The counterfeit church of conciliarism is replete with lawless men who have no regard for the immutable nature of the Sacred Deposit of Faith even less for the binding precepts of the Natural Law.
Well, perhaps I should rephrase this a bit for the sake of accuracy.
The lawless nature of the men who preside over the counterfeit church of conciliarism is merely a reflection of the illegal nature of their false church, which is a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, that has become a caricature even of itself in the past fifty-eight months since the lay Jesuit revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio appeared on the Balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter to start his masquerade party as “Pope Francis.”
No longer even making a pretense of saving souls, the lawless men of an illegal church have revealed themselves definitively to be nothing other than Marxists dressed up in clerical attire and open apologists for sins, both natural and unnatural, against Holy Purity.
This has been no accident.
Former Communist Party member Bella Dodd, who returned to Catholicism at the hands of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, testified before House Un-American Activities Committee in the late-1940s that she personally recruited nearly 1,200 men to study for the priesthood in order to place Communist infiltrators into seminaries and chancery offices to destroy that which is indestructible, the Catholic Church. These infiltrators helped to train future generations of priests who were in position to be elevated to what became the hierarchy of false church at the “Second” Vatican Council and thereafter, although, to be sure, the fact that there were so many closet Modernists and Communist sympathizers at that robber baron council means that many of these infiltrators—wolves in sheep’s clothing—had been promoted during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Perhaps it should be mentioned that Talmudists, many of whom supported supporter Vladimir Lenin’s Marxist revolution in 1917, had the most to gain from this infiltration.
Part of the job of the infiltrators was to make what was certain, the Sacred Deposit of Faith and the binding precepts of the Natural law, a matter of “nuance” and “reflection.” The process of “nuancing” the truth to denying it altogether was a gradual one. However, to “nuance” the truths of either the Order of Redemption (Grace) or the Order of Creation (Nature) must lead to agnosticism at best and atheism, materialism and hedonism at worst, and it is the latter that has been celebrated openly by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the past four years, ten months, five days.
The Argentine Apostate is now in Chile, where he has warned Chile’s conciliar “bishops,” against clericalism—his code word for putative Catholic prelates and priests putting the salvation of souls before service to the “poor”—as he is an anticlerical lay Jesuit revolutionary par excellence:
A failure to realize that the mission belongs to the entire Church, and not to the individual priest or bishop, limits the horizon, and even worse, stifles all the initiatives that the Spirit may be awakening in our midst. Let us be clear about this. The laypersons are not our peons, or our employees. They don’t have to parrot back whatever we say. “Clericalism, far from giving impetus to various contributions and proposals, gradually extinguishes the prophetic flame to which the entire Church is called to bear witness. Clericalism forgets that the visibility and the sacramentality of the Church belong to all the faithful people of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, 9-14), not only to the few chosen and enlightened”.
Let us be on guard, please, against this temptation, especially in seminaries and throughout the process of formation. I must confess, I am concerned about the formation of seminarians, that they be pastors at the service of the People of God; as a pastor should be, through the means of doctrine, discipline, the sacraments, by being close to the people, through works of charity, but also with the awareness that they are the People of God. Seminaries must stress that future priests be capable of serving God’s holy and faithful people, acknowledging the diversity of cultures and renouncing the temptation to any form of clericalism. The priest is a minister of Jesus Christ: Jesus is the protagonist who makes himself present in the entire people of God. Tomorrow’s priests must be trained with a view to the future, since their ministry will be carried out in a secularized world. This in turn demands that we pastors discern how best to prepare them for carrying out their mission in these concrete circumstances and not in our “ideal worlds or situations”. Their mission is carried out in fraternal unity with the whole People of God. Side by side, supporting and encouraging the laity in a climate of discernment and synodality, two of the essential features of the priest of tomorrow. Let us say no to clericalism and to ideal worlds that are only part of our thinking, but touch the life of no one.
And in this regard, to implore from the Holy Spirit the gift of dreaming. Please do not stop dreaming, dreaming and working for a missionary and prophetic option capable of transforming everything, so that our customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and ecclesial structures can be suitably channelled for the evangelization of Chile rather than for ecclesiastical self-preservation. Let us not be afraid to strip ourselves of everything that separates us from the missionary mandate. ("Pope Francis" Speaks to Chilean Members of of the Conciliar Raccoon Lodge.)
In other words, the Argentine Apostate wants the conciliar “bishops” of Chile to strip themselves of anything even remoting approximating the immutable truths contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural. Everything is “up from grabs” in a world of uncertainty, which is why it is necessary to “dream” about the ways in which hardened sinners can be assuaged and that those who might exhort them to repent of their sins and amend their lives will be shamed into a submissive silence once and for all.
Additionally, it must be noted once again that the man most people in the world believe to be “Pope Francis” that the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are meant to be taken literally:
 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48.)
As noted just two years ago in my ten part series on Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in the efficacy of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to effect the conversion of those steeped in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins. Moreover, the Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is necessary for those who are sinning against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, whether engaged in natural or unnatural vice, to quit their sins as he believes them to be engaged in relationships founded on "love" that express "elements" of true marriage.
Bergoglio believes this about Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a meaningless decree of nullity from a conciliar marriage tribunal, which is why he believes that such people should be admitted to what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty.
Bergoglio believes this about Catholics cohabiting without benefit of marriage, making a mockery of these words of Apostle to the Gentiles, Saint Paul, who excommunicated the very people that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants each conciliar “bishop,” including those in Chile, to embrace and “accompany” on their “journey” in a time of false “mercy” that shows them al to be anti-apostles:
It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife.  And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed.  I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done,  In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus;  To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump?  Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.  Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.  I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators.  I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.
 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within?  For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves. (1 Corinthians 5: 1-11.)
Bergoglio wants to read out of his false religious sect those who take these words seriously as he himself urges his “bishops” do precisely what Saint Paul the Apostle condemned in the most unambiguous and clear terms imaginable.
Saint Paul the Apostle also said the very unrepentant sinners Bergoglio seeks to indemnify shall not possess the kingdom God:
 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 5: 9)
Well, it is evidently the case that Bergoglio does not know that fornicators, adulterers, the effeminate and sodomites will be excluded from the kingdom of God along with the covetous, drunkards, railers and extortioners. Perhaps a slight correction is in order: Jorge Mario Bergoglio only refers to Sacred Scripture when he can deconstruct its plain meaning and/or by combining passages, inserting his own interpretations for that of the text of the Apostles or Evangelists. Failing this, of course, Bergoglio simply ignores what he does not “like” just as much as did his master in Scriptural apostasy, Father Martin Luther, O.S.A.
All that “Pope Francis” is doing at this juncture is to condition his “bishops” and priests/presbyters to accept Amoris Laetitia as his “irreversible” final word concerning immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. He is a man who is at odds with both supernatural and natural truth, and he makes a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher and thousands upon thousands of other Catholics who went to their deaths defending the sanctity and indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This wretched document is the antithesis of such papal defenses of marriage as those of Pope Leo XIII's Arcanum, February 10, 1880, and Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.
Consider the following words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Arcanum, February 10, 1880:
44. Lastly, since We well know that none should be excluded from Our charity, We commend, venerable brothers, to your fidelity and piety those unhappy persons who, carried away by the heat of passion, and being utterly indifferent to their salvation, live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Let your utmost care be exercised in bringing such persons back to their duty; and, both by your own efforts and by those of good men who will consent to help you, strive by every means that they may see how wrongly they have acted; that they may do penance; and that they may be induced to enter into a lawful marriage according to the Catholic rite. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)
Readers can see that every single one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false suppositions used in Amoris Laetitia that he repeated to his “bishops” on Tuesday, January 16, 2018, the Feast of Pope Saint Marcellus I, had been condemned by true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.
Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that “God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be. ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)
This simple Catholic teaching that God does not command impossibilities was reiterated by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.
Speaking in the context of those situations in which a married couple might have to abstain from that which is proper to the married state because of a genuine medical concern about dangers a wife might face during a pregnancy, our last true Holy Father made it clear that God Himself would send the graces necessary for the couple to abstain as He does not command the impossible:
If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circumstances require an absolute "no," that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a "yes." Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a "technique" of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.
It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: "No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning."
In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able". (Pope Pius XII,Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
Bergoglio believes that to do what God has commanded is “impossible,” thus proving once again that he is a wretched heretic who believeth not in the power of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to effect the conversion of hardened sinners. This reprehensible excuse of a human being would have denounced the “closed-mindedness” of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori as a longing for the “fleshpots of Egypt,” meaning a desire for a past filled with certitude about Catholic truth that he believes has existed only in the minds of men. In still other words, he does not believe in the words of the Act of Faith that we should pray every morning:
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou are one God in three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy divine son became Man, died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
This wretched little man’s tombstone should read: “Here lies the mortal remains of Bergoglio the Blasphemer.”
The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has nothing “new” to say about “new and different cultural expressions” that are nothing other than the same old situations of sin, and I have nothing new to say about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s serial blasphemy in this regard that I have not said at least two hundred times in the past nearly five years, including "Reform" For Jorge Constitutes A Rejection of Catholic Truth. There is no need to belabor this point again as I, for one, find Bergoglio’s thoroughly unoriginal moral relativism to be completely and boringly predictable. Enough is enough of attempting to prove this grotesque caricature of a Modernist’s apostate nature.
This having been established, therefore, I want to focus on Bergoglio’s comment about the clerical abuse of minors that has occurred in Chile as his principal concern was on the pain suffered by innocent members of the conciliar clergy while mentioning the suffering of the victims and their families in a most gratuitous manner:
Times of upheaval. I know the pain resulting from cases of abuse of minors and I am attentive to what you are doing to respond to this great and painful evil. For this reason, I suggest that we ask God to grant us the clear-sightedness to call reality by its name, the strength to seek forgiveness and the ability to listen to what he tells us and not dwell on our discouragement. (Jorge Speaks to Lesser Ranking Raccoon Lodge Members.)
This is all quite hypocritical when one considers that “Pope Francis” appointed a protector, Juan Barros, of perverted clergy as the “bishop” of Osorno, Chile, in 2015, and he continues still to “stand by his man” despite the massive protests that his appointment generated in Chile and the concerns of most of the other conciliar “bishops” there three years ago:
SANTIAGO, Chile — Hundreds of demonstrators dressed in black barged into a cathedral in a city in southern Chile on Saturday and interrupted the installation ceremony for the city’s new Roman Catholic bishop, Juan Barros, whom they accuse of complicity in a notorious case of clerical sexual abuse, blocking his passage and shouting, “Barros, get out of the city!”
The scene inside the Cathedral San Mateo de Osorno was chaotic, with television images showing clashes between Barros opponents, carrying black balloons, and Barros supporters, carrying white ones. Radio reports said several protesters tried to climb onto the altar where Bishop Barros was standing. After the ceremony, he left the cathedral through a side door escorted by police special forces. Outside, about 3,000 people, including local politicians and members of Congress, held signs and chanted demands that he resign.
Weeks of protests, candlelight vigils and letters to Pope Francis were not enough to persuade him to rescind his decision in January to appoint Bishop Barros to lead the Diocese of Osorno, 570 miles south of the capital, Santiago. Bishop Barros was a close associate of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, a prominent Santiago priest whom the Vatican found guilty of sexual abuse in 2011. Father Karadima, now 84, was ordered to retire to a “life of prayer and penitence.” (Angry Protest Over New Bishop in Chile.)
Parishioners in a southern Chile diocese are gathering wherever their new bishop appears, but their presence is not the sort of assembly the Catholic Church would expect.
In the month since Bishop Juan Barros was installed in Osorno, the priest has had to sneak out of back exits, call on riot police to shepherd him from the city's cathedral and coordinate movements with bodyguards and police canine units.
Such is the public routine of the bishop who is denounced by his opponents as having shielded Chile's most notorious pedophile priest. For his part, Barros says relations are improving.
The appointment of Barros by Pope Francis has unleashed an unprecedented protest, with more than 1,300 church members, 30 diocesan priests and nearly half of Chile's Parliament sending letters urging the pope to reconsider.
At least three men say Barros was present when they were sexually molested in the 1980s and 1990s by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. Karadima was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for sexually abusing minors, ordered to live out his life cloistered in a nun's convent. Barros has said he knew nothing of Karadima's abuses.
The controversy is being watched by victims, advocacy groups and lawmakers as a test of the pope's promises to crack down on clerical sex abuse. On April 12, members on the pope's sex abuse advisory committee traveled to Rome to voice their concerns.
The pope has not spoken publicly about the case. In late March, however, the Vatican released a statement defending Barros, saying the Congregation for Bishops examined his candidacy "and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment."
But many of the Catholic faithful in Osorno, 510 miles (820 kilometers) south of Santiago, are holding to their protest, which they say is gathering support.
"We are beginning to energize our movement and make it more mainstream," said Mario Vargas, 52, a sex-abuse survivor and one of the leaders.
On April 10, some 600 people protested outside the Osorno cathedral holding black umbrellas, a color they said represented the stain of sex abuse on the church. The action drew Catholic school teachers as well as community members.
"New faces are joining the protests," said Juan Carlos Claret, one of the organizers.
Barros, who declined repeated requests for an interview, has said the situation has improved since his March 21 installation. He told reporters last week he had met with parishioners and priests in 10 communities and there was "a good understanding and the love of God reigns."
Barros, previously chaplain of Chile's armed forces, has celebrated Mass a half-dozen times, including during Holy Week, but parishioners say attendance is down and the bishop must travel with a police escort to keep protesters at bay.
"You can feel something sour that transcends all kinds of church activities," said Carlos Meza, a 43-year-old parishioner. "It's not just during Masses."
An April 8 meeting between Barros and parishioners fell apart when the bishop showed up with two body guards and police dogs, a move the parishioners said was unnecessarily aggressive.
On a video recorded at the scene and reviewed by the AP, a woman in the group is heard yelling: "We are a pacific lay movement. You can't push us around like this."
Barros joined other bishops last week at a seminary held by the Catholic University in Santiago. About 50 protesters calling for his resignation were out front, but Barros avoided them by exiting through a back door.
Canon law experts say rescinding an appointment would be unprecedented, so Barros likely is there to stay unless he resigns. So far, there is no indication he plans to do so. (Month after bishop ordained amid protests in southern Chile.)
Those who believe that it is necessary for them to know some of the more graphic accounts of Barros’s own involvement in perverse behavior, details of which were given to Bergoglio for his review before he refused to rescind the twisted man’s appointment, may read Pope’s zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test in Chile.
In this, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio demonstrated himself once again, yes, for the gazillionth time, to be completely sanguine about the horror of personal sin and his total openness to having "gay men" in the clergy as long as they "seek God" and "have good will."
This implies fairly strongly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in the moral theological heresy known as the "fundamental option," which contends that one is never guilty of any kind of truly serious, no less mortal, sin unless his "option" is said to be against God. A sinner is just "fine" with God as long as he not opt to turn away from Him. It is no accident that this heresy was propagated in the 1970s by a Jesuit "theologian" by the name of Father Richard McCormack, who died in 2000, and it certainly does not matter to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that the "theology of the fundamental option" was condemned even by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Persona Humana on December 29, 1975 (see Persona Humana.)
Readers of this site should know, however, that every sin involves a turning away from God as we seek creatures, starting with our own sinful temptations, and that Mortal Sins involve a casting out of the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity that is found in baptized souls who are in states of Sanctifying Grace. The theology of the "fundamental option" ("seeking God with a good will") is destructive of individual souls and thus of nations. Jorge Mario Bergoglio sees none of this. None of this whatsoever.
Indeed, who showed up magna cum laude at the meeting Bergoglio had with the Chilean “bishops” two days ago?
Let me provide with a pictorial answer:
Well, the man pictured above is none other than the aforementioned “Bishop” Juan Barros.
Mind you, Bergoglio did privately with victims of clergy abuse in Chile on Tuesday, January 16, 2018, and he even “cried” with them (see Antipope Cries In Anticipation of His Being Given the Academy Award for Best Acting in A Lead Role In An Apostasy Drama.)
Juan Barros,however, remains as “Bishop” of Osorno, Chile, and he will remain there for a long time until and unless Jorge decides to promote him to some other, more prestigious see in Chile or to the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of The Tiber River.
Nonetheless, however, and quite contrary to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio and many of his fellow revolutionaries in the conciliar clergy believe, those afflicted with effeminacy of any kind and/or any sort of inclination to the commission of perverse sins, no less the commission thereof, are unfit to serve in the Holy Priesthood and those discovered to be so inclined or are guilty of such sins must be removed from all pastoral work immediately. Predators must be removed and then sent to a monastery to live in isolation as they make reparation for their sins.
By the way, this applies across the vast spectrum of the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time of apostasy and betrayal. Anyone who has enabled a priest steeped in perversity or the tendency towards its commission is thus guilty of endangering souls and, quite possibly, causing Catholics to lose their faith.
What Jorge Mario Bergoglio his fellow revolutionaries do not realize is that to believe that those who have a "gay orientation" represent no clear and present spiritual danger to the good of souls, starting with their own, is the same thing as saying that a person inclined to the commission of serial killings must be treated as "brothers" and even "mainstreamed" into society as long as they do not "act" on their murderous inclinations. In other words, the conciliar revolutionaries believe in absurdity, which is why they speak and act absurdly.
Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, warned the Catholic bishops of the 1950s not to place predators back into any parish assignments, going so far as place a $5,000 deposit towards the purchase an island to isolate these men as he did not believe that they were capable of reforming their behavior, that the best that could be done for them was to keep them away from possible future victims as they made reparation for their sins and attempted to save their immortal souls:
As early as the mid-1950s, decades before the clergy sexual-abuse crisis broke publicly across the U.S. Catholic landscape, the founder of a religious order that dealt regularly with priest sex abusers was so convinced of their inability to change that he searched for an island to purchase with the intent of using it as a place to isolate such offenders, according to documents recently obtained by NCR.
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately.
Fitzgerald was a prolific correspondent who wrote regularly of his frustration with and disdain for priests "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls." His views are contained in letters and other correspondence that had previously been under court seal and were made available to NCR by a California law firm in February.
Fitzgerald's convictions appear to significantly contradict the claims of contemporary bishops that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served.
It is clear, too, in letters between Fitzgerald and a range of bishops, among bishops themselves, and between Fitzgerald and the Vatican, that the hierarchy was aware of the problem and its implications well before the problem surfaced as a national story in the mid-1980s.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, reacting in February to a federal investigation into his handling of the crisis, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."
Indeed, some psychology experts seemed to hold the position that priest offenders could be returned to ministry. Even the Paracletes, as the order developed and grew, employed experts who said that certain men could be returned to ministry under stringent conditions and with strict supervision.
The order itself ultimately was so inundated with lawsuits regarding priests who molested children while or after being treated at its facility in Jemez Springs, N.M., that it closed the facility in 1995.
Whatever discussion occurred during the 1970s and 1980s over proper treatment, however, for nearly two decades Fitzgerald spoke a rather consistent conviction about the dim prospects for returning sex abusers to ministry. Fitzgerald seemed to know almost from the start the danger such priests posed. He was adamant in his conviction that priests who sexually abused children (often the language of that era was more circumspect in naming the problem) should not be returned to ministry.
In a 1957 letter to an unnamed archbishop, Fitzgerald said, "These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." The letter, addressed to "Most dear Cofounder," was apparently to Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, N.M., who was considered a cofounder of the Paraclete facility at Jemez Springs and a good friend of Fitzgerald.
Later in the same letter, in language that revealed deep passion, he wrote: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat -- but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better they had not been born -- this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?"
The documents were sealed at the request of the church in an earlier civil case involving Fr. Rudolph Kos of Dallas. Eleven plaintiffs won awards in the case in which Kos was accused of molesting minors over a 12-year period. He had been treated at the Paraclete facility in New Mexico. The documents were unsealed in 2007 by a court order obtained by the Beverly Hills law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, according to Anthony DeMarco, an attorney with the firm that has handled hundreds of cases for alleged victims of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese and elsewhere.
According to Helen Zukin, another member of the firm, the documents have been used in some cases to dispute the church claim that it knew nothing about the behavior of sex abusers or the warning signs of abuse prior to the 1980s.
In a September 1952 letter to the then- bishop of Reno, Nev., Fitzgerald wrote: "I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. ... Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." The advice was ignored and the priest was allowed to continue in ministry, and was ultimately accused of abusing numerous children, for which the church paid out huge sums in court awards.
While Fitzgerald told anyone who would listen of the futility of returning sexually abusive priests to ministry, that conviction became less absolute as the order, today headquartered in St. Louis, grew and the scope of its work became more complex. Fitzgerald, by most accounts, was deeply motivated by a sense of obligation to care for priests who were in trouble. Originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese for 12 years, he became a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1934, and started the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947. His concern at the time was primarily for priests struggling with alcoholism. As his new order matured and its ministry became known, bishops began referring priests with other maladies, particularly those who had been sexually abusive of children. The order for years was the primary source for care of priests in the United States with alcohol and sexual problems.
At times, Fitzgerald appears to have resisted taking in priests who had sexually abused youngsters. In his 1957 letter he requested concurrence from the cofounder archbishop "of what I consider a very vital decision on our part -- that for the sake of preventing scandal that might endanger the good name of Via Coeli [the name of the New Mexico facility] we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce" children. "Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here."
In September 1957 the bishop of Manchester, N.H., Matthew F. Brady, sought Fitzgerald's advice regarding "a problem priest," John T. Sullivan, who seemed sincerely repentant and whose difficulty "is not drink but a series of scandal-causing escapades with young girls. There is no section of the diocese in which he is not known and no pastor seems willing to accept him," Brady wrote. The "escapades" involved molestation of young girls. In at least one instance, he procured an abortion for a teenager he had impregnated. In another case, he fathered a child and provided support to the mother until she later married. The charges of molesting girls would follow him the rest of his life.
"The solution of his problem seems to be a fresh start in some diocese where he is not known. It occurred to me that you might know of some bishop who would be willing to give him that opportunity," Brady wrote in his original letter.
Fitzgerald responded that in his judgment the "repentance and amendment" in such cases "is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."
Fitzgerald added that the Paracletes had "adopted a definite policy not to recommend to bishops men of this character, even presuming the sincerity of their conversion. We feel that the protection of our glorious priesthood will demand, in time, the establishment of a uniform code of discipline and of penalties."
He acknowledged the degree of deference with which Catholic clergy were treated even by civil authorities. "We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the care of souls]," he wrote.
Sullivan apparently had already been pulled from active ministry. In October 1957, less than a month after contacting Fitzgerald, Brady wrote a response to the bishop of Burlington, Vt., among the first of more than a dozen bishops approached by Sullivan for the next five years, warning against accepting him.
Brady then wrote a letter that he sent out time after time to bishops inquiring about Sullivan after he had requested acceptance for ministry. "My conscience will not allow me to recommend him to any bishop and I feel that every inquiring bishop should know some of the circumstances that range from parenthood, through violation of the Mann Act, attempted suicide, and abortion.
"Father Fitzgerald of Via Coeli would accept him only as a permanent guest to help save his soul but with no hope of recommending him to a bishop."
According to a 2003 Washington Post story, Sullivan, who had bounced around from diocese to diocese for nearly 30 years, "was stripped of his faculties to serve as a priest after he kissed a 13-year-old girl in Laconia, N.H., in 1983, when he was 66. He died in 1999, never having faced a criminal charge." After his death the church paid out more than a half-million dollars in awards to Sullivan's victims, including three in Grand Rapids, Mich., and one in Amarillo, Texas, two dioceses that did not heed the warnings of the bishops in New Hampshire. The victims said they were abused when they were between 7 and 12 years old.
In April 1962, Fitzgerald wrote a five-page response to a query from the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office about "the tremendous problem presented by the priest who through lack of priestly self-discipline has become a problem to Mother Church." One of his recommendations was for "a more distinct teaching in the last years of the seminary of the heavy penalty involved in tampering with the innocence (or even non-innocence) of little ones."
Regarding priests who have "fallen into repeated sins ... and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization."
In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."
But by 1963, Fitzgerald's powerful hold on the direction of the order was weakening. According to a 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General, the appointment of a new archbishop, James Davis, began a new era of the relationship between the order, which was a "congregation of diocesan right," and the archdiocese. Davis and Fitzgerald apparently clashed over a number of issues. Davis was far more concerned than his predecessor about the business aspects of the Santa Fe facility and demanded greater accountability. He also demanded greater involvement of medical and psychological professionals, while "Fr. Gerald [Fitzgerald] distrusted lay programs, psychologists and psychiatrists," favoring a more spiritual approach, according to McNamara.
McNamara said Fitzgerald was eventually forced from leadership by a combination of factors, not least of which was a growing disagreement with the bishop and other members of the order over the direction of the Paracletes. After 1965, said McNamara, Fitzgerald "never again resided at Via Coeli Monastery, nor did he ever regain the power he had once had."
Nor did he get his island. In 1965 Fitzgerald had put a $5,000 deposit on an island in Barbados, near Carriacou, in the Caribbean that had a total purchase price of $50,000. But the new bishop apparently wanted nothing to do with owning an island, and Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, was forced to sell his long-sought means for isolating priest sex offenders.
When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Paraceltes referred NCR to historic accounts previously written about the order. (Bishops were warned of abusive priests.)
True bishops before the "Second" Vatican Council had been warned by Father Fitzgerald. They did not care. The seeds of corruption were planted long ago. They only managed to come to the forefront and receive liturgical expression and now even "papal" approbation in the decades thereafter.
On the other hand, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio indemnifies men such as Battista Ricca, Juan Barros and, of course, the disgraced enabler of clerical perversion and clerical thug who imposed diabolically-inspired “education” programs concerning the Sixth and Ninth Commandments upon the souls of innocent children and has constantly endorsed one perversity and moral aberration after another, Godfied “Cardinal” Danneels, who served as the conciliar "archbishop" of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, Godfried Danneels, from December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010.
Danneels was chosen by Bergoglio to help guide the 2015 “synod of the bishops” that was followed five months after its close by the release of Amoris, Laetitia, which made a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher and the other martyrs of England and Ireland who gave up their lives during the Protestant Revolution in England.Perhaps even most egregiously, Godfried Danneels, who said as early as 1994 that he could never refuse what purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination to those whom he knew to be divorced and civilly “remarried” without the benefit of the fig leaf represented by a conciliar decree of nullity, also used King Bouduoin of Belgium to sign a baby-killing law that had been passed by the Belgian Parliament:
Two Belgian politicians admit for the first time openly that Cardinal Godfried Danneels tried to convince King Baudouin to sign the law on abortion in 1990. Former politicians Philippe Moureau (PS, Parti Socialiste) and Mark Eyskens (CVP, Flemish Christian Democrats) said this in a documentary for the Flemish Broadcasting Corporation VTM on April 6, 2015 (http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/135916-25-jaar-abortuswet-boudewijn-onder-druk, at 2:05). According to VTM, cardinal Danneels did not want to comment.
In 1990, the 14 members of the Belgian Government - a coalition led by CVP-Prime Minister Wilfried Martens, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the world. King Baudouin, a devout Catholic, refused to sign this bill into law, and was temporarily considered fictitiously "incapacitated" so that the government could have the bill turned into law.
Danneels, rabid liberal and a known pedophile-bishop-protector, was picked by Pope Francis as one of his personal choices for the 2014 Family Synod. (http://www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/cardinal-danneels-family-expert-chosen.html. For a summary of Father Danneels’s wretched work, see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty.)
Thus it is that discipline is reserved in Jorge’s “merciful” agenda only for those who are said to be “traditionally-minded” or “conservative” or bent of “restorationism” when some other justifying cause can be used to provide cover for what are simply “papal” purges of a Stalinist sort. Those who coddle practitioners of two of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are champions of “mercy” who are as committed to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said directly is the “irreversible” path of the “purification” of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape.
Bergoglio’s plea for “forgiveness” in Santiago, Chile, is thus hypocritical and entirely self-serving as he has personally served as an enabler of perverted clergymen and is a notorious enabler of anyone and everyone who obstinately refuses to obey the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Part two of this commentary, which was meant to stand on its own but is being placed in the context of the false “pontiff’s” recent comments in Santiago Chile, will demonstrate once again that the enabling of perverted, abusive “bishops,” priests and presbyters is part of the very effeminate, lavender-oriented culture of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Indeed, its part of this false religious sect’s very diabolical constitution, if you will. So much so that one need only recall that it was none other than “Saint John Paul II” who protected and promoted one enabler of perversity after another, including the late Bernard “Cardinal” Law, a man whose regal lifestyle befitting that which he was not in actual point of fact, a Prince of the Catholic Church, was the very embodiment of what the “street ‘priest’” named Bergoglio wants his false clergy to be.
Today is the Feast of Chair of Saint Peter at Rome.
The readings for Matins in today's Divine Office contained a sermon on the Chair of Saint Peter at Rome that had been delievered by Pope Saint Leo the Great;
When the twelve holy Apostles had received from the Holy Ghost the power to speak all languages, they divided the whole world into districts, which they severally allotted to themselves as fields for their Gospel labours. Then was Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, sent to the capital city of the Roman Empire, that he might cause the light to shine thence throughout the whole body of the civilized nations. At that time what nation was there that had no representative in Rome? When Rome had learnt, what people that did not learn too?
In Rome were the dreams of an unbelieving philosophy to be destroyed, in Rome were the empty utterances of earthly wisdom to be confuted, in Rome was idolatry to be overcome, in Rome profanity to be put down, even in Rome, where the activity of superstition had gathered together from the whole earth every error which it could find. O most blessed Apostle Peter! this was the city to which thou didst not shrink to come. The Apostle Paul, thy comrade in glory, was yet occupied in founding the Churches, and thou didst enter alone into that forest of wild beasts roaring furiously; thou didst commit thyself to that stormy ocean, more boldly than when thou walkest upon the waters to come to Jesus.
Thou hadst already taught them of the circumcision who were converted; thou hadst founded the Church of Antioch, the first that bore the noble name of Christian; thou hadst published the law of the Gospel throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; and thou didst not fear for the hardness of thy work, nor turn back because of thine old age, but didst boldly set up the trophy of the cross of Christ upon those Roman walls, where the Providence of God had appointed the throne of thine honour, and the glorious -scene of thy passion. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, As found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Rome.)
It is indeed ironic that the Vatican itself in its conciliar captivity has returned to the state of superstition that characterized the City of Rome at the time Saint Peter established his Chair there in the seventh decade of the First Century A.D. It is even more ironic that the world, having thrown off the Social Reign of Christ the King, dreams anew that a "better" world can be secured by this or that naturalistic philosophy. It is no wonder that Men Continue to Love the Darkness Rather Than The Light of the Gentiles, Christ the King.
Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., provided us with a marvelous reflection on the history and signficance of today's great feast:
The Archangel Gabriel told the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Annunciation, that the Son Who was to be born of Her should be a King, and that of His Kingdom there should be no end. Hence, when the Magi were led from the East to the Crib of Jesus, they proclaimed in Jerusalem that they came to seek a King. But his new Empire needed a capital; and whereas the King, Who was to fix His throne in it, was, according to the eternal decrees, to re-ascend into Heaven, it was necessary that the visible character of His Royalty should be left here on earth, and this even to the end of the world. He that should be invested with this visible character of Christ our King would be the Vicar of Christ.
Our Lord Jesus Christ chose Simon for this sublime dignity of being His Vicar. He changed his name into one which signifies the Rock, that is “Peter;” and in giving him this new name, He tells us that the whole Church throughout the world is to rest upon this man as upon a Rock which nothing shall ever move (Matt. 16: 18). But this promise of Our Lord included another; namely, that as Peter was to close his earthly career by the cross, He would give him Successors in whom Peter and his authority should live to the end of time.
But again, there must be some mark or sign of this succession, to designate to the world who the Pontiff is on whom, to the end of the world, the Church is to be built. There are so many Bishops in the Church; in which one of them is Peter continued? This Prince of the Apostles founded and governed several Churches; but only one of these was watered with his blood, and that one was Rome; only one of these is enriched with his Tomb, and that one is Rome; the Bishop of Rome, therefore, is the Successor of Peter, and consequently the Vicar of Christ. It is of the Bishop of Rome alone that it is said: Upon thee will I build My Church; and again: To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (St. Matthew 16: 19); and again: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; do thou confirm thy brethren (St. Luke 22: 32); and again: Feed my lambs; feed my sheep. (St. John 21: 15, 17).
Protestantism saw the force of this argument, and therefore strove to throw doubts on St. Peter’s having lived and died in Rome. They who labored to establish doubts of this kind rightly hoped that, if they could gain their point, they would destroy the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and even the very notion of a Head of the Church. But History has refuted this puerile objection, and now all learned Protestants agree with Catholics in admitting a fact which is one of the most incontestable, even on the ground of human authority.
It was in order to nullify, by the authority of the Liturgy, this strange pretension of Protestants, that Pope Paul IV, in 1558, restored the ancient Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome, and fixed it on the 18th of January. For many centuries the Church had not solemnized the mystery of the Pontificate of the Prince of the Apostles on any distinct feast, but had made the single Feast of February 22nd serve for both the Chair at Antioch and the Chair at Rome. From that time forward, the 22nd of February has been kept for the Chair at Antioch, which was the first occupied by the Apostle...
When St. Peter entered Rome, he came to realize and explain the destinies of this Queen of Cities; he came to promise her an Empire even greater than the one she already possessed. This new Empire is not to be founded by the sword, as was the first. Rome has been hitherto the proud mistress of nations; henceforth she is to be the Mother of the world by Charity; and though all peaceful, yet her Empire shall last to the end of time. Let us listen to St. Leo the Great, describing to us in one of the finest of his Sermons, and in his own magnificent style, the humble yet all-eventful entrance of the Fisherman of Genesareth into the Capital of the Pagan world:
“The good and just and omnipotent God, Who never refused His mercy to the human race, and instructed all men in general in the knowledge of Himself by His super-abundant benefits, took pity, by a more hidden counsel and a deeper love, on the voluntary blindness of them that had gone astray, and on the wickedness which was growing in its proneness to evil; and sent therefore into the world His co-equal and co-eternal Word. The Word being made Flesh did so unite the Divine and human nature, as that the deep abasement of the one was the highest uplifting of the other. (The Liturgical Year.)
Our Lady knew that the bridal couple’s wedding feast in Cana was running out of wine before the bride and groom did. She beseeched her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to assist them. Unable to refuse her anything, Our Lord complied, thereby performing his first public miracle, which was a foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist, at her humble behest.
Similarly, Our Lord will not His dear Blessed Mother’s request for the restoration of a true pope o the Throne of Saint Peter sooner rather than later if he beseech her with humility and with confidence, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as His own consecrated slaves that her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
Let us continue to trust in Our Lady and her Fatima Message in these troubling times as we run whatever risks we must to avoid all contact with conciliarism and its fraudulent officials in order to cleave to Catholicism without any reservations or qualifications whatsoever.
Our Lady of 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 Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, pray for us.
Saint Prisca, pray for us.