his organizations had signed, Bishop Vera responded: “When there has been a discussion of penalization or non-penalization, it’s that, at some point they have to make a declaration, but no, to strengthen abortion, never, never. It’s penalization or non-penalization, it’s that.”

Membership in the pro-abortion All Rights for Everyone Network

LifeSiteNews also asked about the membership of Bishop Vera’s organizations with the pro-abortion “All Rights for Everyone Network” (Red Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos), an alliance of “human rights” groups that openly endorsed the 2007 Mexico City legal reform that permits abortion-on-demand during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and even provides it free of charge in city hospitals.

Vera López defended the organization, claiming that it was not “pro-abortion,” but rather in favor of the depenalization of abortion. He then stated that he was neither for nor against the depenalization of abortion in Mexico City,

“No, no, no, the Network is not pro-abortion. What it is…there is a group that is called Catholics for the Right to Decide and that is a pro-abortion network. The other network, of Rights for Everyone, is not pro-abortion,” Vera López said.

LSN: “We have documented that the Network itself is pro-abortion, because the Network itself, in the name of the Network, advocated the depenalization of abortion in the Federal District, all of that reform—

Bishop Vera: “But we are talking about the penalization and the non-penalization, kid. We are not talking about—”

LSN: “So you are in favor of the depenalization of abortion in the Federal District?”

Bishop Vera: “I am not in favor of the depenalization of abortion or the non-depenalization of abortion. I am in favor that we, as the Church, carry out a pastoral work in which we don’t have to depend on what the government says. We don’t have to depend on official and public imposition. We don’t have to be asking the government. We, the Episcopal Conference, were asking the government to inquire into that, and the government sent us packing. Why do we have to depend on the government?”

The bishop added that the Church doesn’t have the government as an “arm” like it did during “the time of the inquisition” when “the government imposed measures.”

He said that associating with groups such as the All Rights for Everyone Network is necessary on pragmatic grounds as well “because of the situation that we are experiencing in Mexico” and protested that if “sometimes a document comes out” of this kind “well, it is not a constant thing, something repeated, it is not our purpose.”

The bishop added that if such statements become repetitive, “I am going to be more careful with my administrative team, I am going to be more careful. But they are administrative teams. I am not here supervising closely, for the love of God, for the love of God!”

The unborn forgotten by “human rights” groups?

LifeSiteNews then asked Bishop Vera about the apparent lack of concern about the right to life by groups, such as his own two “human rights” organizations, whose names have appeared on pro-abortion declarations, while apparently remaining silent while thousands of unborn children are killed every year in Mexico.

LifeSiteNews did find one document published by Bartolomé de las Casas in 2004, which contains a phrase defending the right to life of the unborn in a case in which pregnant indigenous women had been killed (pp. 5, 15). However, documents on the issue subsequent to that year bearing the organization’s name took the opposite position and were in favor of depenalization and government guarantee of abortion services. In addition, a press representative of the group has affirmed in an interview with LifeSiteNews that its position is that abortion should carry no criminal penalties, either for doctors or for their patients, and should be guaranteed as a service by the government, like any health service. The documents and the interview can be found here.

Asked about the almost total silence of his two human rights groups regarding the rights of the unborn, Vera López claimed that “many times we have spoken about the right to life from the beginning until the end, many times, many times.”

Asked why such declarations cannot be found on the internet, and where such declarations might be, the bishop responded: “Well…only…oh well, well I am already in front of the Inquisition. If for that reason you want to accuse me of being pro-abortion, well go ahead, go ahead.”

This reporter clarified: “No, I am only asking, because for our readers what is very difficult to understand is that these groups say they are in favor—and not only your two groups, but also Agustín Pro, for example, and many others who say—”

“I repeat, I repeat brother,” Vera López interrupted, “that we are not speaking about abortion directly. We are speaking about the penalization and the depenalization of abortion. That is another thing.”

Vera López added that the justification for such a policy in favor of the depenalization of abortion has to do with problems with the justice system in Mexico, and “that’s all, that’s all.”

Evangelizing people on the right to life, the bishop said, is a matter that is “integral” and involves the lives of everyone, including other oppressed classes of society, and observed that conditions of poverty can lead people to seek abortions. “With a law or without a law, they’re going to have abortions,” he added.

As a final question, this reporter asked Vera López if he would apply his policy neutrality regarding “depenalization” to other human rights abuse cases about which the bishop often expresses his concern. For example, would he be indifferent to the depenalization of abuse of prisoners by guards on the grounds that the Church should not rely on the government to impose its morality?

“No, no, no, I am speaking of an area that is very delicate,” Vera López responded. “The situation of the woman who has an abortion is very complicated. The situation that women pass through—it’s a terrible situation.” He cited examples of “girls who do not receive attention, girls who have boyfriends without having received any instruction,” as well as girls whose fathers work long hours in factories, and others who live in situations of promiscuity.

The bishop did not mention penalties for the doctors who perform abortions.

LifeSiteNews will soon publish the second part of its interview with Vera López regarding his sponsorship of the “San Aelredo” group, a homosexual organization whose leadership has admitted to condoning homosexual relations. (Conciliar "Bishop" Under Vatican Investigation Discusses Abortion.)

Nothing ever came out from the conciliar Vatican’s “investigation” fourteen years ago just as nothing ever happened to a conciliar presbyter in Barcelona, Spain, Manuel Pousa, who had regularly paid for women to kill their children surgically at abortuaries:

BARCELONA, March 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For three years, the Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona has refused to act against a priest in his diocese who boasts openly of having financed abortions.

Now, the priest is a subject of a new book in Catalonian, “Fr. Manel: Closer to earth than to heaven”, which describes the ever-growing popularity of his charitable work with Spanish celebrities. In addition to repeating his claim of having paid for abortions, Fr. Manel Pousa says he has performed “blessings” of homosexual unions, and endorses the creation of female “priests”, according to reports in the Spanish media.

He also states that he regards clerical celibacy as optional, and says he has a girlfriend—but claims that their relationship is celibate.

Although Pousa has never retracted any of his statements, his prelate, Cardinal Lluís Martínez Sistach, has only given Manel a verbal “warning”, leaving him in his place to continue his leadership of his parish and his other activities.

The controversy about Pousa began in 2008, when the Spanish website Religion en Libertad (Religion in Liberty) first published in Spanish a quote from an interview given by the priest, in which he said: “What interests me is the person. It is true that there are ethical principles, but there are reasons, that, for example, lead certain women to have an abortion. I have paid for abortions. And the Spanish Episcopal Conference doesn’t realize that the Gospel doesn’t condemn, but rather offers liberating measures.”

In the new book on Pousa, the priest admits to paying for at least one abortion, and appears to defy the Church authorities, claiming that “I am as much the Church as the pope or the bishop.”

“It may be that what I say sounds bad to the extreme right,” continues Pousa, “but those people are not going to distance me from the Church, an institution where I have been received by extraordinary people. We may have frictions, like all families do, and the Church is my family.”

The Catholic Church condemns homosexual unions and teaches that abortion, which takes the life of an unborn child, is the equivalent of murder. Those who assist in an abortion are automatically excommunicated under Church law.

“The excommunication applies to all of those who commit this crime knowing the penalty, including those accomplices without whose cooperation the crime would not have been produced,” wrote Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter “The Gospel of Life,” in 1995.

Pousa is a celebrity in ultra-liberal Catalonia, where he has won the Solidarity Prize from the Catalonian Institute of Human Rights.

Cardinal Martínez Sistach has reportedly scheduled another meeting with the priest, although the outcome has not been reported.

The Pousa scandal follows on the heels of revelations in September of last year that Catholic hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Barcelona were performing abortions and distributing the deadly abortion drug, RU-486. (Catholic priest who finances abortions remains unpunished.)

This is what I wrote at the time:

The only way that "Cardinal" Martinez Sistach would have acted quickly against Father Manel Pousa was if the latter had put into question the nature and extent of the crimes committed by agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich during World War II or if he had questioned the worthiness of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service or if he had condemned false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer" services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, episcopal collegiality, the new ecumenism and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." Finance abortions? "Bless" "civil unions." Support the ontological impossibility of women being "ordained" to the Holy Priesthood. Those who deny one aspect of conciliarism are "out of the Church," "disloyal to the 'Holy Father'" and schismatic. Those who deny articles contained in the Deposit of Faith and who support and personally make possible grave evils under cover of the civil law find themselves quite welcome in the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism, where there is a high tolerance accorded to every degree of error imaginable. (What's Good For Manel Pousa is Good for Benedict XVI, August 10, 2011)

No, nothing ever happened to Manuel Pousa, who died at the age of seventy-five on September 9, 2020, and nothing ever happened to the conciliar “archbishop of Barcelona, Spain, who acquitted him, who retired on November 6, 2015, and who is still alive at eighty-eight years of age. Conciliar discipline is for the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland and Bishop Carlo Maria Vigano (by the way, whatever happened to Vigano nothing much has been heard from him lately?), not for James Martin, Jose Raul Vera Lopez, nor for Manuel Pousa.

There is really little else to do say, is there?

I will append material from What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny as it contains a fictional colloquy between a “progressive” and “conservative” Catholic about the “Mass of Christian Burial” staged after the death of Edward Moore Kennedy on August 29, 2009, and then a fictional colloquy between that “conservative” Catholic and a sedevcantist Catholic about Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s legendary defections from the Holy Faith, and it is those defections from the Holy Faith that make a man ineligible to serve as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. Each of the conciliar “pontiffs” have defected from the Holy Faith, and Robert Francis Prevost does so as well. His support for the sodomite agenda, as I noted previously, is simply a byproduct of conciliarism’s dogmatic, moral, liturgical, Scriptural, and pastoral evolutionism.

Continue to keep close to Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary in this month of September, the month of her Sorrows, and beg her to restore a true pope to the Throne of Saint Peter sooner rather than later.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.

Saint Emeric, pray for us.

Saint Henry the Emperor, pray for us.

Appendix

From What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny, September 3, 2009

I want to ask the few readers of this site to do is to substitute the name of Father Manel Pousa for Edward Moore Kennedy in the text of What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny as its text is as applicable to him as it was to the late apostate from Massachusetts:

One of the reasons that the death and funeral of the the apostate named Edward Moore Kennedy has provided the fodder for so much commentary is that it encapsulates the entire ethos of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in a series of snapshots that could have come from any number of formerly Catholic parishes now under conciliar captivity at this time (see yesterday's commentary, Spotlight On The Ordinary). Ordinary Catholics are permitted to remain in "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite holding--and advancing most publicly and proudly--views that are outside the parameters of even the "officially" approved apostasies of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

The treatment given to Edward Moore Kennedy in life and after his death by officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is given by "bishops" and "priests" of that false church to ordinary Catholics who support contraception and abortion and special "rights" for those steeped in unrepentant acts of perversity and to those who only go to the Novus Ordo service only occasionally. Even Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has said that he has "nothing against" those who go to Mass irregularly in violation of the Third Commandment and the First Precept of the Catholic Church:

"I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas midnight Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light" (EWTN.com - CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY, October 1, 2001)

Such a sanguine attitude about the horrors of personal sin, examined in Having No Regard for the Horror of Personal Sin, permeates the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism down to its last nook and cranny. Most "conservative," "pro-life" Catholics who as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism keep believing the utter fiction that "things" will get "better" if they just keep fighting to "take back" their parishes without realizing they are fighting battles that are just as futile as those that were fought by the Japanese soldiers who were hunkered down on Mindanao for decades after the Empire of Japan had surrendered formally to the Allied forces sixty-four years ago yesterday, September 2, 1945.

Many of these "conservative" Catholics have continued to rail about the travesty that took place at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston, Massachusetts, five days ago now, on Saturday, August 29, 2009, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, without coming face to face to the simple fact that one man, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, could have stopped this travesty if he had wanted to do so.

The same man, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, could have stopped the administrators of the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, from bestowing an award upon the pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, on Sunday, May 17, 2009.

The same man, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, could have excommunicated Edward Moore Kennedy--and others of his ilk, instead choosing to maintain the man's "good standing" in his counterfeit church.

Indeed, as noted two days ago in Spotlight On The Ordinary, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has not only maintained men such as the late Edward Moore Kennedy and Vice President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, et al., in "good standing" in his false church, he has accepted the forced resignation of the now "retired" conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joseph Martino, who was deemed to be too "tough" on pro-abortion Catholics in public life.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has thus put "conservative" Catholics yet attached to the structures of his false church in quite a bind. How can a "conservative" Catholic remonstrate with a "progressive" Catholic over Edward Kennedy's defections from the Catholic Faith when the false "pontiff" himself treats such defections so casually, when he punishes an outspoken "conservative" "bishop" rather than to use the staff of correction upon pro-abortion Catholics in public life?

The scenario that has played out in the last nine days since Edward Moore "Teddy" Kennedy's death could lead to a conversion such as this one between a "conservative" Catholic and a "progressive" Catholic attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Progressive Catholic: "What do you say now after Ted Kennedy got all those accolades from Catholic bishops and priests? Still want to contend that Ted Kennedy was a bad Catholic?"

Conservative Catholic: "Ted Kennedy supported abortion-on-demand. He excommunicated himself from the Church by means of his constant and unrepentant support for baby-killing?"

Progressive Catholic: "How could the Catholic Church have given a Mass of Christian Burial for Teddy if, as you say, he had excommunicated himself from the Church?"

Conservative Catholic: "The American bishops are to blame for this travesty. They never take action against leftists and statists such as Kennedy."

Progressive Catholic: "What did Pope Benedict XVI do? Did he declare Kennedy to be out of the Church?"

Conservative Catholic: "His hands were tied by the American bishops."

Progressive Catholic: "How can the hand of the Vicar of Christ be tied. I asked you a simple question. You said that Kennedy had expelled himself from the Church. Our pope said no such thing. Who are you to declare Kennedy to have excommunicated himself from the Church when the pope himself made no such declaration?"

Conservative Catholic: "It doesn't take a decree from the pope to know a skunk when you see one. Kennedy had excommunicated himself from the Church by virtue of supporting one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. No one can deny that Teddy Kennedy defied the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment."

Progressive Catholic: "Why wasn't a declaration of this made by the Vatican?"

Conservative Catholic: "You don't need a declaration to know that Kennedy was a pro-abort, do you?"

Progressive Catholic: "You need a declaration for someone to be excommunicated, don't you?"

Conservative Catholic: "Do you need a declaration for that which is obvious, that which is inarguable?"

Progressive Catholic: "You are begging the question. Don't you need a declaration for someone to be excommunicated?"Conservative Catholic: "There are certain actions that carry with them an automatic self-excommunication. Participating in or facilitating procured abortion is one of these cases of automatic self-excommunication. A declaration from the pope or a bishop merely states publicly and formally what the person has already done to himself."

Progressive Catholic: "Aren't you judging the state of the late Senator Kennedy's immortal soul?"

Conservative Catholic: "Not at all. God alone knows the state of the late Senator Kennedy's immortal soul at the time of his death. I can use my own judgment to assess whether, objectively speaking, Edward Kennedy's words and actions were consistent with the Catholic Faith."

Progressive Catholic: "So you are saying that you can use your own judgment to know whether one was a public sinner who had defected from the Faith?"

Conservative Catholic" "Precisely. It is clear. It is plain. We can use the sensus Catholicus to know whether one has cut himself off from the body of believers."

Progressive Catholic: "Why doesn't the pope have this sensus Catholicus himself? Why don't the bishops or the priests who praised Ted Kennedy for his commitment to the poor and to immigrants and his support for universal health care have this sensus Catholicus of yours? Why is what is clear to you is not as clear to them?"

Conservative Catholic: "We're not getting anywhere. You just don't want to see that Teddy Kennedy was a bad Catholic."

Progressive Catholic: "We're not getting anywhere because you are trying to put your own private judgment about Ted Kennedy's political positions ahead of how the authority of the Catholic Church treated him in life and in death: as a Catholic in perfectly good standing."

Conservative Catholic: "I have to go now."

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has made it very difficult for "conservative" Catholics to rail against the treatment given to the late Edward Moore Kennedy in life and after his death.

There is also another aspect to this difficulty. A "conservative" Catholic who makes advertence to his ability to judge the public positions of the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy has to contend with simple fact that his "pope" sent the pro-abort Kennedy his "blessing" without demanding a public abjuration of Kennedy's errors so as to start the process of undoing the grave harm that he did as a public official and to educate his own family members and those in public life, especially Catholics, that one cannot say that he is "pro-choice" be a Catholic in "good standing" at the same time.

Such a "conservative" Catholic, who sees fit to judge whether Kennedy had excommunicated himself from the Church and should, therefore, have been denied a funeral in the conciliar structures might find himself in the following kind of conversation with a Catholic who has accepted that the canonical-doctrine of the Church is that a heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately--and that said doctrine applies at this time:

Sedevacantist Catholic: "That was quite a funeral for Ted Kennedy that your pope and your bishops permitted to be celebrated, wouldn't you say?"

Conservative Catholic: "Oh, no. Don't use the Kennedy funeral to advance sedevacantism. What does sedevacantism have to do with the Kennedy funeral?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Just about everything."

Conservative Catholic: "I shouldn't ask this. All right, tell me how this is the case."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Most gladly. You say, if understood your conversation with Mr. Progressive Catholic. . . .

Conservative Catholic: "Were you eavesdropping?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "I didn't have to eavesdrop. The two of you were going at it pretty hot and heavy, and the fact that Mr. Progressive Catholic was broadcasting the conversation on Twitter made it pretty easy to follow."

Conservative Catholic: "Oh."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "May I proceed now?"

Conservative Catholic: "I guess have no choice. My leaving now would kind of defeat the purpose of the man who is putting words into both of our mouths."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Thank you. As I was saying, you told Mr. Progressive Catholic that you could use your private judgment to determine that the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy had expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church."

Conservative Catholic: "Yes, that is correct. I said that."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "That is, you used the reason that God gave you to judge Kennedy's words and actions to determine that they were not consonant with the Catholic Faith."

Conservative Catholic: "Yes, yes, yes. I said all of that. Yes. So what?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "You came to this conclusion because Teddy Kennedy supported baby-killing, both chemical and surgical, under cover of the civil law, because he supported Federal funding for fetal tissue research, because he said that he could separate his allegedly private beliefs from his public actions, because he supported special 'rights' for those engaged in unrepentant acts of perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, right?"

Conservative Catholic: "Yes, yes, yes. All of that is clear. So what?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Are crimes against God more serious in the hierarchy of evils than crimes against men?"

Conservative Catholic: "What kind of crimes are you talking about?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "You're begging the question with me just as you did with Mr. Progressive Catholic. Let me restate the question: Are crimes about God more serious in the hierarchy of evils than crimes against men?"

Conservative Catholic: "I suppose."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "You suppose? All right. Let us suppose that the late Teddy Kennedy said that a mosque was a 'sacred' place, a 'jewel' that stood out on the face of the earth. Let us suppose that the late Teddy Kennedy went to great lengths to esteem the symbols of false religions with his own hands. Let us suppose that Teddy Kennedy said that Judaism was a valid means of salvation for its adherents. Let us suppose that Teddy Kennedy said that false religions could contribute to the "building" of the "better" world. Would you be able to use your sensus Catholicus to judge these words and actions."

Conservative Catholic: "Yes, of course. No one who says and does such things is a member of the Catholic Church. I agree with that. When did Kennedy do and say those things? I knew that he tried to palm off government-run universal health care and health-care and his version of 'immigration reform' as consistent with the Catholic Faith. When did he do or say the things that you just mentioned. Boy, he was worse than I thought."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Well, Teddy certainly believed all of those things. What if I substitute the name 'Pope' Benedict XVI for Edward Moore Kennedy? What if I told you that it was your 'pope' who said those things about a mosque? What if I told you that your 'pope' took off his shoes to enter into two different mosques so as to signify that he was in a 'holy' place? What if I told you that your 'pope' esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands? What if I told you that your 'pope' constantly praises the 'ability' of false religions to 'contribute' to the building of the 'better' world? What would you say?"

Conservative Catholic: "I would say that I can't judge the pope. That's what I would say."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "How can you say that you can judge the words and actions and beliefs of the man Edward Moore Kennedy, who maintained his 'good standing' with your 'pope' until the very end of his life despite doing and saying and believing things contrary to the Catholic Faith, and that you cannot judge the words and actions and beliefs of the man Joseph Ratzinger, who has spent his entire priesthood doing and saying things contrary to the Catholic Faith based upon the condemned beliefs of his New Theology."

Conservative Catholic: "I can't judge the pope. That's what I would say."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "In other words, you must suspend your sensus Catholicus to assess, objectively speaking, the fidelity of the words and actions and beliefs of Joseph Ratzinger before his 'election' to head your false church on April 19, 2005?

Conservative Catholic: "I can't judge the pope. That's what I would say."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Joseph Ratzinger was not the 'pope' when he said the following things that have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church:

"In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

Conservative Catholic: "Who says that this is not Catholic?"

Sedevacantist Catholic: "The [First] Vatican Council and the saint whose feast we celebrate today, Pope Saint Pius X:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

"It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.'" (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Conservative Catholic: "This is not as clear as killing a baby. That's clear. This is murky."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Murky. What's murky about 'that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth"? It's as plain as it can be.

Conservative Catholic: "I can't judge the pope."

Sedevacantist Catholic: "Joseph Ratzinger wasn't the 'pope' when he made those remarks in 1971. Anyone who is intellectually honest can see that the then Father Ratzinger held then--and holds now as 'Benedict XVI'--a notion of dogmatic truth contrary to right reason and that has been condemned solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church. To believe as he does is to render asunder the very immutability and omnipotence of God by claiming that He has revealed Himself to us in such obscure ways that His doctrine can never be expressed adequately at any one time, requiring adjustments over the course of time. This is a blasphemous denial of the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost that has been granted to our true popes and dogmatic councils in the past. No one can believe this and remain a Catholic in good standing as one is attacking the very nature of God Himself."

Conservative Catholic: "I have to go now."

Sedevacantist Catholic: I am sure that you do."

Some might protest that I have created "straw men" in these imaginary conversations. I have done nothing of the sort. I have conversations quite similar to these.

Remember, I did not come out of the womb fully formed. I was a "conservative" Catholic for a long, long time. I defended the conciliar "pontiffs" for a long, long time. I had arguments with "progressive" Catholics that were quite similar to the one presented in composite form above, and there were sedevacantists as early as 1985 who were making most of the same arguments about Karol Jozsef Wojtyla/John Paul II that I make now about Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. These conversations are not "straw men" inventions. They are, more or less, composites of how I attempted to defend the conciliar "popes" against solid Catholic reason for far, far too long!

You are here

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV and His Boys in the Band

Support Christ or Chaos