Conciliar Disciplinary Action: Confined Almost Exclusively to "Conservative" Catholics

The sad saga of “Father” Frank Pavone, the founder of Priests for Life, an organization of the sort for which there would be no need in the Catholic Church, continues to generate lots of news coverage during the Fourth Week of Advent when our attention should be focused almost exclusively on our spiritual preparations for a fitting celebration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Nativity on December 25, 2022, and for the forty days thereafter until the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary on February 2, 2023.

There are several facts that need to be addressed before discussing one of “Father” Pavone’s complaints about the “bishops” who have been persecuting him for twenty years, a fact in and of itself that should given him and those supporting him pause to consider whether said “bishops” are part of the Catholic Church, which they are not, of course.

First, the Reverend Frank Pavone was given permission by his installing “bishop, John Francis “Cardinal” O’Connor, to start Priests for Life in 1993.

Second, O’Connor’s successor as the conciliar “archbishop” of New York, Edward “Cardinal” Egan (see Paragon of Conciliar Orthodoxy), who was almost universally hated by his clergy, true and presumed, for his cold detachment from their pastoral duties and for the ease with which he closed parishes, schools and sold off historic churches, such as the Church of Saint Ann on East 12th Street in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, clamped down on Pavone’s work, whereupon he sought a transfer to and incardination in the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, under “Bishop” John Yanta in 2005.

Third, “Bishop” Yanta’s successor as the conciliar “bishop” of Amarillo, Patrick Zurek, an appointee of that “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has been in conflict with “Father Pavone” since 2008, and attempted to “suspend” him in 2011 before the decision was reversed by conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River. Although many of Zurek’s charges against Pavone were unjust in the objective order of things, his demand that a man under his authority return to pastoral work in his diocese was not unjust, something that was noted in This is Phenomenal Even by Bergoglio’s Endless Array of Double Standards two days ago now.

“Father” Pavone, stung by the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s obvious double-standards of hypocrisy, told Fox News Channel that he had  been, as noted above, facing persecution from “bishops” for twenty years:

Outspoken pro-life Roman Catholic priest Frank Pavone, who was removed from the priesthood by the Vatican this fall, provided an update on his defrocking, arguing he has known for years that there was pressure to "cancel" him over his outspoken work for the pro-life movement. 

"We've known for 20 years that there are bishops in the Church that hate our work. They're uncomfortable when I put so much priority on abortion," Pavone said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Monday.

:One bishop told me one time ‘Father Frank, you're too aggressive on abortion,'" he said. "So I said, ‘Well, as soon as abortion stops being aggressive on the little babies, that it dismembers and decapitates, then you come and talk to me.'"

Pavone was officially removed from the clergy on Nov. 9 after the receipt of a letter from Pope Francis' representative in the U.S., Archbishop Christophe Pierre, according to the New York Times. U.S. bishops were first alerted to the decision on Dec. 13. (Defrocked Catholic priest Frank Pavone speaks out: ‘Known' for decades that some bishops ‘hate’ pro-life work.)

Well, this should be an indication to the Reverend Pavone that he is in a false religious sect that is both a product and propagator of heresy, blasphemy, and sacrilege that has specialized in recruiting, remaining, and promoting effeminate and openly homosexual men to its clerical ranks and thus into the upper echelons of its hierarchy, some of whom have been very close to none other than the Argentine Apostate himself, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has been masquerading as “Pope Francis” since March 13, 2013.

The following story contains details of a scatological nature. Those desiring not to read it should scroll down to continue reading this commentary:

A Jesuit priest who is reportedly close to Pope Francis has been accused of inviting two nuns to partake in a ‘Holy Trinity’ threesome — and is now facing allegations of sexual and spiritual abuse dating back decades.

A former nun claims that Marko Ivan Rupnik used his ‘psycho-spiritual’ control over her some three decades ago in order to make her watch pornographic films and have group sex sessions that he said would have religious significance.

Rupnik, 68, was a spiritual director of a convent in Slovenia and has created mosaics for churches including a papal chapel at the Vatican.

The former nun told the Italian newspaper Domani that “Farther Marko started slowly and sweetly getting inside my psychological and spiritual world, exploiting my uncertainties and fragility and using my relationship with God to push me into sexual experiences with him,” according to the Daily Mail.

She said that during her time at the Solvenian convent, between 1987 and 1994, Rupnik groomed her, had sex with her and bullied her into staying silent about the abuse.

The former nun also claimed Rupnik had asked her and another nun to have a threesome with him, saying they would replicate the three-way relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirits.

Following an investigation, the claims of the women about Rupnik were found to be true.

The women who had accused Rupnik had “seen their lives ruined by the evil suffered and by the complicit silence” of the church, Bishop Daniele Libanori said in a letter on Sunday.

He urged members of the church who hid Rupnik’s crimes to “humbly ask the world to forgive the scandal.” (Priest accused of inviting two nuns to take part in a 'Holy Trinity').

Ah, there is “excommunication” and then there is temporary “excommunication” within the conciliar structures when it involves a Jesuit revolutionary pal of “Pope Francis,” the lay Jesuit revolutionary. Not accepting the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter nor that he is in a false religious sect, the Reverend Frank Pavone, humanly speaking, has cause to consider himself the victim of vicious double-standards on the part of those who indemnify pro-abortion, pro-perversity public officials around the world, indemnify practicing sodomites and “transgendered” mutants in the name of “accompaniment, and have done nothing to silence “cardinals” and “bishops” who believe that the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life either not important or equivalent to the “protection of the environment” and/or the “rights” of noncitizens to cross the borders of other nations illegally, opposition to the Natural Law right of the civil state to impose the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the full discharge of due process of law, and support for every statist and globalist income redistribution scheme imaginable.

Indeed, consider how Jorge Mario Bergoglio has protected another notorious friend of his Luigi “Cardinal” Capozzi:

ROME, October 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis, was present at the homosexual drug-fuelled partyraided by the Vatican police in the summer of 2017 at which his secretary, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, was arrested.

A highly-placed Vatican source with direct knowledge, who must remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, tells LifeSite that the Pope himself knows of Coccopalmerio’s presence at the party. The party took place in an apartment in the building of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Coccopalmerio was head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts until his retirement in April.

The same Vatican source spoke in more depth in a private meeting this summer with a group of priests, three of whom spoke to LifeSite about it.

One of these priests told LifeSite that according to the Vatican source, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, 80, was not only an attendee. The source said “in fact, that he ‘was presiding’ over it when the Vatican Gendarmes broke in, and that they instructed him to absent himself before they started making arrests,” according to the priest.

Another priest who was at the private meeting said the Vatican source “stated clearly to me and a number of others that, when the police raided the apartment and arrested Capozzi, Cardinal Coccopalmerio was actually present at the orgy.” He was then told by the police to leave “immediately.” This priest added that the source “gave us to understand that Coccopalmerio is a practicing homosexual.”

A third priest told LifeSite that he “heard in an informal conversation in the presence of other priests from a high-ranking cleric within the Roman Curia” that at the reported 'homosexual orgy' “said Cardinal was present and quickly whisked away by Vatican police.”

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier, Pope Francis himself insisted that Monsignor Capozzi be given that apartment in the CDF building, instead of the secretary of the then-prefect for the CDF, Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

Coccopalmerio has spoken in the past about the “positive realities” that can be found in homosexual relationships. Prior to working in the Vatican he was an auxiliary bishop of Milan under Cardinal Carlo Martini. He said in a 2014 interview with Rossoporpora: “If I meet a homosexual couple, I notice immediately that their relationship is illicit: the doctrine says this, which I reaffirm with absolute certainty. However, if I stop at the doctrine, I don’t look anymore at the persons. But if I see that the two persons truly love each other, do acts of charity to those in need, for example ... then I can also say that, although the relationship remains illicit, positive elements also emerge in the two persons. Instead of closing our eyes to such positive realities, I emphasize them. It is to be objective and objectively recognize the positive [parts] of a certain relationship, of itself illicit.”

The cardinal’s reduction of moral truth to a vague notional status (an “ideal”), with no necessary bearing on conduct, is the same as Pope Francis' approach in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Accordingly, Coccopalmerio is a strong supporter of Amoris Laetitia. He wrote a booklet titled The eighth Chapter of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia praising the more lenient attitude toward “remarried divorcees.” Holy Communion, insisted the cardinal, “must be given” to them.

Benjamin Leven, a German theologian and editor of the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz, explains in the October 2018 issue of that journal that, according to his own sources, it was Cardinal Coccopalmerio who approached the Pope in favor of the child abuser Don Mauro Inzoli in order to have him partially reinstated as priest. As Leven puts it, in this incident Coccopalmerio played here “not a good role.” This cardinal, Leven continues, is known in Rome for generally opposing the removal of culprit priests from the priesthood, which for him is a sort of “death penalty.”

In light of these new revelations, the fact that the roof of St. Joseph the Carpenter Church, Coccopalmerio's own titular Church in Rome, collapsed in August 2018 might gain further significance. (Vatican "Cardinal" Was at Drug-Fueled Sodomite Party and Jorge Knows.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew what his pal Francesco Coccopalmerio had done but this not not deter him from sending Coccopalmerio to Kazkhstain to represent the conciliar Vatican at an “interreligious” conference on October 11, 2018, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (see Bergoglio Sents Corrupt Coccopalmerio to Represent Conciliar Vatican at Interfaith Jam Session thus sending a signal that, despite all his many protestations about the “gay lobby” within the Vatican, he is a fellow-traveler with perverted clergymen. There is just no other conclusion that can be drawn, especially since he has turned the Casa Santa Marta in the Rainbow Hotel for his appointees in conciliar hierarchy whose perverted behavior comes to light after their victims bring it out into the open. One of the latest perverts to take refuge in the Casa Santa Marta is Jorge’s pal Gustavo Zanchetta, whom “Pope Francis” chose personally to head the Diocese of Orono in Argentina just months after his own “election” as the successor of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as the universal public face of apostasy:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — The Vatican has confirmed that an Argentine bishop, who resigned suddenly in 2017 for stated health reasons and then landed a top administrative job at the Holy See, is under preliminary investigation after priests accused him of sexual abuse and other misconduct.

The case could become yet another problem for Pope Francis, who is already battling to gain trust from the Catholic flock over his handling of sex abuse and sexual misconduct, stemming in particular from the scandal of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti stressed that the allegations against Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta only emerged in recent months, nearly a year after Francis created the new position for him as “assessor” of the Holy See’s office of financial administration.

At the time of his resignation, Zanchetta had only asked Francis to let him leave the northern Argentine diocese of Oran because he had difficult relations with its priests and was “unable to govern the clergy,” Gisotti said. Pending the preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual abuse underway in Argentina, the 54-year-old Zanchetta will abstain from work at the Vatican, he said.

Francis’ standing would take another hit if he personally intervened to help out a bishop from his native Argentina — finding a job for him during a Vatican hiring hold-down — and the man later turned out to have credible allegations of misconduct against him.

Zanchetta’s hasty departure from Oran on July 29, 2017 was mired in mystery. He didn’t celebrate a farewell Mass, as might be expected, and he issued a cryptic statement saying he had been suffering a “health problem” for some time, had just returned from the Vatican where he presented his resignation to Francis, and needed to leave immediately for treatment.

A statement issued the same day from his vicar general said Zanchetta had already left Oran, a deeply conservative and poor diocese near Argentina’s northern border with Bolivia that Zanchetta had run since Francis made him a bishop in 2013 in one of his first Argentine episcopal appointments. Zanchetta, the vicar said at the time, would be staying in Corrientes — several hundred kilometers (miles) away — as a guest of the archbishop until Francis accepted his resignation.

Often such procedures can take months, but the Vatican announced Francis had accepted it three days later, on Aug. 1.

Zanchetta then disappeared from view until Dec. 19, 2017, when the Vatican announced that he had been named assessor of APSA, the office that manages the Vatican’s vast real estate and other financial holdings. The appointment immediately raised eyebrows, but Zanchetta appeared nevertheless to have settled in well at APSA, and Gisotti said Francis appointed him because he had an established capacity for administrative management.

It wasn’t immediately clear what Zanchetta’s health problems were at the time of his resignation, but by all indications there were grave problems with his leadership and divisions within the diocesan clergy.

“The reason for his resignation is linked to his difficulty in handling relations with the diocesan clergy, some of which were very tense,” Gisotti said. “At the time of his resignation there were accusations against him of authoritarianism, but there were no accusations of sexual abuse against him.”

Zanchetta spent a period of time in Spain before joining APSA.

The allegations were leveled internally in recent months, Gisotti said, and last week the provincial newspaper in Salta, El Tribuno, reported that three priests had brought accusations against him to the Vatican’s ambassador, or nuncio, in Buenos Aires. The newspaper said the priests had lodged accusations of abuse of power, economic abuse and sexual abuse inside the seminary.

It wasn’t immediately clear how Zanchetta responded to the accusations.

The current bishop of Oran, which is in Salta province, is still gathering evidence and testimony and will forward it to the Vatican, Gisotti said. If the allegations are deemed credible, the case will be forwarded to Francis’ special commission for bishops — an ad hoc group of canon lawyers who have been examining allegations of misconduct against bishops.

The issue of sexual abuse within seminaries has risen to the forefront in the scandal over McCarrick, the retired archbishop of Washington. Francis removed McCarrick as a cardinal in July after a U.S. church investigation determined that an allegation that he fondled an altar boy in the 1970s was credible. After the allegation became public, several former seminarians came forward to report they had been abused or harassed by McCarrick and pressured to sleep with him.

Francis became implicated in the McCarrick scandal after a former Vatican ambassador accused him of knowing of McCarrick’s penchant for seminarians, and rehabilitating him anyway from sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict XVI. Francis hasn’t responded.

Zanchetta had opened his own seminary in Oran in 2016 with six seminarians. According to El Tribuno, the St. John XXIII seminary is due to close soon.

The diocese hasn’t responded to questions about Zanchetta’s departure or the status of the investigation against him. It has, however, issued a statement responding to media reports that the priests who lodged complaints against Zanchetta had suffered retaliation. The new bishop of Oran said the priests had been transferred to respond to the pastoral needs of the faithful.

“Knowing the gravity of all types of abuse, the bishop is available to anyone who would like to present a complaint to begin the corresponding procedure for canonical justice, while recalling the right of all victims of abuse to seek ordinary justice,” via civil authorities, the statement said. (Jorge Chooses to Keep Gustavo Zanchetta at Casa Santa Marta.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio sure does choose to keep some "rich" company at his side, doesn't he? Ah, but such choices are ancillary proofs of the fact that thecounterfeit church of conciliarism is corrupt to the core. This corruption is so evident that even some members of the conciliar college of cardinals are starting to speak, albeit with a guarantee of anonymity, about the man who preaches “mercy” but who is in fact is a vindictive liar and hyprocrite:

September 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the German magazine Der Spiegel, one of the most influential political magazines in Europe, published a report on the failures of the papacy of Francis. LifeSiteNews already summed up the parts of this report about the involvement of Pope Francis in a cover-up of abuse cases in Argentina. But the Spiegel authors also make a report from their conversations with unnamed prelates in the Vatican who spoke quite critically about Pope Francis.

According to the magazine, one cardinal not only called the Pope effectively a liar, but he also said: “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” The Spiegel's own comments on this papacy, as we shall see, are no less strong.

One of the high-ranking interlocutors told the journalistic team that, in the Vatican there reigns “a climate of fear and of uncertainty.” “Francis is very good at getting things in motion,” a German prelate is quoted as saying, “but when, in the end, there is only wavering, that for sure does not help.” Examples of such waverings are to be found, as the Spiegel says, in Pope Francis' handling of the debate about Communion for Protestant spouses of Catholics. One German cardinal tells the magazine about lies, intrigues, “and a Holy Father who, unlike anyone before him, puts into doubt the truth of the Faith.”

Marie Collins, herself a prominent abuse victim and advocate for victims, speaks about the Pope's and the Vatican's handling of abuse cases thus: “beautiful words in the public and [then] opposite actions behind closed doors.”

The Spiegel comments that the Pope might very well ignore the “indications of crimes within his own inner circle” because “he is interested, for reasons of power politics, in keeping one or another cardinal or bishop in his office.” So, in the German magazine's eyes, “Francis [thereby] makes himself vulnerable.” He fights for years “against global capitalism, but took – like his predecessors – sums of millions from the now-rejected Cardinal McCarrick which he himself had received from donors.” Additionally, “the Pope praises the value of the traditional family, but then surrounds himself with counselors and collaborators who live the opposite – in a more or less obvious concubinage with representatives of either sex.”

“Is the Pope still master of the situation?” asks the Spiegel. It points out that “criticism [of this papacy] meanwhile comes from a circle much larger than that of globally connected arch-conservatives.” One of the problems of this Pope, according to the magazine, is that “he is silent in delicate matters” such as the dubia of the four cardinals concerning his post-apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also concerning the petition of 30,000 women who have recently requested that he answer the questions arising from the Viganò report. He does not answer these women, he is mute, and “he, rather, leaves the accusation unchallenged that he has known, since June 2013, about the doings of the child-abuser McCarrick.”

When speaking about one of the Pope's close collaborators, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, and his own Archdiocese of Munich, the Spiegel points to the crisis of Faith in Bavaria. “A part of the problem in the Archdiocese, however, is homemade,” it explains. The credibility of the Church there, it adds, is being undermined by the facts that “a high-ranking clergyman of Munich shamelessly places his concubine right in the first pew, and that also in this city, there is indignation about openly homosexual pastors and about an unpredictable Pope.”

 “From the beginning, I did not believe one word of his.” These are the trenchant words of a cardinal within the walls of the Vatican: “He preaches mercy, but is in truth an icecold, sly Machiavellian, and, what is worse – he lies.” ("Cardinal Says Bergoglio is Machiavallian and a Liar.)

The Reverend Frank Pavone should spend less time speaking about the legitimate injustices that he has suffered and more time reflecting upon his duties as a presumed priest and the fact that the Catholic Church is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus is incapable of giving any appearance that she suborns unrepentant sinful behavior and is dismissive about any of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including the direct, willful taking of innocent human life and the sin of Sodom.

Even the supposedly “pro-life” “pope,” Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, apart from appointing and promoting Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, had a long history of appointing the sort of men as “bishops” whose likes enjoy the over favor and confidence of the Argentine Apostate.

Nothing associated with Holy Mother Church can be a “mishmash of confusion and heresy” as it is of her Divine Constitution to be free from all error, something that many Catholics still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that they represent the Catholic Church cannot seem to grasp no matter how many times these simple, clear truths are printed for one and all to see:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter) or is being, perhaps more accurately, intellectually dishonest. If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?

No, the Catholic Church has never endorsed error in any of her officials documents and we have never seen anything like the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges that have characterized the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" in the past sixty-four years now.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in but one sentence the simple fact those steeped in error cannot have any part in the Catholic Church, meaning that Federico Lombardi's desire to put aside "differences" is of the devil, not of God: 

There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)

The true Church, the Catholic Church, cannot countenance falsehood and error.

Yet is that very well-meaning Catholics keep urging others to write “respectful” letters conciliar curial officials to protest this or that latest outrage even though the man who revels in this or that outrage, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is the man they believe to be the Vicar of Christ on earth is a heretic who takes special delight in promoting one error after another while he denounces those old “fuddy-duddies” who “rigidly” cling a “past” by seeking to “cage” the “holy spirit.” It is never possible to convince the letter writers and originators of petitions to convince them that to oppose a man they believe to be the pope is, to use a phrase found in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s elegy in praise of Pope Saint Clement I, “to oppose God Himself.” A kind of steel curtain that prevents otherwise intelligent people from accepting this truth seems to many to be preferable to admitting the obvious: that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, the news of which I remember very well as it occurred during the second month of the 1958-1959 scholastic year at Saint Aloysius School, Great Neck, New York, and prompted special Masses and Rosaries for the repose of the soul of the Holy Father.

As one who was in the “conservative” trenches in the 1970s, 1980s, and the first three years of the 1990s before becoming an indulterer, I know full well of the futility of trying to fight the “bad” “bishops” at a time many of us though (actually, deluded) that we had a “good” “pope” who had a “master plan” of dealing with the bad guys. In other words, I was as pitiable and self-delusional concerning Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s governance of what I thought was the Catholic Church as so many people remain about the “master plan” that Donald John Trump was supposed to have about ridding the world of evil cabals.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholics in the United States of America wrote letters to Rome and/or actually visited Vatican dicasteries in the 1980s and 1990s to try to effect the removal of the following no-goodniks:

1. Joseph Bernardin, the late supporter of all things lavender, was transferred from being the conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to being the conciliar archbishop of Chicago, Illinois by “Saint John Paul II.”

2. Roger Mahony, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Fresno, California, and then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California. (See The Six Hundred Million Dollar Man and His Friends.)

3. Tod Brown, the conciliar "bishop" of Boise, Idaho, and then the conciliar "bishop" of San Diego, California.

4. Sylvester Ryan, the retired conciliar "bishop" of Monterey, California, who had an actual, honest-to-goodness baby-killer serving on his priest-abuse advisory board  (See the news story at Catholic Citizens.)

5. Robert Brom, the former conciliar "bishop" of Duluth, Minnesota, and then the conciliar 'bishop" of San Diego, California, who presided over the San Diego diocese's bankruptcy proceedings caused by the cover-up of clergy abuse cases.

6. Patrick McGrath, the conciliar "bishop" of San Jose, California, who, among his other offenses, denied the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Passion and Death.

7. George Patrick Ziemann, the late, disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Santa Rosa, California.

8. Thomas Joseph O'Brien, the late, disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Phoenix, Arizona.

9. Joseph Keith Symons, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida.

10. Daniel Leo Ryan, the late, disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois, whom Karol Joseph Wojtyla would not remove even after a plethora of witnesses emerged to document his perversity. It took a full six years for the conciliar authorities to admit that the charges were true even though the clerics who investigated him knew all along that he was guilty as charged by Stephen G. Brady, the founder and president of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.

Ryan was a product of the homosexual stronghold known as the Diocese of Joliet under “Bishop” Joseph Imesch, himself a product of the epicenter of what Mrs. Randy Engel calls the “Homosexual Collective,” the Archdiocese of Detroit. Ryan consorted with males who trafficked themselves and abused at least two of his presbyters. He engaged in indescribably horrific behavior with them. He told them that they could always go to confession to him if “things went too far,” demonstrating that he had no concept of the horror of sin in general and the particular horror represented by enticing a person into the commission of a Mortal Sin by presuming that God will give them the Actual Grace to have true contrition and firm purpose of amendment for it after the fact of its commission.

Steve Brady was approached by the two presbyters who had been abused by Ryan. These men presented Brady with credible evidence of abuse.

Brady thereupon wrote to Ryan in November of 1996 to demand his resignation lest the charges be made public. Ryan did not respond. The Vatican Nuncio in Washington, D.C., "Archbishop" Agostino Cacciavillan, not only did not respond to an attorney’s letter about the abuse, he betrayed the names of the two abused presbyters to Daniel Leo Ryan himself! (This prompted a courageous layman and ex-Marine, the late Frank Kelly, the head of the no-exceptions Virginia Right to Life, an organization that has no links to the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee, to confront Cacciavillan outside of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, District of Columbia, in November of 1997, as many of us, including Mr. Brady, were praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary for the conversion of the conciliar "bishops" who were gathered inside for their semi-annual gathering against the Holy Faith. Mr. Kelly, who takes no prisoners, walked wight up to Cacciavillan and poked his fingers right at his chest, saying, "You belong in jail for what you did to protect Daniel Ryan." Cacciavillan scampered into his car in great fright.

I was approached with the matter shortly after Brady wrote his letter to Ryan, informing the editor of The Wanderer, Mr. Alphonse J. Matt, Jr., about it. Mr. Matt wanted to send the information to the Congregation for the Bishops in the Vatican. I had a classmate of mine from Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, “”Father James Conley of the Diocese of Wichita, who worked in that congregation. Conley, who is now the conciliar "ordinary" of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, told me that the congregation was going to do nothing despite the evidence that had been amassed.

Having done what we thought was our due diligence, Steve Brady held a press conference at the Springfield Hilton on February 11, 1997, to reveal his findings. The secular media buried the story. The former communications director for the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who held her job for many years thereafter despite all of the spinning she did (or maybe because of it), denounced Brady for "lying" about Ryan. My own story was published in the February 20, 1997, issue of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment), and it was shortly thereafter that a true priest, the legendary Father John A. Hardon, S.J., took one of the abused conciliar presbyters to Rome to meet with Dario Castrillon "Cardinal" Hoyos, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, to present the matter to him. The Vatican did not remove Ryan at that time. The presbyter, however, was given protection as Hoyos had him transferred to another diocese to work under Father Hardon.

Making a long and involved story short, more witnesses emerged a year later (see (see Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case). Even Francis "Cardinal" George, the conciliar "archbishop of Chicago," admitted to Steve Brady over the telephone that the American “bishops” had known all about Ryan for years. George wanted silence from Brady in exchange for a “relationship” with the “hierarchy.” Steve refused. The Vatican did nothing. Nothing, that is, until the threat of a lawsuit by yet other victims in 1999 caused Ryan to go into an “early retirement.” He continued to function publicly until February of 2003, at which time a “special commission” finally concluded what Steve Brady had asserted from the beginning: Ryan was guilty as charged. (For a 2004 synopsis of the case, please see Seven Years Later, which was one of the first articles published after this site went "live" on February 20, 2004.)

Stephen G. Brady suffered rejection by longtime friends. His efforts to pursue the truth in the case of Daniel Leo Ryan were met with accusations of "calumny" and "detraction" from many. Others said that he was "dividing the church" and "causing scandal" even though it was Daniel Leo Ryan, a supporter of women's "ordination" to the priesthood, was the one causing the scandal and was a mortal threat to the eternal and temporal good of souls in the Diocese of Springfield.

Stephen G. Brady did not act rashly. He was advised behind-the-scenes by several priests, including the late Father Peter Mascari of the Diocese of Springfield, the famed Father Charles Fiore, O.P., also since deceased, and Father Alfred Kunz, who was brutally, ritualistically in Dane County, Wisconsin, on March 4, 1998, at the very time he was assisting Mr. Brady with the Daniel Leo Ryan case. As is well-known, Father Kunz's murder has not been solved to this date.

11. Robert Lynch, the former conciliar "bishop" of Saint Petersburg, Florida, who gave encouragement to Michael Schiavo's efforts to starve and dehydrate his wife, Mrs. Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo, and was a huge supporter of the lavender agenda.

12. Joseph Fiorenza, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Galveston, Houston, Texas, a protege of Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin who was a thorough supporter of the conciliar revolution.

13. Robert Joseph Banks, a former conciliar auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, and then the conciliar "bishop" of Green Bay, Wisconsin.

13. Bernard Law, the late, disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who was appointed to that post by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Law, who presided over the systematic cover-up and protection of predator priests and presbyters in Boston, was appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in 2004.

14. Thomas Daily, the late conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida, and the former conciliar "bishop" of Brooklyn, New York, who was one of Law's chief enablers in protecting the likes of the notorious Father Paul Shanley.

15. William Murphy, the former conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, who was yet another participant in the great Boston-cover-up.

16. Richard Lennon, the late conciliar "bishop" of Cleveland, Ohio, who was a major supporter of Bernard Law's policies while an auxiliary "bishop" there.

17. John McCormack, the late former conciliar "bishop" of Manchester, New Hampshire, who was an enabler of predator priests and presbyters there as he had been as an auxiliary "bishop" in Boston, Massachusetts.

18. Matthew Clark, the former conciliar "bishop" of Rochester, New York, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church would have to find a way to "bless" same-gender "unions."

19. Kenneth Untener, the late conciliar "bishop" of Saginaw, Michigan, who was an enemy of the Catholic Faith.

20. Harry Flynn, the retired "archbishop" of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was ever tolerant of the "rainbow" agenda and brought disgrace upon himself by terming the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, as an "anti-Semite." (See: Disconnects.)

21. The late William Levada, created by Wojtyla/John Paul II as conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Los Angeles in 1983 before being appointed as the conciliar "archbishop" of Portland, Oregon, in 1986, being transferred to San Francisco, California, in 1995, and then there by Ratzinger/Benedict on May 13, 2005, to be the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (See Surely He Jests.)

22. George Niederauer, the late former conciliar "bishop" of Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1995, promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar "archbishop" of San Francisco, California, in 2005. (At the Very Doorstep of Joseph Ratzinger Himself.)

23. Thomas Ludger Dupre, the late, disgraced retired "bishop" of Springfield, Massachusetts.

24. John Magee, the disgraced conciliar "bishop" of Cloyne, Ireland, and the long-time secretary to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.

25. Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who has committed one offense against God after another (see Almost Always At Odds With ThemselvesNegotiating To Become An ApostateThey Continue to Caricature Themselves, and Meltdown.)

26. Robert Zollitsch, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg in Breisgau, who, of course denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

27. Hans Hermann Groer, the late, disgraced "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who was removed after "bishops" and members of the laity complained about his predatory behavior, which he denied until the day he died. (See Austria Cardinal Groer Exiled Over Sex Abuse.) Christoph Schonborn is now saying that the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger urged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove Groer, Schonborn's predecessor, but was stymied for a long time by John Paul II. Just another conciliar voice throwing John Paul II under the bus as the Benedict XVI continued to promote the fiction of his late predecessor's "sanctity" even though no one who protected moral derelicts is possessed of any sense of true sanctity.

28. The late Jean-Louis "Cardinal" Tauran, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1990 and elevated to the conciliar colleges of cardinals in 2003. Ratzinger/Benedict appointed Tauran as the president of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue." It was in this capacity that he said the following in 2008:

Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolise the proceedings?

Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions.(Interview with, a Website of the Holy Land Review.

29. Walter Kasper, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1989 and elevated to the conciliar "college of cardinals" in 2001. Need one say anything more?

30. Bruno Forte, who was recommended by Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger for the conciliar "episcopate" in 2004 despite Forte's having denied the actual fact of Our Lord's Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday:

Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.

Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  How this happened is anybody’s guess.  The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist.  As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper.  (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.) 

Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.  The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”

Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors.  Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again.  More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up.  The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.”  The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground

There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible. 

Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined.   Who knows which way it will go?   All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop.) 

31. The late Theodore McCarrick, the founding conciliar "bishop" of Metuchen, New Jersey, and later the conciliar "archbishop" of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, District of Columbia, who indemnified pro-abortion politicians and said openly that men suffering from the affliction of being "attracted" to other men should not be prohibited from studying for the conciliar presbyterate. He was later defrocked while denying any wrongdoing. (See "Uncle Teddy" McCarrick and the Conciliar Cesspool of Corruption,  Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part twoAnother Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part threeAnother Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part four, and Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part five.)

32. The late Emerson Moore, an auxiliary "bishop" of the Archdiocese of New York who engaged in rank immorality and died of auto immune deficiency disease.

33. The late Eugene Marino, appointed by John Paul II to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Atlanta in 1988 but had to resign two years later after it was revealed that he had gotten married in a civil ceremony in 1988 to a lay-ministerette with whom he had been keeping company.

34. Emil Wcela, appointed by John Paul II to be a conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, despite officials in the Vatican knowing that Wcela was an open supporter of the impossibility known as "woman's ordination to the priesthood.

35. The Jacques Gaillot, the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, France, from 1982 to 1995. Gaillot, was removed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after years upon years of protests by Catholics about his words and actions, including his open and unapologetic support for the human pesticide, the French abortion pill, RU-486? (See Farley Clinton's February 2, 1995, article in The WandererGaillot Stripped of His Bishopric. I had my own commentary on the matter at the time that ran in the same newspaper.) That it took something approaching a revolution from Catholics attached to the conciliar structures in France to effect Gaillot's removal after years of complaints--and even admonitions from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II himself--speaks volumes about the paralysis caused by the conciliar novelty of episcopal collegiality, one of the triumphs of the Modernist spirit in favor of democracy that had been described so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

36. Sean Brady, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Armagh, Northern Ireland, who presided over the systematic protection of clerical abusers.

37. Michael Sheehan, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in whose diocese is located one of the institutions most responsible for the phony "rehabilitation" of clerical abusers and who has keep in perfectly good standing the notorious "Father" Richard Rohr and has praised Barack Hussein Obama (see Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby.)

38. The late Joseph Adamec, the former conciliar "bishop" of Altoona-Johnston, Pennsylvania, who went so far in 2003 as to silence all of his priests and presbyters from criticizing his handling of predators among their ranks.

39. Paul Loverde, the former conciliar "bishop" of Arlington, Virginia, who persecuted whistle blower priest Father James Haley (Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde.)

40. James T. McHugh, the late conciliar "bishop" of Camden, New Jersey, and--for a brief time--Rockville Centre, New York, who was one of the chief agents of promoting the corruption of the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. (See Mrs. Randy Engel's The McHugh Chronicles.)

41. The late Edward Egan, the former conciliar "archbishop" of New York who, as the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, went so far as to assert that his diocese could be held legally liable for the actions of priests as the latter were "independent contractors" paid by their parishes, not by their dioceses. (See Paragon of Conciliar Orthodoxy.)

42. Rembert G. Weakland, the disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whose warfare against the Faith that was of international scope should have been stopped long before he was forced to resign in disgrace in 2002. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures. (See Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith and Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter.)

43. Thomas Gumbleton, a retired conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Detroit, Michigan, an appointee of the late Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI whose work in behalf of moral perversion should have resulted in his suspension decades ago. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.

44. Sean O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap., the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who has distinguished himself as an ardent defender of the "legacy" of the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy and a sycophantic tool of the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith by serving the role in early-2009 of a demagogue against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X.

45. William Keeler, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Baltimore, Maryland, who specialized in overseeing relations between the conciliar church and adherents of the Talmud, producing a document in 2002, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission", that had to be revised in 2009 because of its lack of clarity on several doctrinal points.

46. Howard Hubbard, the former conciliar "bishop" of Albany, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI who has spent the past thirty-three years as a thorough champion of the conciliar religion. Not even an adoption arranged by Catholic Charities in Albany for a "couple" engaged in perversity could prompt Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove him.

47. The late John Raymond McGann, the conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, from June 24, 1976, to January 4, 2000, who presided over a full-bore implementation of the conciliar revolution in my home diocese, going so far as to persecute traditional-leaning pastors and priests and presbyters. Report after report was sent to Rome, some delivered personally to those close to the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. McGann, who protected his own share of clerical abusers (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).

48. The late Daniel Pilarczyk, Bernardin's worthy "successor" as the conciliar "archbishop" of Cincinnati, Ohio, who protected clerical abuses and even had an actual Freemason serving as the archdiocesan psychologist who screened the mental and emotional fitness of candidates who were applying to study for the conciliar presbyterate.

49. Donald Wuerl, the former conciliar "bishop" of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (and how disgraced former "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia), who has been one of the chief proponents of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

50. John Joseph O'Connor, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York, from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, who protected his own share of pederasts in the conciliar clergy and who told the ABC News program Nightline that "God was smiling" on the conversion of a Catholic man to Judaism. (See The Endless Battle Between the False Opposites of Conciliar Revolutionaries.)

Mind you, this is just a partial listing and one that does even mention a non-bishop, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the late founder of the Legionaries of Christ whom Wojtyla/John Paul II protected despite having incontrovertible proof of his moral depravity. (See Unimaginable Deceit and DuplicityLegionaries of Cash and Cover-UpRemove and Replace: You are Still Left with the Same False Church, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio Makes a Mess of Things, All to Utter and Perverse Delight.)

Like examples could go on interminably if I was not tired enough already of having to think of the theological, moral, and liturgical disaster that the man for whom I once served as a willing cheerleader, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II wrought upon the souls of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have denied the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady and have denied that she was Assumed body and soul into Heaven.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, aping the example set by this sect's false "pontiffs," have participated quite openly in syncretist liturgies and have blasphemed God by participating in inter-religious "prayer" services, some of which involve the outright incorporation of pagan practices into what has purported to be "Catholic" liturgies.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have endorsed contraception and abortion and perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have worked closely with openly pro-abortion organizations (in the name of "social justice," of course), using a variety of "shell games" to funnel money from "Catholic" Charities and the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development to fund these organizations that are committed to the pursuit of one abject evil after another.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have endorsed the theological and ontological impossibility of "women's ordination."

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have opposed quite openly the Catholic Church's teaching concerning the admissibility of the imposition of the death penalty for capital crimes following the fulfillment of all of the requirements of due process of law.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have encouraged citizens of foreign nations to enter the United States of American illegally.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have supervised the integration of formerly Catholic hospitals with secular "health-care systems," looking the other way as babies have been killed by means of surgical abortions and as women have undergone elective sterilizations.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have convinced young Catholics attached to their false structures that it does not make any difference what they believe as each "religion" represents a "path" to God.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have promoted the false, naturalistic ideologies of socialism, communism, feminism, environmentalism and, among so many others, evolutionism.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have promoted indecency of dress and speech. Some have promoted motion pictures that promote various sins, oblivious to the simple fact that sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer unspeakable horrors in His Sacred Humanity and caused His Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have denied the existence of Purgatory and Hell, endorsing quite openly the heresy of "universal salvation."

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have denied--openly and shamelessly--the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the sacerdotal nature of the Mass and the unique nature of the Catholic priesthood, which is different both in degree and in kind from the common priesthood of the faithful that each Catholic has by virtue of his Baptism.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have disparaged devotion to the Mother of God, being especially contemptuous of her Most Holy Rosary, and to the saints, relishing with delight in the destruction of their statues and images in formerly Catholic churches now under their insidious control.

Many of these official "representatives" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have, aping this sect's false "pontiffs," reaffirmed Talmudic Judaism, a completely false religion that is loathsome in the sight of God, as a perfectly "valid" means of salvation, discouraging Catholics from seeking the conversion of Jews to the true Faith:

According to Roman Catholic teaching, both the Church and the Jewish people abide in covenant with God. We both therefore have missions before God to undertake in the world. The Church believes that the mission of the Jewish people is not restricted to their historical role as the people of whom Jesus was born "according to the flesh" (Rom 9:5) and from whom the Church’s apostles came. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger recently wrote, "God’s providence … has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this ‘time of the Gentiles.’" However, only the Jewish people themselves can articulate their mission "in the light of their own religious experience."

Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethnē, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted.

However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God’s kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church’s experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, "a blessing to one another." This is in accord with the divine promise expressed in the New Testament that Jews are called to "serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God all [their] days" (Luke 1:74-75). (Joint Reflections on Covenant and Mission.)

(This is rank apostasy.)

Some of the conciliar "bishops" have nominated pro-abortion Talmudic "rabbis" for "papal" knighthoods and medals.

Some of the conciliar "bishops" have been feted by Masonic organizations such as B'Nai Brith.

No, it is the "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are not in communion with the Catholic Church as they subscribe to each of the apostasies and blasphemies and errors and outrages wrought by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath.

Almost no one within the conciliar structures is sanctioned by the conciliar authorities unless he actually believes holds to more of the Catholic Faith than they do, especially by opposing sodomy, opposing false ecumenism, opposing administering what is thought to be Holy Communion to those who are divorced and civilly remarried without the fig leaf of a conciliar degree of nullity, and, within the past two years, if they oppose the plandemic’s lockdowns, “social distancing” and the global conspiracy against innocent human beings by the pharmaceutical/deep state/technology/disinformation dictatorship in behalf of the poisons being market in the name “vaccines,” endless mutations of which are being “required” to be counted among the “fully vaccinated” as many untold numbers of human beings continue to be injured seriously or killed.

A Catholic conciliar “bishop” in Puerto Rico is the latest victim of the ever “merciful” and “tolerant” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s wrath:

A Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico described his removal from office by Pope Francis on Wednesday as “totally unjust.”

Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, who has led the Diocese of Arecibo since 2010, said he had been asked to resign because he “had not been obedient to the pope nor had I been in sufficient communion with my brother bishops of Puerto Rico.”

The Holy See press office announced on March 9 that the pope had relieved the 57-year-old bishop of the pastoral care of his diocese. The Vatican did not give a reason for the pope’s decision.

Pope Francis appointed Bishop Álvaro Corrada del Río, S.J., bishop emeritus of Mayagüez, as apostolic administrator of the diocese in the north of the island of Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

In a March 9 declaration, published on the diocesan website, Fernández Torres strongly objected to his removal.

He said: “I deeply regret that in the Church where mercy is so much preached, in practice some lack a minimum sense of justice.”

“No process has been made against me, nor have I been formally accused of anything and simply one day the apostolic delegate [the pope’s representative in Puerto Rico] verbally communicated to me that Rome was asking me to resign.” (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Interjection Number One:

What “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres continues to refuse to accept is that, while there are canonical processes for the removal of bishops and pastors in the Catholic Church, a true pope, which he believes Jorge Mario Bergoglio be, is not bound by those procedures as he is Holy Mother’s supreme governor and legislator. He can exercise his plenipotentiary powers at any time even if appears unjust and unfair in the human order of things.

Bergoglio’s quick action to remove Daniel Fernandez Torres over the matter of vaccine mandates earlier this year should serve as a correlative proof to “Father” Frank Pavone of the fact that he does not possess the Catholic as no true pope would demand that the consciences of Catholics are bound by the diktats of anti-life statists who open support the depopulation programs of the “global reset of humanity” to promote “sustainable development goals” while accustoming the masses to being but mere vassals of the civil state whose movements, thoughts, words, or actions are restricted/and/or monitored.

Father” Pavone complains about a lack of “due process,” but this is precisely what happened to “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres in 2021:

“A successor of the apostles is now being replaced without even undertaking what would be a due canonical process to remove a parish priest.”

He went on: “I was informed that I had committed no crime but that I supposedly ‘had not been obedient to the pope nor had I been in sufficient communion with my brother bishops of Puerto Rico.’”

“It was suggested to me that if I resigned from the diocese I would remain at the service of the Church in case at some time I was needed in some other position; an offer that in fact proves my innocence.”

“However, I did not resign because I did not want to become an accomplice of a totally unjust action and that even now I am reluctant to think that it could happen in our Church.”

The imminent removal of Fernández Torres was reported on March 8 by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Interjection Number Two:

“Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres’s “reluctance” to think that something like what happened to him could actually happen demonstrates that he absolutely clueless, perhaps even willfully so, about the fact that things far more offensive to the Invisible Head of the Catholic Church, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, have become commonplace in what he, Fernandez Torres, refuses to see as Holy Mother Church’s counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism. “Father” Pavone is just as clueless.

As noted many times before on this site, the "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in the new ecclesiology that has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church (see The New Ecclesiology: Documentation).

They have made consistent and unrepentant warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than warfare against the very immutable nature of God Himself and has been and continues to be nothing other than the recrudescence of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism.

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in the false ecumenism of conciliarism that includes Joseph Ratzinger's rejection of the "ecumenism of the return" that is in direct contradiction to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, reiterated so clearly and forcefully by Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, and Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and Jorge Margo Bergoglio’s flat-out denial, stated on numerous occasions, that the Catholic Church seeks the conversion of non-Catholics or that Holy Mother Church has any “monopoly” on truth.

The "popes" and many of the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have either given "blessings" with or been "blessed" by the "ministers" of non-Catholic religions (for just one such example, see Argentine Cardinal kneels to receive Protestant 'blessing'; other photographs indicative of a revolution against the Catholic Faith may be viewed at Church Revolution in Pictures, which contains some photographs that should not be seen by the young, a telling commentary on the shameless nature of the false religion of conciliarism).

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in a concept of religious liberty that was condemned by Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, and by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and, among others, Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas, June 20, 1888.

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism participate in "liturgies" that are abominable in the sight of God and that have done grave damage to souls by accustoming them to profanation in the context of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by denying them Sanctifying Grace, and they have stated repeatedly the Mosaic Covenant was not superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted on Maundy Thursday at the Last Sunday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

In the current circumstance, of course, it should have clear to "Bishop" Daniel Fernandez Torres in March of this year and to “Father” Frank Pavone now that "collegiallity" and "synodality" are the most important qualifications for being in "good standing" under Jorge Mario Bergoglio as those who smack of "triumphalism" in their supposed episcopal roles will smacked down and booted out in short order.

There is utterly no foundation for “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres nor for “Father” Frank Pavone to be surprised at what happened to them.

I mean, look at what happened to the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculta within a year of Jorge's accession to the presidential chair of apostasy, and he dealt a death to Summorum Pontificum on July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, although the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was given a "papal" reprieve with various conditions. "Pope Francis" has got himself a "to do" list with which he is proceeding very methodically to overthrow the few remaining bastions of Catholicism that remain in his false religious sect and to establish new bastions that have been condemned by our true popes as their inspirations and fortifications are of preternatural origins. 

We return now to the news report the now former “bishop” of Arecibo, Puerto Rico:

The news agency said that the bishop had clashed with other bishops in Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island with six dioceses.

ACI Prensa explained that Fernández Torres had initially resisted sending his seminarians to the new Interdiocesan Seminary of Puerto Rico, approved by the Vatican in March 2020.

The bishop of Arecibo had also supported conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 in a statement published on Aug. 17, 2021.

He made the intervention after Pedro Pierluisi, the governor of Puerto Rico, issued an executive order that all government and healthcare workers, both in public and private institutions, must be vaccinated, as well as workers in the hotel industry.

In his letter, the bishop said that “it is legitimate for a faithful Catholic to have doubts about the safety and efficacy of a vaccine given that what the pharmaceutical companies or drug regulatory agencies say is in no way a dogma of faith.”

“And that safety and efficacy are relevant and necessary data for moral judgment,” he explained.

ACI Prensa reported that Fernández Torres refused to sign a joint statement issued on Aug. 24 by the Puerto Rican bishops which said that “there is a duty to be vaccinated and that we do not see how a conscientious objection can be invoked from Catholic morality.”

The news agency said that Archbishop Ghaleb Moussa Abdalla Bader, the apostolic delegate to Puerto Rico, reportedly requested the resignation of Fernández Torres, who refused, citing reasons of conscience.

It said that the bishop was summoned to the Vatican but did not make the trip due to the pandemic.

Fernández Torres was born in Chicago, Illinois, on April 27, 1964. He was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Arecibo in 1995, at the age of 30.

In 2007, Benedict XVI named him an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Juan de Puerto Rico. Three years later, he was appointed bishop of Arecibo.

ACI Prensa said that Fernández Torres was an outspoken critic of gender ideology, describing new legislation in February 2021 as “religious persecution” and a violation of parental rights.

The news agency said that the case of Fernández Torres recalled that of the Paraguayan Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano, who was removed from office by Pope Francis on Sept. 25, 2014.

Livieres Plano had overseen a thriving seminary in his Diocese Ciudad del Este. He was dismissed after an apostolic visit amid accusations of a lack of collegiality.

The bishop was also criticized for his handling of the case of a priest who had served as vicar general until shortly before the visitation. The priest had faced allegations of sexual impropriety, which he denied.

Livieres Plano said that he had refused to sign a resignation letter “on his own initiative, thus wanting to testify to the end of the truth and the spiritual freedom that a Pastor should have.”

He decried what he said was an attempt to impose “ideological uniformity” on Paraguay’s bishops using “the euphemism of ‘collegiality.’”

The bishop, who was ordained a priest of Opus Dei, died on Aug. 14, 2015, due to a liver condition. (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Vaccine mandates in the name of “collegiality” are now part of the “irreducible minima” of being considered as “Catholic” in “good standing” withing the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and while Rogelio Livieres Plano may have had a “thriving diocese,” to compare his situation with that of Daniel Fernandez Torres as Livieres Plano was permitted the notorious clerical abuser and cult leader Father Carlos Urrutigoity to serve as his diocesan vocations director while he, Livieres Plano persisted in an arrogant denial of all the documented facts about what Urrutigoity had become part of the public record because of various lawsuits and investigation:

I am hereby providing you with links to the legal files that provide complete documentation concerning the indisputably predatory homosexual behavior of Father Carlos Urrutigoity, who as of yet is still being defended by the Opus Dei "bishop" of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, Rogelio Livieres, who says that the predator priest came recommended to him by none other than Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger just days before the latter's big promotion to become the so-called "pope" of Tradition, the great Hegelian "restorer" of Modernism's "evolution of doctrine" that he re-labeled as the "hermeneutic of continuity," "Pope Benedict XVI." (See Still No Excuses For Those Who Defend the Society of Saint John. See also A Special Report on the Society of Saint John (2000) and No Excuses For Those Who Indemnify the Society of Saint John.

The legal files were provided to me by Mr. James Bendell, the courageous attorney who worked so long and so valiantly with the heroic founder of The Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., Mr. Stephen G. Brady, in the effort to expose and shame the predatory priest named "Bishop" Daniel Leo Ryan of Springfield, Illinois (see Sick From Head to Toe and Seven Years Later, which was written fully two years before I came to recognize the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal), and who represented one client who had been the victim of the predatory homosexual behavior of Fathers Carlos Urrutigoity and Eric Ensey and another client.

Here, therefore, are the legal filings, the first and second of which contain graphic material that should not be read by those who seek to avoid such horrific details:

1. The largest file contains Mr. Bendell's interrogation of one of the chief enablers and protectors of the Society of Saint John, "Bishop" James Clifford Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and other documents to support Mr. Bendell's opposition to motion made by the attorney for the Diocese of Scranton to dismiss the lawsuit. Other supporting documents are contained in this large file: SJ Motion.

2. The second document is the letter that the Superior-General of the Society of Saint John, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sent to the aforementioned conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, James Clifford Timlin, to warn him abou Father Carlos Urrutigoity's predatory ways: Bishop Fellay Letter to James Timlin.

3. The third document is the letter that the Vatican's nuncio to Paraguary, "Archbishop" Orlando Antonini, sent to Mr. James Bendell in 2006 to assure im that no trace of the Society of Saint John remained in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este: Nuncio Letter.

No one who is intellectually honest can review these documents without coming to realize that the case against Father Carlos Urritigoity is open and shut. Those who seek to defend this man have no excuse before God. None.

"Bishop" Rogelio Livieres is in abject denial about the guilt of Father Carlos Urrutigoity. The evidence is plain and it is overwhelming. Father Carlos Urrutigoity is a known homosexual predator who was diagnosed with various disorders when the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, was forced to send him for a psychological evaluation at the Southdown Institute in Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

At some point Bishop Timlin had been informed that SSJ priests were sleeping in the same beds with boys. Instead of immediately removing these priests, he simply told them to stop the practice. Of course, once the sexual molestation claim was made against Fr. Ensey and Fr. Urrutigoity, the two priests who molested the St. Gregory Academy student, Bishop Timlin really had no choice but to send the priests for a psychological evaluation. He sent them to the Southdown Institute in Toronto, known for treating priests with mental illness, addiction and other problems. Concerning the reports from Southdown, it states in the Minutes of the diocesan Independent Review Board dated March 21, 2002, that Rev. Urrutigoity’s problems were classified under an “umbrella of personality disorders, principally antisocial and narcissistic.” As for Rev. Ensey, the Minutes state that his “sexual attraction is toward adolescent boys, a stage that he appears to be locked into.” The Minutes recommended that both priests be removed from active ministry. (From Mr. James Bendell's Pray for the Children.)

Second, "Bishop" Rogelio Livieres thus belongs to a long and distinguished cast of officials in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including the supposed "watchdog" of abusive clergymen when he was the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and Father Urrutigoity's chief enabler, retired Scanton "Bishop" James Clifford Timlin, in seeking to deny or to minimize the gravity of conduct that had been exposed by the then Father Andres Morello of the Society of Saint Pius X in the late-1980s in Argentina despite the support given to the predator by the then Father Alfonso de Galaretta, who has never admitted publicly that he was wrong and that Bishop Morello was correct. This is all covered in The Early Years of Father Carlos Urrutigoity’s homosexual career.

Third, presuming that "Bishop" Livieres is indeed correct about his claim that Ratzinger recommended Urrutigoity to him, Ratzinger is shown to be as obvious to the danger of even the show of homosexual predilections and/or effeminate behavior on the part of a priest or presbyter as is Jorge Mario Bergolio himself. The documentation about Urrutigoity was voluminous and very public by 2005. Mrs. Randy Engel wrote Exploiting Traditionalist Orders: The Society of St. John in 2002 before incorporating its graphic text, ableit revised and updated, into The Rite of Sodomy, which was published in 2006 by New Engel Publishing. Carlos Urrutigoity roamed about in Rome after the Diocese of Scranton removed him from priestly ministry there, seeking out sympathetic ears to plead his case so that he could find a new home for his morally corrupt band of profligate spendthrifts, the Society of Saint John.

Fourth, Urrutigoity found a sympathetic patron in "Cardinal" Ratzinger because the latter had been working with the Ecclesia Dei Commission, whose offices are located in the same building, Uffizio 11 outside of the Bernini columns in Rome, as those of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, although the commission's offices are in a different wing of the building on the north side of the archway that serves as the entrance to the Uffizio 11 complex. It had long been a goal of "Monsignor" Arthur Calkins, who was a senior official in the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the time (he had taken over duties that were once excercised by "Father" John Zuhlsdorf during the early 1990s, which is where I met him in May of 1993), to use the Society of Saint John as a laboratory for Ratzinger's "reform of the reform. “Monsignor” Arthur Calkins has laid out his own view on the liturgy very clearly, and they are certainly sympathetic to the goals outlined to me by Father Urrutigoity in November of 1999:

One of the problems thus far, at least in this writer’s humble opinion, is that too often traditionalists have stated their case in “black and white,” “life or death” terms, and have not seen themselves as part of a greater movement in favour of “a return to mystery, to adoration, to the sacred,” and to the common patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, what do I mean by that?  I wouldn’t want you to have to read some of the things I am obliged to read.  For instance, someone petitions his bishop for the traditional Latin Mass and in support of his argument says “we want the ‘true’ Mass, not the ‘new’ Mass.”  This is very unfortunate language that really undermines the faith because we must recognise that the sacrifice of Jesus is the sacrifice of Jesus in every rite that the Church has officially authorised.  We may have our preferences, which is all well and good, but let us not assault and attack.  What has happened in extremist hard-line literature is that the new Mass, almost always described with all the abuses imaginable, is demonised, so that the only way to preserve the faith is with the old Mass.  This is not a healthy Catholic attitude and unfortunately it is present in all too many traditionalist circles. (See Msgr. Calkins on the Mass, the Council and Traditionalists.)

Father Urrutigoity was thus proceeding in the late-1990s with full support of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome, something that was clear from that Easter Vigil Mass in 1999. The views held by Father Urruitgoity and “Monsignor” Calkins are almost identical to those expressed by the supposed “pope of tradition,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and is for this reason that Ratzinger was predisposed to lend his weighty assistance to Urrutigoity, whose charisma gained him entry in the highest echelons in the Vatican, where he was surely crying "perseuction" and "fabrication" by his "enemies." There's a lot of that even in some fully traditional circles, sad to say. When caught bad or inappropriate behavior, so many simply blame their "enemies" and claim  that the fault rests with those who exposed and/or sought to correct their abusive behavior.

Fifth, apart from being in the thrall of the multilingual Carlos Urrutigoity, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, who protected Urrutigoity and indemnfied him as "Pope" Benedict XVI even though numerous people sent documentation to his office concerning facts that he ben sent when he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is shown, as noted above, to be as cavalier about predatory homosexual behavior as "Pope" Francis, who will receive a bit of attention in a few moments, himself.

To claim as Ratzinger did that Urrutigoity was, in effect, "good to go" to Opus Dei's Rogelio Livieres because he was not accused of perverse immoral conduct with a minor child is to ignore the entire contex of Urrutigoity's perverse behavior, which included his habit of sleeping with minor children. Anyone who can make light of such completely aberrant and morally repugnant behavior might as well claim that the late, bizarre drug addict named Michael Jackson would have made a fit candidate for Holy Orders. There can be no true of homosexual tendencies or behavior in any man in the priesthood or in any man aspiring thereto. Moreover, Ratzinger conviently ignored the fact that Urrutigoity's trusted aide, "Father" Eric Ensey, did engage in immoral conduct, with a minor that was nonconsensual at the time when he was attending Saint Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, and repeated that nonconsensual behavior when the man turned eighteen years of age soon thereafter. Urrutigoity enabled Ensey, supported him, claimed that he was innocent and being victimized by "enemies." Ensey was defocked from the conciliar presbyterate in 2013.

Attorney James Bendell, who represented the young man in question in a civil lawsuit, wrote to me to remind me that his client had at no time, whether as a minor or as an adult, gave any kind of consent whatsoever to the actions committed upon him by Urrutigoity and Ensey, and that there were three or four other such young men who had been coercively molested by Urrutigoity in the same way. Thus it is that the shared belief of Joseph Ratzinger and Rogelio Livieres that Urrutigoity's behavior had been with a "consenting" adult, not that it would have made this predator any less fit to exercise his priestly ministry, no less to be put back in contact with others he could subject to his manipulative grooming and subsequent perverse abuse, is without any foundation. These two may not believe this now in spite all of the evidence that exists. They will certainly discover it for sure at the moment of their Particular Judgment. (From Still No Excuses For Those Who Defend The Society of Saint John.)

The cases of Daniel Fernandez Torres and Rogelio Livieres Plano are totally unlike except to note Jorge Mario Bergoglio took action upon Livieres Plano not because he had Carlos Urruitogity in his employ as his diocesan vicar general but because of his commitment to the spread of the since abrogated Summorum Pontificum that angered many of his presbyters in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay. In both cases, however, Bergoglio acted decisively to promote his Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar agenda, and he has permitted “Father” Pavone to be “laicized” as he believes that any kind of “pro-life” work is “divisive” and, not incidentally, hurts the pro-abort globalists he supports and helps the “populists” in public life he despises with a passion.

There are endless examples of double standards within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. However, perhaps the coup de grace is the fact it was under the antipapal presidency of that nonagenarian “new theologian,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that the conciliar “archbishop” of Barcelona, Spain, imposed no canonical penalties whatsoever upon Father Manel Pousa after he had personally provided funds to two women that they babies used to kill their preborn babies just the “bishop” of the Diocese of Saltillo, Mexico, Raul Vera Lopez, was suffered no penalties after a Vatican investigation under Ratzinger’s presidency after he had publicly support legislation to “permit” the killing of the preborn under the cover of the civil law.

This is what I wrote in 2011:

BARCELONA, April 19, 2011 ( - A Catholic priest who financed the abortion of two young girls in his care will not be excommunicated nor otherwise punished, the Archdiocese of Barcelona declared yesterday on behalf of Cardinal Archbishop Lluís Martínez Sistach.

The archdiocese also claims that it has support for its decision from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which it says ruled in favor of the priest in 2009.

Fr. Manel Pousa, who boasts that he has paid for abortions and has blessed homosexual unions, was tried last month to determine if he had earned an automatic or “latae sententiae” excommunication from the Catholic Church.

According to the law of the Church, canon 1398, anyone “who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.” Pope John Paul II added that “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,” in his encyclical letter “The Gospel of Life,” in 1995.

However, the tribunal assigned to examine the case concluded “with the proper certainty” that “the aforesaid priest has not incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae established by canon 1398, for not having been in agreement with the intention of procuring the abortion and for not having a principal complicity in the abortions, which were completely decided upon and brought about by two girls in a very precarious economic situation,” according to the archdiocese.

Pousa claims that the girls whose abortions he financed, would have killed their unborn children anyway, so he decided to “commit a lesser evil to avoid another greater (evil)” and ensure that the abortion would be done in safety. A similar argument is made by Planned Parenthood to justify the legalization of abortion worldwide.

Moreover, the archdiocese goes on to reveal that the Pousa case had already been brought before the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), led by Cardinal William Levada, in 2009.  Following his initial admission in 2008 that he had financed abortions, the CDF ruled that “this dicastery, after having examined the responses that have been sent, considers that the Rev. Pousa does not appear to have incurred any canonical penalty” according to the archdiocese, which points to the decision in order to justify its own.

In addition to his cooperation in abortions and homosexual unions, Pousa endorses the creation of priestesses in the Catholic Church, rejects clerical celibacy, and admits to having a girlfriend with whom he claims to have a celibate relationship. However, Pousa has only been charged for his cooperation in the killing of two unborn children, and has now been acquitted twice. He characterizes those who criticize his behavior as members of the “extreme right.”

According to the archdiocese, Cardinal Sistach “reiterates to Mn. Pousa that his work which he does at the service of the poorest and most marginalized of the society be done always in accordance with the teaching of the Church, with its social doctrine, and respecting every human life from its conception until its natural death.”

Pousa will continue to lead a Barcelona-area parish. (Priest who paid for young girls’ abortions acquitted by bishop.) 

The moral reasoning, if you can all it such, used by the ecclesiastical tribunal in Barcelona was founded in the purely utilitarian, relativistic, amoral assertion that the "economic situation" facing the two girls is what motivated Manel Pousa to assist them financially to kill their preborn children is commit what he termed "a lesser evil to avoid another greater (evil)," namely, that the girls would resort to an "unsafe" baby-killer. This is, of course, the exact same kind of rationalization used by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his defenders in the conciliar structures to justify the use of certain form of prophylactic to "protect" oneself from the transmission of a certain disease while engaged in actions contrary, whether natural or perverse, to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (see If Them, Why Not Others?Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!Razing The Last BastionsNothing New Under Benedict's Sun,Words and Actions Without Consequences and Making a Mockery of Catholicism).

First, the commission of no sin is inevitable. Father Manel Pousa had the obligation to discharge the Spiritual Works of Mercy to these two women by imploring them not to kill their babies. He could have made it clear to them that he could not be an accessory to their crimes under any circumstances. He could have made it clear to them that no abortion, no matter where performed, is ever made "safe" for the child who is to be dismembered or burned or both. He could have discharged the Corporal Works of Mercy by promising to get the women financial assistance for them during their pregnancies and to see to it that the children were placed for adoption with believing Catholic parents who would tend to their spiritual welfare by training them in the true Faith.

Even if the women had refused such entreaties, Father Manel Pousa had a moral obligation before God to tell them that the crime of killing their children would be theirs alone if they ignored his counsel to avoid committing the sin of willful murder that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. God abandons sinners to their own devices when they are intent on the commission of premeditated sins. We can aid no one in the commission of any sin without sharing their guilt, which in this case is, in addition to expelling the very life of Sanctifying Grace from one's immortal soul (if such grace is present to begin with, of course), automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Second, the 2009 finding of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Father Manel Pousa did not " appear to have incurred any canonical penalty" for his participation in the crime of baby-killing is just par for the conciliar course under the relativist William "Cardinal" Levada, Ratzinger/Benedict's own hand-picked successor as the prefect of the congregation. William Levada is a quintessential Modernist, who held the conciliar line in the "doctrinal discussions" that were held between representatives of his congregation and those of the Society of Saint Pius X. How anyone in the Society of Saint Pius X could have believed otherwise about William Levada, who went to seminary along with the apostate likes of Roger Mahony and Tod Brown and George Niederauer, or his mentor and rabbi, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is unfathomable in light of all that he has said and done over the years (see Anathematized by His Own WordsNo Need to be in Limbo Any LongerPiracy, Conciliar StyleRed Carpet For A ModernistWords Really Do MatterShort And To The Catholic Point, and Surely He Jests).

No "canonical" penalty? 

Sure, that's why there's no canonical penalty for any formerly Catholic university or college sponsoring pro-aborts to speak on their campuses and/or for providing funds to pro-abortion organizations (see New Report Exposes More Than 150 Catholic College Connections to Planned Parenthood) and why various "bishops" conferences of the conciliar church around the world can give their open support to pro-abortion organizations in the name of "helping the poor" or "empowering women" (see French bishops supporting two pro-abortion groups in Latin America).

No "canonical" penalty?

Then again, what penalty has been imposed upon Manel Pousa for supporting the ontological impossibility of ordaining women to the Holy Priesthood (admitting that not even men can be ordained to the priesthood of the Catholic Church by the use of rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in what is considered to be the Roman Rite)?

What penalty has been imposed upon "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch even though he denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins? This apostate, the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference of Germany, has remained in perfectly "good standing" in the conciliar structures without a word of "papal" reproof for the blasphemous heresy he uttered on April 11, 2009, which was Holy Saturday that year? It has now been eight hundred fifty-one days since Robert Zollitsch blasphemed Our Lord by saying what he did without any word of correction from his fellow countryman, Ratzinger/Benedict.

What penalty will be imposed upon Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., for preaching, yes, in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Good Friday, April 22, 2011, in the presence of Ratzinger/Benedict himself, "The Holy Spirit – says a text of Vatican II – offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery," thus insinuating yet again the heresy of "universal salvation" into an alleged "papal" ceremony? Ah, why would Ratzinger/Benedict want to impose any penalty upon Cantalamessa when all he is doing is to repeat what he himself believes? (For a review of Father Cantalamessa's past Good Friday outrages, see Say What, Father Cantalamessa?No Ambiguity HereConciliar Confusion, Catholic Zeal For SoulsEver Endeavoring to Make Judas Seem AdmirableSurely He JestsResurrexi et Adhuc Tecum Sum, Alleluia!. and, among others, With the "Pope's" Full Approval).

Leave to the topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland officials who populate the nooks and crannies of the conciliar apparatus in the Vatican, however, to leave Manel Pousa in "good standing" after having paid for the murders of two babies while making a big deal out of the support that a conciliar "bishop" in Mexico, Raul Vera Lopez, continues to give to two fully pro-abortion organizations in Our Lady's beloved country of Mexico.

Raul Vera Lopez, who is the conciliar "bishop" of the "Diocese of Saltillo in the northern Mexican state of Coahuila," argues that he is merely attempting to support legislation that decriminalizes abortion, that he doesn't actually support abortion although he believes that it is necessary to, using his term, "de-penalize" the surgical execution of babies because women are bound to have them anyway, essentially making the same false argument advanced by Father Manel Pousa to justify his having paid for the murder of two innocent babies without incurring any penalties according to the conciliar code of canon law that is not very Catholic in a lot of places and thus is impossible to have been issued by the authority of the Catholic Church (see  Should We Accept the New Code of Canon Law?--well, if you "recognize" the "pope" you must accept his "code of canon lawfor a review of how the conciliar code has been incorporated into conciliar teaching, see  The New Catechism: Is it 'Catholic'? IThe New Catechism: Is It 'Catholic'? IIThe New Catechism: Is it 'Catholic'? IIIThe New Catechism: Is It 'Catholic'? IV, recognizing, of course, that the "resist but recognize" strategy is simply a recrudescence of Gallicanism in response to Modernism---see As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church).

Well, then, why is Raul Vera Lopez's active personal support for two absolutely pro-abortion organizations in Mexico such a problem for the conciliar officials while Manel Pousa's having paid for two babies to be killed is, evidently, no problem whatsoever? (For the interview he gave with Lifesite News, please see Conciliar "Bishop" Under Vatican Investigation Discusses Abortion. This man's mind is awash with so many errors and contradictions as to wonder why he has not been elevated to the conciliar "college of cardinals" as he is a worthy successor, at least insofar as his inability to reason and speak Thomistically, of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself.) Si, si, Manuel Pousa, no, no, Raul Vera Lopez?

If not the former, why the latter, and that is assuming that the Vatican investigation will result in some kind of Lopez's being sanctioned or removed. Raul Vera Lopez might wind up retaining his position. And he will certainly maintain his "good standing" in the conciliar structures if he is forced to resign.

One wonders why the officials in the conciliar Vatican are investigating the welter of confusion and contradiction to be found in the apostate mind and heart of Raul Vera Lopez after "Archbishop" Salvatore Rino Fisichella, then the President of the "Pontifical" Academy for Life, used the term "therapeutic abortion" to describe the killings of twin babies inside growing inside of a nine-year old girl in Brazil who had been assaulted by a relative as he criticized the conciliar "archbishop" of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, for excommunicating the doctors who killed the babies. Papal spokesflack "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., has repeatedly defeated Fisichella, using the term "therapeutic abortion" once himself" (see Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots). This is to say nothing over the confusion in moral theology exhibited by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI concerning how certain persons engaged in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments can "protect" themselves against the transmission of a sin that is nothing other than a chastisement for God for such unnatural behavior (see If Them, Why Not Others?Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!Razing The Last BastionsNothing New Under Benedict's Sun,Words and Actions Without ConsequencesMaking a Mockery of Catholicism). The Vatican investigate Raul Vera Lopez? How about officials there investigating the false "pontiff" and his aides?

Mind you, Raul Vera Lopez should be in trouble with those in the Vatican who claim to exercise the authority of the Catholic Church. The fact that he is not removed summarily should, however, be quite telling. And perhaps more to the point, the fact that such a man could be appointed by as a "bishop" to begin with is yet again testimony to the bankrupt nature of those who recommended his appointment and thus of the entire ethos of conciliarism.

The man who appointed Raul Vera Lopez as a "bishop" in the first place was the not-so-blessed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul. Lopez was appointed in 1987 to be the "bishop" of the Diocese of Ciudad Altimirano and then in 1995 as the Coadjutor "Bishop" of the Diocese of San Cristobal Las Casas before "'Blessed' John Paul II the Great" transferred him to his present position in Saltillo in 1999.

Raul Vera Lopez just sort of "changed" his views in all those years? No. He emerged as an installed presbyter for the Order of Friars Preachers on June 29, 1975, after having been thoroughly revolutionized in his seminary training, which took place as "liberation theology" was making its inroads all throughout Mexico and the rest of Latin America. That a man who believes himself to be a Successor of the Apostles can be bold enough as to endorse and to participate in two pro-abortion, pro-perversity organizations should help to open a few eyes concerning the absolutely bankrupt nature of the false religion of conciliarism. (From Si, Si, Manel Pousa, No, No, Raul Vera Lopez?, August 10, 2011.)

By the way, Raul Vera Lopez retired in peace as the conciliar “bishop” of Saltillo, Mexico, on November 21, 2020, the Feat of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing ever happened to him. Nothing at all.   

The case of “Father” Frank Pavone is tragic as, has been noted before, the Catholic Church would have no need for any organization called “Priests for Life” and a man who presumes himself to be a priest would have the sensus Catholicus to be obedient to his bishop even when he believes himself to be in the right in the objective order of things.

Moreover, the case of the Reverend Frank Pavone is tragic as millions of “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that it is their duty to oppose a man they believe is the Sovereign Pontiff in full violation of the following exhortation given by Pope Saint Pius X in 2012:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Yes, one must obey the pope, who, guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, is the guarantor of orthodoxy and the Principle of Unity. 

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

Go tell that to the "resist while recognize" crowd, especially those who belong to the Society of Saint Pius X and who believe and act as though the man they recognize as "Pope Francis" can be ignored or opposed at will and without the slightest qualm of conscience. Go tell that to “Father” Frank Pavone and those supporting him without understanding that the only way for them to oppose Jorge Mario Bergoglio is to admit that he is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.

Those who believe that they are "fighting for the Church" in the conciliar structures are as deluded as have been "Anglo-Catholics" who remained in the false Anglican sect thinking that they were "fighting for the Faith." It is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us any liturgy that is an incentive to impiety. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us any teaching that is tarnished by the slightest taint of error. Catholics cannot fear losing contact with their relatives or being thought of by others as being "outside the Church" for recognizing these truths and distancing themselves from those who offend God and deceive souls. It matters not that a lot of elderly true priests in the conciliar structures do not see these truths for themselves. Truth stands on its own and does not depend for its validity upon who accepts it or who rejects it. And the plain truth is that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.

We must continue to pray and to live penitentially as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, and we must not look for results as we do so, content only with the fact that we are attempting to make some small bit of reparation for how our sins have wounded Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ once in time and how they have wounded His Church Militant on earth today.

We do not know when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will take place. We must, however, remain faithful to our lives of daily Mass, Eucharist piety, True Devotion to Mary by means of Total Consecration to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, devotion to Saint Joseph and the other saints, home enthronement to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, frequent Confession, worthy receptions of Holy Communion, and a desire to be more and more detached from the world in order to store up at least a bit of treasure in Heaven so that the Divine Bridegroom will find us awake with our lanterns lit at the moment of our Particular Judgments. 

 May we face the sufferings of the present moment with joy, equanimity and gratitude, conscious of the fact that we have some many sins of our for which to make reparation, considering a pleasure to suffering for Our Lord in these times as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

God is not "done" with us yet, and for this we must exclaim, Deo gratias! Thanks be to God. May we suffer and suffer well in this time of apostasy and betrayal as we rely upon Our Lady and her Most Holy Rosary to assist us at all times, especially during these days of her Expectation prior to the joy of Christmas Day in but four days.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

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 Thomas the Apostle, pray for us.