Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part one

Among the most insidious forms of so-called “music” in the past sixty years was the genre known as “disco,” which came into its own in the 1970s. As I have loathed the genre called “rock and roll” since my parents told me that in 1955 that Elvis Presley was decadent, I never once listened to any radio stations that played such diabolical noise. I even turned the sound down on the television at the end of American Bandstand telecasts in 1959 after switching channels to watch Rocky and His Friends on WABC-TV, Channel 7, New York, New York. This loathing of “rock music” continued into the early-1960s as my first reaction to the mop-haired creatures from Liverpool, England, when I saw a news report about them on the Huntley-Brinkley Report in February of 1964, “This is not good.” My views have remained unchanged, although I mistakenly tolerated it, at William A. Shea Municipal Stadium in Flushing Meadows, Queens, when the new ownership team of Doubleday Book Company and partners, including current principal owner Fred Wilpon), eliminated the organ and introduced it, something that was the brainchild of the general manger Frank Cashen, who was a trustee of Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.  I should have walked out of Shea Stadium in 1980 rather than waiting until July 16, 2002, to do so.

Thus it is that I no use for the “disco craze” of the 1970s, which was an extension of the cultural revolution of the 1960s by other, ever-more bizarre means. Indeed, “disco music” created such hatred even among fans of what is referred to laughably as “classical rock” that a Chicago area disk jockey, Steve Dahl, teamed up with Michael Veeck, the promotions director for the Chicago White Sox and the son of the team’s colorful owner and baseball innovator, William “Bill” Veeck, to stage a “disco demotion demolition night at Comiskey Park, Chicago, Illinois, on July 12, 1979, between games of a doubleheader between the host White Sox and the visiting Detroit Tigers. What was meant to be a stunt turned into a riot of epic proportions that caused the White Sox to forfeit the second game of the doubleheader to the Tigers after great damage was done to the playing field of Comiskey Park and ballplayers feared for their very physical safety. Time does not permit a full recitation of the chaotic scene that the now seventy-two year-old Daniel Joseph “Rusty” Staub, who started his career in 1963 with the Houston Colt .45s and spent time with the Montreal Expos before being dealt to the New York Mets prior to the beginning of the 1972 strike-delayed season, said that he had never seen anything more dangerous in his life (Staub had been traded by the Mets to the Tigers for the portly and over-the-hill Mickey Lolich at the end of the 1975 season, although he made his way back to the Mets in 1981 and remained there until he retired after the end of the 1985 season). “Disco,” you see, was a much reviled genre.

As much as I hated the genre, which was almost as bad as 1970s men’s sideburns, bell-bottom pants, and Nehru jackets, there was “disco” tune that was played on a mainstream radio station in Allentown, Pennsylvania, that caught my attention when it was played in 1980. That tune was “Disco Lucy,” a “disco” version of the I Love Lucy theme music that had a Latin, big band beat to it. The disco version was kind of hard to forget as it had annoying musical interludes despite a pretty faithful rendering of the main I Love Lucy theme. Interspersed with the music, however, were two lyrics, “Dance, Dance, Disco Lucy” and “Disco, Disco Lucy.” (A video on You Tube, Disco Lucy, uses the music as a backdrop for a wonderful montage of clips from I Love Lucy. Although I watched the program in daytime reruns in the late-1950s as I was simply too young to stay up to watch a program on at 9:00 a.m. on a weeknight and have seen it at various points in the years since, although not in two decades now, I believe, I had forgotten how funny some of the scenes shown in the video are to watch. Yes, the main character was an annoying, scheming, lying and disobedient woman who helped to popularize the “acceptability” of women in masculine clothing. Some of those scenes, though, are really funny, although that might just have been the bait to make the objectionable parts of the program seem “harmless,” which they were not.)

Those lyrics came to mind immediately yesterday when I started to peruse the leaked Italian language draft of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Laudato Si, as someone with the technological ability to adapt “Disco Lucy” in a video featuring a montage of clips from the laughathon that is Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false “pontificate” could easily put out a feature called “Eco Jorge,” replete with “Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge” superimposed over the images of the Argentine Apostate’s endless celebrations of himself, his “humility,” his “love” of the “people,” and his various efforts to “go to the peripheries. Just a thought, and I think I know just the man who pull this off if he has the time to do it. (I will send him a link to this article once it is completed.)

All of the mirth and merriment aside, Laudato Si marks the nadir of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Petrine Ministry.” Not even the quasi-Marxist Populorum Progressio, which was issued by Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paolo Sicko on March 25, 1967, or the sick one’s Ocatgesima Adviens, May 14, 1971, or the “Saint John Paul II’s” Solicitudo Rei Socialis, December 30, 1988, have hit the bottom of the Judeo-Masonry’s Modernist sea of pantheism quite like Laudato Si, no matter how much it is dressed up with the smokescreen of Christian verbiage and invocations of various saints, each of whose work is distorted, misrepresented, and corrupted to suit the ecocyclical’s truly revolutionary agenda of statism and junk science propaganda.

As access to the internet may be lost shortly, an effort is going to be made to provide a brief overview of Eco-Jorge’s ecocyclical prior to a sustained series that may take some time to complete. The purpose of such a series, however, is to help readers who are interested to refute some of the parroting of the false claims that are advanced in Jorge’s ecocyclical, which is the product of the “groupthink” of deluded men. No matter the unmistakable fact that few people, relatively speaking, will read the text of Laudato Si, the mere fact that a supposed “pope” has endorsed the junk science of pseudo-scientists, each of whom believes in “population control” and “family planning,” that has long been the handiwork of world governance organizations such as the United Nations and “non-profit” advocacy groups of the sort run by former Vice President of the United States of America Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., will result in as seismic shift of popular sentiment in favor of draconian measures imposed by the monster state of Modernity to “save the earth” by limiting our legitimate freedoms (how much electricity we can use, how much gasoline we can purchase, what kinds of appliances we may own, mandates to purchase “green” appliances from firms who drink at the trough of our own taxpayer dollars) as we are taxed for the “privilege” of living as vassals of the lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is serving as an enabler for United States President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and every other pro-abortion, pro perversity statist politician, jurist, “educator” (and the word is used very lightly, of course), commentator, “scientist,” celebrity, legislator, and appointed government officials around the world. Bergoglio is using Laudato Si in the exact same manner that he has used last year’s “extraordinary synod on the family,” his daily screeds at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, and his not-so-secret meetings with practicing sodomites, men and women who have had their bodies mutilated surgically to pose as the opposite gender, and those who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without the “benefit” of a conciliar decree of marital nullity to make it impossible for conservative “bishops” within the structures of his false church to oppose the “progress” of a “re-reading” of the Gospel in light of the “sensus fidei.” In like manner, you see, Jorge is using Laudato Si, which he knows will not be read cover-to-cover by many people, to create a groundswell of support for its false, ideologically-based claims that will be impossible for any “conservative” public official to oppose successfully. This is why an article that I wrote three months ago, Bucking for Obama's Job, might be even more of an accurate prediction of what Bergoglio will say when he addresses a joint session of the Congress of the United States of America three months from now in the month of the Holy Cross and the Sorrowful Mother, that is, the month of September. Laudato Si will have a huge impact on the political landscape. There should be no doubt about this in anyone’s minds.

A story in today’s edition of The New York Times illustrates this point by explaining how the conciliar “archbishop” of Miami, Florida, Thomas Wenski, is attempting to put pressure on adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who are guilty of the “sin” of being “climate change” skeptic or, worse yet, deniers:

WASHINGTON — As the steamy hurricane season descends on Miami, the city’s Roman Catholic archbishop, Thomas G. Wenski, is planning a summer of sermons, homilies and press events designed to highlight the threat that a warming planet, rising sea levels and more extreme storms pose to his community’s poorest and most vulnerable.

His sermons and speeches are meant to amplify the message of Pope Francis’ highly anticipated, highly controversial encyclical on the environment, which the Vatican is expected to unveil on Thursday. A papal encyclical, or teaching document, is among the strongest and most authoritative statements made by the Catholic Church.

In a draft of the document leaked on Monday, Francis reiterated the established science that burning fossil fuels are warming the planet, said the impact threatened the world’s poor and called for government policies to cut fossil fuel use.

Archbishop Wenski will repeat those messages in his sermons, and he hopes that they will resonate with two members of his flock in particular: Florida’s junior senator, Marco Rubio, and former Gov. Jeb Bush, both Catholics and both Republican presidential candidates

Like many Republicans, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio have questioned or denied the established science of human-caused climate change, and have harshly criticized policies designed to tax or regulate the burning of fossil fuels. Both of their campaigns have courted influential and deep-pocketed donors, such as the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch, who vehemently oppose such climate policies.

But the papal encyclical could put Catholics who question that established climate science in a tough position, particularly in a year in which at least five Catholics may run for the Republican presidential nomination. Besides Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio and Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who has also declared his candidacy, the field could include Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

The pressure to respond to the pope’s position on climate change could be particularly intense for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio. The 2014 National Climate Assessment, a scientific study by 13 federal agencies, named Miami as one of the United States cities most vulnerable to physical and economic damage as a direct result of human-caused global warming. Archbishop Wenski, who is chairman of the United States Conference of Bishops’ committee on domestic justice and human development, is playing a leading role in elevating the pope’s climate change message in Florida.

peaking at a campaign event in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Mr. Bush did not wait for the official release of Francis’ encyclical to criticize his foray into climate change policy.

“I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” Mr. Bush said. “And I’d like to see what he says as it relates to climate change and how that connects to these broader, deeper issues before I pass judgment. But I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.”

Mr. Rubio has not commented on the encyclical. He has said he believes that the Earth’s climate is constantly changing but that “humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe.”

Florida is not the only crucial presidential state where Catholic bishops will push the pope’s climate message. In Iowa, the bishops of Des Moines and Davenport are planning a news media event at a wind turbine manufacturing facility, where they will highlight findings that climate change drives the drought and floods that plague Iowa farmers. The bishops of Cincinnati and of Las Cruces, N.M., are also planning news conferences and events for the coming weeks. The bishop of Sacramento, in a state in the grips of a record drought, is planning an event highlighting the link to climate change.

The events are being planned in coordination with a Washington advocacy group, the Catholic Climate Covenant. The group’s director, Dan Misleh, said the locations were not selected with the presidential campaign map in mind, but to highlight the issue before Francis addresses a joint meeting of Congress in September — a speech in which he is expected to push lawmakers to enact climate change policies.

“From the moment he steps into that chamber and talks about climate change, it’s going to be taken as a political statement,” said the Rev. Robert Sirico, executive director of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a policy group that endorses free-market economics. “For the conservatives, it’s going to be very uncomfortable. Republicans are going to have a hard time on the environment.”

But Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist and political consultant who described himself as a conservative Catholic, pointed out that there was already a backlash by conservative Catholics against the pope’s efforts on climate change and other progressive policies.

“For practicing conservative Catholics, the folks who sit in the pews on Sunday, this is not going to be an indictment of guys like Rubio and Jeb,” Mr. McKenna said. “Those guys have already made up their minds on climate change. For the real churchgoers, this is going to be an indictment of the pope.

“This pope is selling a line of Latin American-style socialism,” he continued. “This guy is not in sync with the American Catholic Church. Guys like Jeb and Rubio are more in line with the American Catholic Church than the pope.”

A poll this month by the Pew Research Center, however, found that the views of American Catholics on global warming are broadly reflective of American public opinion and that 86 percent of Catholics in this country say they view the pope favorably.

The poll found that 71 percent of Catholics in the United States believe the planet is getting warmer, but that there is a sharp division along partisan lines.

Half of Catholic Republicans say there is solid evidence that Earth is warming, compared with eight out of 10 Catholic Democrats. And only about a quarter of Catholic Republicans say global warming is man-made and poses a serious problem, while six in 10 Catholic Democrats agree with those statements.

Archbishop Wenski said he intended to use his pulpit to spread Francis’ message.

“This is not an issue of right or left,” Archbishop Wenski said. “This is more important than an ideological food fight.”

He said he would be paying particular attention to the views of Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio. “I hope that they will look at the papal encyclical when it comes out, and evaluate their positions with that guidance,” he said. (Jorge's Views Press GOP Candidates.)

This is proof positive of what I asserted in the initial posting of this commentary before seeing The New York Times article, thus delaying sleep for another little while. Oh well, this is penance, and I need to do penance for my many sins!

One can see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his “bishops” are choosing to use their moral capital, such as it is, of course, in a full-court press on “climate change,” not the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, not in defense of marriage as having been ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. No, Eco Jorge’s agenda is indeed that of Latin American socialism, and that fits with the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s Eurosocialism that he had adapted for use in the United States of America so very well. Dance, dance, Eco Jorge. This is your hour, the hour of darkness. Enjoy the disco party while it lasts.

It is also interesting to find Jeb Bush attempting to channel his “inner John Kennedy,” who dismissed the ability of a pope to teach him how to govern the country:

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consideIr these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God. (Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.)

Even Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., a supporter of Kennedy's who would be one of the principal progenitors of the "Second" Vatican Council's Dignitatis Humanae (and the author of many of the interventions made by American cardinals and bishops in its behalf), found Kennedy's strict personal separation of religious belief from the making of public policy decisions to be too stringent. Murray favored the American concept of the separation of Church and State, believing, as the conciliarist Ratzinger does, that such a separation permits Catholics to influence public policy and the direction of debate on it in the "marketplace of ideas." Leaving aside the inconvenient little truth that God and His true Church are owed recognition by the civil state, as summarized so succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, Father John Courtney Murray could not see that Kennedy's "more stringent" view of "separationism" was but the logical consequence of a religiously indifferentist civil state, as prophesied by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei.

Oh, before I continue, it should be noted that Senator Kennedy gave that address, which was written by Kennedy speech writer Theodore Sorensen, who was a Unitarian Universalist, which means that he was a pagan,  was delivered on the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, which commemorates the victory King Jan Sobieski of Catholic Poland over the Mohammedan hordes at the Gates of Vienna, Austria, on September 13, 1683, as he, King Jan Sobieski, held the Rosary aloft and urged men to pray this great spiritual weapon that Our Lady gave to Saint Dominic to fight the Albigenses heresy.   

Yes, Jorge’s Laudato Si carries a real political punch to it, and it with this in mind that I offer the “vast” readership of this website a few salient points about Laudato Si:

First, despite all of the efforts of “conservatives” and quasi-traditionalists who are attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the false belief that it is Catholic Church to deny Laudato Si’s binding nature upon them, Jorge’s ecocyclical is binding upon all Catholics in the conciliar structures. Pope Pius XII noted in Paragraph Twenty of Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that a pope’s encyclical letter closes all debate on a matter in dispute up until that time. All are bound to accept the teaching contained in a Sovereign Pontiff’s encyclical letter:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was the thoroughly Catholic editor of American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943 to 1963, elaborated on the binding nature of a true pope’s encyclical letters and of his allocutions, noting that everything a Supreme Pontiff cause to be inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis binds the consciences of all Catholics and permanently closes all debate. No one can dissent from the teaching of a true pope’s encyclicals or allocutions:

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed. . . .

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

It is simply to avoid the obvious, that is, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false church with false doctrines, sacramentally barren liturgical rites, pastoral practices that reaffirm hardened, unrepentant sinners in their lives of sin as an exercise of “mercy” and “compassion,” and false “popes” who have taught and continue to teach heresy and who have engaged in apostate acts on a regular basis, that anti-sedevacantists keep reducing the supposedly “irreducible minimum” that one must believe in order to remain a Catholic in good standing. Unfortunately for these self-blinded propagandists of the Gallican heresy, one must believe in the entirety of the Catholic Faith without exception, and a true pope’s encyclical letter binds the consciences of Catholics. Anyone who contends otherwise is not speaking the truth, not unless Pope Pius XII and Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton had it wrong, that is.

Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has emphasized this point by making the false teaching contained in the groupthink project that is Laudato Si morally binding upon Catholics. All “bishops” and “pastors” are now obligated to propagate and defend Laudato Si.

Third, Bergoglio has thus made binding upon Catholics a subject about which there is much legitimate scholarly dispute within the scientific community. Indeed, genuine scientists have refuted the results of “global warming studies,” many of which have been the result of “cooked books” and the suppression of any and all data that disproves the thesis of global warming.

One such study of the climate within the United States of America said that there had been cooling of the atmosphere in this country over a ten year period:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

irst, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word “monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant. (Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling.)

Real-world data are also irrelevant to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and those at Groupthink Central Command who drafted the ecocyclical issued in his name as “Pope Francis.” Revolutionaries must always believe in their self-delusional lies. They must also mandate that everything else believe as they believe lest the “authorities” declare “skeptics” to be “insane” or “counter-revolutionary” or both.

Fourth, it is very clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, despite rejecting “population control” and “family planning” and making one gratuitous condemnation in Paragraph Ninety-two of Laudato Si of the surgical execution of preborn children, has clearly thrown in his lot with the pro-abortion, pro-perversion statist ideologues who use such terms as “sustainable development” as code words for “family planning,” yes, even that mandated by the civil state, and as a pretext to eliminate the Natural Law right of private property in the name of the “collective good of the earth.”

This point was made eminently clear at a recent United Nations conference on “climate change” that was hosted by the Occupy Vatican movement’s apostates recently:

June 3, 2015 ( -- The president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS), appointed by Pope Francis in 2014, has slammed an American pro-life organization after it raised concerns about two leading abortion and population control proponents being given a prominent platform at the Vatican’s recent conference on climate change.

“I am appointed by the Pope and responsible directly to him. I’m afraid that leaves you and your cohort out in the cold,” Professor Margaret Archer wrote in a response to an article by Stefano Gennarini, director of the Centre for Legal Studies at the Centre for Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), in which he raised criticism about the Vatican’s invitation to the abortion proponents.

Gennarini, in a May 29 article on First Things, wrote about how he asked the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, to explain why the Vatican gave a platform to the world’s foremost proponents of abortion and population control Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs.

But Sorondo’s attempt to assure Gennarini that Ki-moon’s and Sachs’ position on abortion and population control were not part of the conference raised even more concerns.

“Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” Sorondo said in a May 18 communication to Gennarini.

Pro-life leaders from around the world have shown time-and-again that phrases such as ‘family planning,’ ‘sexual and reproductive health,’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are euphemisms for contraception, sterilization, and abortion. 

Gennarini said Sorondo’s response was not only “surprising” but amounted to him “openly defy[ing] the position the Holy See has held on these terms for over thirty years because of their association with abortion.”

“The views expressed by Sánchez Sorondo are especially perplexing in light of the cooperation of PAS with Sachs and Ban Ki-moon specifically on ‘climate change’ and ‘sustainable development.’ When the logic of these theories is carried out to their full extent they inevitably collide with the Church’s teaching on abortion and population control,” Gennarini wrote in his First Things piece.

Archer, who is also a sociologist at the University of Warwick, called Gennarini’s concerns “distorted” in her response, which was published on the Vatican-run website 

“The nature of your questions raises some very serious questions about your understanding of Catholic Social Doctrine,” she said.

Archer, who admitted to inviting the abortion proponents to the conference, accused Gennarini of having as his “sole concern […] human dignity confined to the period between conception and live-birth.”

“Why are you so totally uninterested in vicious practices, such as human trafficking that are an offence to the human dignity and right to life that you purport to defend?” she asked.

Archer went on to accuse Gennarini of “hate,” before boasting of her “duty and privilege of advising the Church on matters of Social Doctrine and its application.”

At one point she asks Gennarini if he has a “higher moral standard than the Pope?”

“Or is your own minimalistic version of the Creed, consisting of the single item: ‘We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion’ considered to be an improvement?” (Vatican official to pro- life leader: ‘ You and Cohort [are] Out in the Cold'.)

So much for Jorge’s “compassion.” One must remember that revolutionaries preach “love and justice” as they ooze oodles and oodles about “diversity” while using the most blunt, cold-blooded hard-hearted means imaginable to force everyone who disagrees with them into submission or to send them to the outer darkness of rejection, ridicule and condemnation. To use the language of the adversary in the name of "saving the planet" while seeking to mock one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is itself the work of the adversary, which is what the One World Ecumenical Church of Conciliarism has always been about since its very birth with the "election" of "Saint John XXIII" on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

Fifth, God created the world, which will end on His terms, not man’s terms. The world has always had environmental problems. Forest fires caused smoke pollution after lightning strikes. Flies and other pests abounded in the streets of urban areas in the days when the horse was the only major means of locomotion. The disposal of human waste has posed a problem that is still not resolved.

There has never been a time since the Original Sin entered the world as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve that a perfect ecological balance existed. The delicate balance that existed in the physical world prior to the sin of our first parents was rent asunder by their rebellion against the One who had created them, making man the steward of everything on the face of the earth. The fact that men may despoil the environment more at one time than another is the result of fallen human nature, and a believing Catholic understands that fallen human nature is completely out of control in this era of state-sponsored and state-mandated bloodshed of the innocent and the celebration of indecency blasphemy and perversion as legitimate “human rights” from which no can dissent legitimately.

The truth is, of course, that it is the sins of men that unleash the wrath of God upon us as He let loose the forces of nature to chastise us as our sins deserve, teaching us of the necessity of reforming our lives and of making reparation to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins and those of the whole world. The chastisements of nature are visited upon us by God are reminders of his Omnipotence over us, His rational creatures, and of the very created world in which we live in order to give Him honor and glory as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Such chastisements remind us of our nothingness before the Most Blessed Trinity and of our absolute need to pray with fervor to kept safe unto eternity from the moral perils of the day that are celebrated by the lords of Modernity in the world and by Jorge and his band Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Original Sin is the remote cause of all human problems. The Actual Sins of men are the proximate causes of all human problems. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to save souls, not to “save the earth.” While the Seventh Commandment obliges us to be good stewards of the created world, there can be no possibility of a rightly-ordered world when men are in open rebellion against God by means of celebration and seeking to have clothed with the status of “legal right” the very thing that caused His Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, to suffer unto the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross.

As Silvio Cardinal Antoniano noted in the Sixteenth Century:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Pope Leo XIII noted the exact same thing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

32. So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The naturalist dunderheads of the false opposite of the “left” or the “right” do not believe this, and neither does Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his own Modernist dunderheads in the counterfeit church of conciliarisim.

Sixth, heaping hot coals upon themselves as they bring God’s wrath down upon the earth that they desire to “save,” conciliar revolutionaries have gone out of the way to express public support of wanton sinners, up to and including those noted for persisting unrepentantly in the sin of Sodom up to the point of their very deaths, something that is illustrated in a very timely post at the Novus Ordo Watch Wire blog:

June 11, 2015 - El Correo] Carlos Osoro, the Archbishop of Madrid and Vice-President of Spain's Episcopal Conference, on Tuesday gave his condolences, through a phone call, to the husband of socialist politician Pedro Zerolo, who died after losing his battle with cancer. This was reported yesterday by Fr. Angel Garcia, the founder and president of Messengers of Peace. Zerolo was one of the principal pushers of the gay marriage law and a well-known LGBT activist.

Fr. Angel was in the chapel where Zerolo's body was lying in state, which was installed in the patio of crystals of the Casa de la Villa, when he received the Archbishop's call, who, upon finding out that he was there, wished to speak to Jesus Santos, husband of the deceased. 

The founder of Messengers of Peace [“Fr.” Angel] says that he greatly loved the socialist politician, with whom he would converse about “the divine and the human”; a man that he will remember as “a man of dialogue and of smiles.” “We are left with his smile, which is the most important thing in life”, he underscored. Therefore, to say goodbye to him, he will be given tribute at San Antón [St. Anthony] Church next week.

[Original in Spanish at] (As found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire blog.)

Just watch a false church unravel.

Far, far from “saving the earth,” Jorge and his band of revolutionaries are hastening the day of God’s ultimate chastisement upon His rational creatures for how they have defiled their own immortal souls, made as they have been in His very image and likeness. They have no regard for the horror of personal sin as they seek to assuage their own consciences that they are actually “champions” of the Holy Faith because of their “advocacy” for the poor, for illegal immigrants and of “saving the planet” from a destruction that will take place when God wills, not as man wills.

As the hour is approaching three o’clock in the morning on Wednesday, June 17, 2015, let me note here that part two of this overview of Laudato Si will cover Bergoglio’s reprehensible efforts to misrepresent the very person of Saint Francis of Assisi. Special emphasis will also be given to the footnotes that remind the careful reader about the fact the counterfeit church of conciliarism can find “justification” for its falsehoods only by ignoring the teaching of our true popes and by seeking to distort and misrepresent the teaching of various saints, whose writings are taken out of context in order to be “interpreted” by supposed exegetes according to the needs of the moment.


It must be remembered that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries, men who are committed apologists of naturalistic ideologies because they have lost the Catholic Faith after having assured themselves that that there is no need to worry about the loss of eternal life, are helping to make it more possible for the steady triumph of the errors of Russia. As I wrote in The Wanderer back in 1994, “When Green is Red,” to indicate that the agenda of the United Nations, the European Union and the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., who has made millions upon millions of dollars fear mongering about the ozone layer and global warming was simply a way for statists to increase taxation in order to redistribute wealth and increasing regulations, thus limiting the legitimate freedom of citizens. Environmentalism has been and remains a means to “backdoor” the final transformation of Western nations, including the United States of America, along the Eurosocialist model. Bergoglio and his fiends serve a very useful role in helping the latter day “reds” claim that they are “saving the planet” while they promote evils under cover of the civil law that destroy souls. "Environmentlism" has long been a vehicle to promote "population control," and the day will be coming when the government of United States of America will tax every child in a family over a certain "limit."

Although the Catholic Church does indeed teach us that the Seventh Commandment requires us to make just, proportionate use of the things of this earth as the nature of man's legitimate temporal needs require, she does not teach us that God and nature are one. In other words, the Catholic Church rejects pantheism, which deifies nature and everything in it, including man, to a greater or lesser extent. Indeed, pantheism results in the rise of some variations wherein the human being is considered no more important in the scheme of "matter" than a plant (see, for example, the "species-ism" of Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton, University).

Indeed, as I have pointed out many times before on this website, it is the very sinful foundation of the modern economic system, which rejects the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church and seeks profit as an ultimate end in and of itself that defines individuals and the "progress" of their nations, that has produced a situation where leaders of corporations in the capitalist world, eager to show a profit to shareholders, and the managers of state-owned companies in the socialist world, both of whom have a naturalistic, if not outrightly atheistic, view of man, think nothing of poisoning the atmosphere and the land the water with a ready abandon. The situation is even worse in Red China, a country whose unreconstructed Maoists pollute the air and water recklessly to profit from the monies made by the the multinational corporations that produce their goods in unsafe conditions on the backs of what is, for all intents and purposes, slave labor.

The naturalistic lie that is the modern economic system has thus produced the lie that is environmentalism, which is nothing other than a variation of the same naturalistic theme. The problems caused by industrial pollution and the solution proposed by most so-called environmentalists are but two manifestations of the same rejection of the Catholic Faith, rejected by industrialists in the name of Calvinist materialism and an American sense of "libertarianism," rejected by environmentalists in the name of a veritable worship of dirt, that is, the earth, devoid of any understanding of who created the dirt and for whose use it was created, for the very people created out of its slime and Redeemed on the wood of the Holy Cross by Christ the King.

In this, you see, the conciliarists are demonstrating, an effort to invert the purposes of the Catholic Faith and to assuage themselves for not fulfilling--and indeed betraying--the mission entrusted to the Apostles before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday: to convert all men and all nations to the Catholic Faith. If, however, men are more or less saved as a result of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar's heresy of "universal salvation," then there is no need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men and all nations to the Catholic Faith. No, we must like together as brothers without seeking to divide people "unnecessarily" by having public recourse to "denominationalism" in how we speak and act. All "religions" must work together to "save the planet."

Lost in this descent into absurdity is the Catholic truth that the beauty of the earth is marred more and more as a result of the ugliness of the stain of sins that remain on human souls without being Absolved--and without an effort on the part of those who have been Absolved to amend their lives in cooperation with Sanctifying Grace and to seek to do reparation for their sins to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lord Himself noted to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in 1628:

She saw that when this would happen, the beautiful dawn that each morning would break forth with refulgence over this land--so enchantingly spectacular that some persons would rise at daybreak just to see the day break--would lose some of its brilliance. Thus does earth reflect Heaven, and the earth's beauty and vitality diminish with sin and infidelity to grace. This favor of beautiful dawns should cease, Mother Mariana was given to understand, because the Republic [of Ecuador, which was then only a Spanish colony] would become corrupt and ungrateful for the benefits it received from God. (Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D., Stories and Miracles of Our Lady of Good Success, Tradition in Action, Inc., 2002, p. 68.)

What is true for Ecuador is true for the whole world. Sin diminishes the beauty of souls, thus diminishing the beauty of the created world around us. To the extent, for example, that there have been problems caused by industrial and commercial pollution (Times Beach, Missouri, Love Canal, New York, are real instances where a pollutant, dioxin in Times Beach and toxic waste in Love Canal, caused real harm to real human beings, as did the thermal invasion layer of smog that caused the deaths of nearly seventy people in Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948), this is the result of the unbridled lust for capital gain that, although an inherent part of fallen human nature, to be sure, was unleashed in all of its fury with the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, to say nothing of attempting to change the very foundation of economic life in order to accommodate the unbridled lust for capital gain. The way to turn back the pollution of the physical earth is for human beings to turn away from polluting their souls by means of persisting in states of unrepentant Mortal Sins.What is good for the souls of individual men is good for the right ordering of the whole world

Men must quit their sins and repent of them in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. They must treat each other as they would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who was made Flesh in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb, where He spent nine months growing to the point of His Nativity in poverty and anonymity in Bethlehem on Christmas Day. No one can say--not that many of the morons and idiots of Modernity and Modernism do say this--that he loves Our Lord and yet supports His dismemberment mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children. And it is impossible to provide for any element of  the common temporal good on an enduring basis as long as the innocent preborn are attacked with legal impunity, as long as the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage is denied by means of contraception, as long as perversity is promoted under the slogans of "diversity" and "human rights," as long as men live as though there is no true Church and that they do not have to face Christ the King as their Judge at the moment of their Particular Judgments.

The late Dr. George O'Brien noted that Catholicism is the only means given us by God to know order and due proportion in our lives and in the larger life of our nations and the world:

There is one institution and one institution alone which is capable of supplying and enforcing the social ethic that is needed to revivify the world. It is an institution at once intra-national and international; an institution that can claim to pronounce infallibly on moral matters, and to enforce the observance of the its moral decrees by direct sanctions on the individual conscience of man; an institution which, while respecting and supporting the civil governments of nations, can claim to exist independently of them, and can insist that they shall not intrude upon the moral life or fetter the moral liberty of their citizens. Europe possessed such an institution in the Middle Ages; its dethronement was the unique achievement of the Reformation; and the injury inflicted by that dethronement has never since been repaired. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, first published in 1923, republished by IHS press in 2003, p. 132.)

We are suffering he results of that dethronement and not even legitimate measures to limit pollution can undo the harm caused by the moral pollution let loose by the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself personally instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.

Pope Saint Pius X  reminded us of this in Notre Charge Apostolique, which condemned the false priciples of The Sillon that are at the heart of conciliarism's pantheistic world view:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., exhorted the Mohammedans and Jews and fallen-away Catholics to whom he preached in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries to convert lest they die, meaning that those who died outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church faced the prospect of eternal hellfire. Similarly, we will all suffer the continuing effects of mankind's rebellion against Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through the Catholic Church unless men and their nations convert. Not even the physical world around us is exempt from the effects of our sins and our refusal to make reparation to them as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, eager to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

We must never lose sight of the necessity of viewing the world and all things in it through the eyes of the Catholic Faith at all times as we try as best we can to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives on a daily basis in our homes that are consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart whose triumph is tied to the fulfillment of that Fatima Message.

Pay no attention to the collection of men behind those curtains in the White House or the Vatican. They are frauds. Pay attention only to the Faith as we embrace the crosses of the present moment, thanking God ceaselessly for giving them to us so that we can give him honor and glory through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we strive to sanctify our own souls and to quit our own sins once and for all, resolving to make reparation for each of them more fully until the day we die with our Brown Scapulars draped over our shoulders so that we can die in Our Lady's loving embrace.

Our Lady of Fatima, ppray 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.