So, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV Takes Advice from David Alexrod; What Else is "New?"

Yesterday’s commentary, American Caesarism, discussed the threat of an Avignon Papacy made by United States Undersecretary of War Elbridge Colby, a Catholic, to the defender of all things lavender, Christophe Pierre, antipapal nuncio to the United States of America, because of Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s criticism of President Donald John Trump’s preemptive military “excursion” against Iran that began on Saturday, February 28, 2026, as well as the false “pontiff’s” ceaseless support for the nonexistent “right” of foreign nationals to transgress other nations’ boundaries in full violation of those nations’ thoroughly just laws regulating immigration for reasons of public health, safety, and national security.

Although Robert Francis Prevost (whose family history involves a paternal grandfather, a Sicilian immigrant named Giovanni Riggitano, who migrated to the United States of America in 1903 and then changed his name to John Riggitano Prevost in 1917, and his paternal grandmother, Suzanne Fontaine Prevost, who were involved in a scandal concerning the Italian immigrant’s having been married to another woman at the time they met—see A Century-Old Romance That Gave the Pope His Family Name, which could explain a whole lot about the current antipope’s embrace of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, March 16, 2016) is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, he is thought to be such by most people in the world, meaning that the arrogant Elbridge Colby was aping the likes of none other than Napoleon Bonaparte by attempting to what appears to be the papacy under the American thumb.

For his part, however, Robert Francis Prevost is showing himself to be worthy of his Sicilian ancestry by plotting with enemies of the Catholic Faith and of all moral truth about how to deal with the thuggish administration of Donald John Trump.

One of those enemies is named David Axelrod, the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite arrogant statis thug named Barack Hussein Obama, who went by the name of Barry Soetoro for a long time before adopting his name at birth after moving to Chicago in the 1980s and then learned the “Chicago Way” of political brutality, who met with Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV yesterday, Thursday in Easter Week, April 9, 2026. Prevost/Leo’s meeting with Axelrod took longer than expected and delayed the “pope’s” audience with Paralympians by thirty minutes.

A well-known Spanish sedevacantist website, Miles Christi, reported on this scandal

Leon XIV Riggitano-Prévost arrived half an hour late to his meeting with the Italian Olympic and Paralympic Winter Committees on April 9th ​​because he was meeting with David M. Axelrod Davidson, chief strategist to former US President Barack Obama. The meeting ran late.  

A fellow countryman of Riggitano-Prévost and son of liberal Jews Joseph Axelrod († 1979) and Myril Jessica Davidson († 2014), David Axelrod is a central architect behind the rise and government of Barack Obama, a presidency deeply at odds with Catholic and natural moral teaching.

As arch-strategist, Axelrod helped to gain widespread public acceptance for the positions of evil.  

These included support for abortion “rights” (e.g., abortion coverage structures in the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of the Mexico City Policy), the contraception mandate requiring employer coverage, and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals, seen in the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and its dismantling in United States v. Windsor.   

These policies also led to conflicts over religious freedom, particularly through the contraceptive mandate applied to religious employers. (MILES CHRISTI RESISTS: PRÉVOST MET WITH OBAMA'S STRATEGIST.)

Let me provide you with a little refresher course about David Axelrod as provided in a commentary of mine that appeared on this website on February 9, 2012, the Feast of Saint Apollonia:

David Axelrod, who holds the position of Senior Advisor to the President of the United States of America, gave what some gullible folks in cyberspace believed was a hint that that the administration of the man whose policies he helps to plan and implement, Barack Hussein Obama, might be willing to consider some kind of "compromise" with the conciliar "bishops" over the mandate issued recently that forced religiously run institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization and other "family" planning services. Axelrod said that it was necessary to "lower our voices," which is Alinsky-speak for this: "Stop complaining, you bitter clingers. Get over it. We're in power. You lose. Get over it."

Axelrod's phony "possible compromise" story was designed to make headlines in the news cycles to "pacify spirits" while it was left to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to explain that there would be no compromise at all, thereby playing "bad cop" to Axelrod's seeming "good cop:"

Q    Okay.  On the contraception issue, Speaker Boehner is promising to repeal the rule through legislation.  Senator McConnell has talked about the same.  I'm curious about your reaction to that.  And if that were to happen, is that the kind of measure that the President would veto?  Does he feel that strongly?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that's -- there's a lot of speculation embedded in that question, and I’m not going to go there.
 
I think on this issue, from the very beginning we have said that we will listen and work with individuals who have concerns as we work to implement the law.  As I said yesterday, on January 20th, when this decision was announced, Secretary Sebelius said:  “We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.” 
 
And I would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements, and eight states, as I’ve mentioned before, do not even have the exemption that this provision requires for churches and houses of worship.
 
We want to work with all these organizations to implement this policy in a way that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible.  But let’s be clear.  We are committed -- the President is committed -- to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs no matter where they work.
 
Q    So while you’re pledging to work with groups who have concerns, the Congress -- or at least the House right now is pledging to undo the rule.  What is your reaction to that part of it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Right now I think we are focused on the implementation of this rule and doing what we said back on January 20th when Secretary Sebelius announced it, which was work with those who have concerns to see if there’s a way to implement this policy to ensure that women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to preventive services, but to do it in a way that might allay some of the concerns that have been expressed. 
 
This President has -- as you know, in his past, he has worked with when he -- his first job in Chicago with churches and organizations that do a lot of good work.  He is very sensitive to concerns like these and he wants to find a way to implement this important rule because he is committed to making sure that women have access to this coverage -- he wants to find a way to implement it that can allay some of the concerns that have been expressed.  And that is why the transition period was announced at the same time that the rule was announced. (Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/8/12.) 

No compromise is possible here, only a period of "transition" to get the "bitter clingers" a chance to "adjust" to the new reality. That's all that thugs ever permit those they seek to intimidate and subject to their iron wills.

In the midst of this gamesmanship that is designed to control the news cycles, however, there was this little nugget from David Axelrod's "compromise is possible" story that was designed to present a false picture of "hope" where none ever existed:

"The real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women across this country that they're going to have the preventive care that they need." (White House Hints At Compromise On Contraceptive Order.) 

Here's s brief memo to David Axelrod: Pregnancy is not a disease to be "prevented." A child is a gift from God who is meant to be loved. A child is the natural fruit of human conjugal relations. Contraception a direct violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

Not that it would mean anything to you, Mr. Axelrod, but here is the sole reason that God gave a helpmate to Adam when after He had created him from the dust of this earth and brought forth Eve from his side:

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30.) 

That's pretty clear, Mr. Axelrod, and, like it or not, you are going to meet the true God of Divine Revelation at the moment of your own Particular Judgment. Those who seek to justify violation of His law and seek to impose their false beliefs upon what they think to be the institutions of His Holy Church will not receive a sentence to their liking at that terrible time.

The gift given by God to men and women to continue the species so as to populate the earth and to thus have new citizens of Heaven by means of their baptism is to be used solely by those who are in the married state and must be left open at all times to the fulfillment of its primary end: the procreation and education of children:

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. . . .

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.) 

The very newspaper that is generally supportive of your administration's policies of statism, The Washington Post, had editorial writers eighty-one years ago who were influenced by the vestigial influences of Catholicism then extant in the world. These writers denounced the madness that you are now seeking to impose upon what you believe to be the Catholic Church:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.)

You need to convert to the Catholic Faith before you die, Mr. Axelrod, as you are heaping red hot coals upon your head by promoting one grave evil after another under cover of the civil law. Too harsh, Mr. Axelrod. Consider these words of Pope Pius XI concerning those in public life who support the surgical dismemberment of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs:

67. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.) 

That's really all I have to write to you, Mr. Axelrod, noting full well that I am casting these pearls of Catholic truth before a swineherd of Modernity. Saint Paul the Apostle wrote that sensual men, that is, men who see only with the natural eyes of the body and not the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith, will never understand those who are willing to die in defense of the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (2 Cor. 2: 11-15) 

The commentary for the phrase "sensual man" found in the Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Version) speaks quite clearly about the fact that those who are steeped in naturalism consider it madness that anyone would insist that there is a truth revealed by God Himself that binds all men at all times in all circumstances without any exception whatsoever:

14 "The sensual man"... The sensual man is either he who is taken up with sensual pleasures, with carnal and worldly affections; or he who measureth divine mysteries by natural reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to hear and obey. For Christ hath promised to remain to the end of the world with his church, and to direct her in all things by the Spirit of truth. 

Barack Hussein Obama and David Axelrod are simply the latest in a long line of petty tyrants who lived off of the fat of the people's money as they have sought to persecute the Catholic Church. History is littered with the likes of not only Nero and Valerian and Trajan and Diocletian but of countless other officials of the Roman Empire and of pagan and barbaric tribe and, of course, of the synagogue, that sought to persecute the Catholic Church in her infancy. She has survived these assaults. She has survived the assaults of the Protestant Revolutionaries and of the anti-Incarnational revolutionaries of Modernity who were unleashed in the aftermath of the American and French Revolutions. She will even survive the usurpation of her buildings and offices in the past fifty years by the spiritual robber barons whose love of the errors of Modernity have made it more possible for the likes of you to rise up and persecute them for attempting to close the barn door after they had let the wild horses of theological error run free. It is impossible for them to deal effectively with committed tyrants such as Obama and his paid minions as it is their own acceptance of the errors of Modernity that have produced a situation where most Catholics see what they think is the Catholic Church through the eyes of the world rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith.

As has been noted on this site in recent articles, the Obama administration made a very calculated political move with the contraception insurance mandate as its officials know full well that they can count on the full-throated support of just enough Catholics to make withstand the outcries of the conciliar "bishops" and priests/presbyters, most of whom do not realize that it is the very thing that they thing is their protection, "religious liberty," that is responsible for making possible the likes of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus (see John Carroll Opened The Door To Today's Persecution, Antichrist's Anti-Religious Religious Zeal, Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously). It is no wonder that somewhere between forty-five and fifty-eight percent of Catholics support Obama's contraception insurance mandate when one considers the fact that somewhere between ninety to ninety-eight percent of Catholic married couples practice contraception, which leads, of course, to smaller families and thus greater dependency upon the government in cases of hardship, especially for the elderly whose grown children believe that it is the responsibility of the government, not themselves, to care for them needs as to do so would be "burdensome."

The fact that there is nearly universal acceptance of contraception despite the counterfeit church of conciliarism's stated opposition to it (while embracing the contraceptive mentality by means of so-called "natural family planning", see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way, Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change) because many "bishops" have been totally unconcerned about this immutable teaching and because many priests/presbyters attached to its structures have not directly violated this admonition given by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.) 

Untold numbers of priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures have led Catholics into the pit by telling them in and out of the confessional, including in high school and college level classrooms, to "follow their consciences." This false dictum has led them all into the pit where they have have encountered the ultimate fruits of the rot that is "religious liberty" in the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and David Axelrod, each of whose conversion we must pray for on a daily basis.

May ever Rosary we pray help to bring about the Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth for which we must pray with all of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state-of-the-world and of the Church Militant here on the face of this earth. (Memo To David Axelrod And Other Social Engineers.)

Yes, this is the sort of American “expert” to whom Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV turns for “sage” advice about how to deal with the man whom both despise, Donald John Trump.

Then again, of course, this is really nothing new within the conciliar structures as the late vaunted but mythical “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, chose to seek advice on foreign policy from the pro-abortion, pro-population control Machiavellian globalist named Henry Alfred Kissinger and the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio invited the likes of “zero population growth” Paul Ehrlich, who died on March 13, 2026, and pro-aborts such as Chelsea Clinton Mezzvinsky, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., John Holdren, and Andrew Mark Cuomo, among so many others to speak, either personally or virtually, at conferences sponsored by the conciliar Vatican.

Here is a review of Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger’s role in the anti=papacy of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Yes, this is what was proposed by the "great diplomat" who has been termed a "great thinker who thought deeply about moral issues." Henry Alfred Kissinger support evil. He supported the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and he supported the slaughter of the innocent preborn globally in the interests of both American national and global "security."

In spite of this history, however, Kissinger was named by the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as an adviser on foreign policy and political issues. Here is a news story about this scandal from 2006:

VATICAN CITY — Over the course of his long and controversial career, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has had many titles. Now he reportedly has one more — adviser to the Pope.

According to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Pope Benedict XVI has invited the 83-year-old former adviser to Richard Nixon to be a political consultant, and Kissinger has accepted.

Quoting an “authoritative” diplomatic source at the Holy See, the paper reported Nov. 4 that the Nobel laureate was asked at a recent private audience with the Holy Father to form part of a papal “advisory board” on foreign and political affairs.

As the Register went to press, Kissinger’s office was unable to confirm or deny the report. La Stampa stood by its story, although the Italian press is less rigorous in its authentication of stories as is the United States Press.

If true, there is speculation on which issues Kissinger would advise the Holy Father. Relations with Islam, Palestine and Israel, and Iraq — Kissinger has been critical of the conduct of the war but opposes a quick withdrawal — are likely to be high up on the agenda.

It has also been speculated that, in view of the Muslim hostility to Benedict’s recent Regensburg speech, Kissinger might provide advice on dealing with an increasingly fractious Islamic world.

Furthermore, like the Pope, Kissinger has analyzed the challenges of globalization and might provide advice in this area as well.

“The idea [of his appointment] sounds like a good one,” said veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister. “But so would it also be to consult other experts on geopolitics with different orientations.” (Kissinger To Become Political Adviser to Ratzinger.)

The news report cited above, which was written by Edmund Pentin for the National Catholic Register on November 22, 2006, also cited other pro-abortion world figures who had advised the conciliar Vatican on global issues:

Pope John Paul II was close friends with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, partly because both had a common Polish heritage (though this caused the Soviets to suspect the Vatican of “fixing” the election of Karol Wojtyla, which occurred during the Carter presidency).

Similarly to John Paul and Brzezinski, Benedict and Kissinger are close in age and were both born in Bavaria (a Jew, Kissinger and his family fled Nazi Germany before World War II).

In recent years, other figures invited to share their expertise with the Holy See have included Paul Wolfowitz, a former President Bush adviser and now president of the World Bank; Michel Camdessus, the former director of the International Monetary Fund; American economist Jeffrey Sachs and Hans Tietmeyer, former governor of Germany’s central bank.  (Kissinger To Become Political Adviser to Ratzinger.)

How could Henry Kissinger, who played a key role in the development of NSSM-200 and who worked to support “family planning” and baby-killing throughout his career, have been considered to offer "advice" to a putative reigning pontiff?

It was almost as though the truths of the Catholic Faith must be put aside in order to burnish the reputation of civil leaders who have no concern for--and whose policies actually work against--the Deposit of Faith Our Lord has entrusted to Holy Mother Church. Ah, there you have it! Conciliarism does the same kind of work.

The abject absurdity of having Henry Kissinger advise the man considered by most Catholics in the world to be the legitimate pontiff is just part and parcel of the absurdity of flushing the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on the State down the Orwellian memory hole. We should expect nothing less.

After all, Ratzinger/Benedict’s successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has him one better bu seeking out the advice of anti-population zealots such as Paul Ehrlich and Jeffrey Sachas to speak on matters of “public health” and “ethics”:

VATICAN CITY, January 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican has invited the undisputed father of the modern, pro-abortion population control movement to present a paper at an upcoming Vatican-run conference.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb is scheduled to speak in Vatican City during the February 27-March 1 conference that will discuss “how to save the natural world.” The Stanford biologist champions sex-selective abortion as well as mass forced sterilization as legitimate methods to curb population growth.

In his 1968 book, Ehrlich went so far as to defend forced abortion, writing: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Titled Biological Extinction, the February conference will address what Vatican organizers call an unsustainable “imbalance” between the world’s population and what the earth is capable of producing. The event is jointly sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

Organizers of the Vatican-run conference predict that if effective steps are not taken to reverse so-called man-made “global climate change,” then up to 40 percent of “all biodiversity on Earth” will be destroyed “by the end of this century,” including a “majority” of species of plants.

“[T]here is no possibility of improving our situation without the widespread adoption of social justice, both as a matter of morality and as a matter of survival,” the event brochure put out by the Vatican states.

With the invitation of Ehrlich to address the conference, how the Pontifical Academies understand “social justice” takes on a sinister aspect.

In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich forecasted “an utter breakdown in the capacity of the planet to support humanity” that would result in starvation for hundreds of millions, predictions that have proved to be false while his theories have been debunked. The biologist predicted in 1968 that half of Americans would die by 1990. India and China would simply die out. By the year 2000, England would also cease to exist. Ehrlic mentioned in his book sex-selection abortion as a potentially effective tool for conserving the world’s resources by reducing population, a position he continues to defend.

In a 2011 interview with Mara Hvistendahl, Ehrlich defended sex-selection abortion, stating that “it would be a good idea to let people have their choice so that they could have fewer children and could have what they wanted,” adding that a sex-selection abortion and possibly even infanticide might be a better fate for females than what awaited them in an overpopulated world.

“You can be aborted as a conceptus, you can be killed at birth, or you can be sold into slavery and die in a slum someplace,” he said. “It would be interesting to know how many females you’re keeping out of hideous situations [when they are not] killed or infanticided.”

In the same interview, Ehrlich also defended the principle behind mass forced sterilization, a concept mentioned in a 1977 book he co-authored titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, suggesting that mass sterilization working in tandem with sex-selection technology would be particularly effective for population control interests.

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, criticized the Vatican’s choice of Ehrlich as a suitable speaker.

“Ehrlich’s opinions on biological extinction rates are just as exaggerated as his failed predictions of a human population explosion. Why the Vatican should be giving a platform to this secular prophet of doom is beyond me,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“There are plenty of credible Catholic scientists around whose fact-based opinions should be highlighted by their Church. What's next? Inviting Raúl Castro to speak on human rights?” he added.  (Pro-Abortion Population Bomb Author to Speak at Vatican Conference on Biological Extinction.)

Steven Mosher, who was denied his doctorate by Stanford University because he had discovered Red China's forced abortion policy, is the best-informed Catholic expert on the genuine population research, and his comment about Raul Castro being invited to speak on "human rights" at the Vatican is more of a possibility than he may think or want to accept.

The conciliar sect does not believe that God will provide for the temporal needs of His rational creatures. In other words, the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in Providence of God. They are pagans, which is why all all of the consternation by "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that they represent the Catholic Church is really a case of near-sightedness worthy of Mister Magoo himself. The conciliar revolutionaries have surrendered entirely to the Judeo-Masonic One World Order that worked mightily behind the scenes for decades to bring it into existence, cooperatingly openly in recent decades with the likes of Henry Kissinger, Paul Ehrlich, Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, and even Willliam Jefferson Blythe Clinton himself. 

Speaking of the World Economic Forum's Klaus Schwab, the virulently anti-Catholic Dr. Joseph Mercola (see Dr. Mercola's alleged anti-Catholicism, partnership with 'psychic' worries supporters), whose work I have not cited since learning of psychica anti-Catholic ways, explained how Henry Kissinger played a key role in the development of this global leviathan that supported lockdowns, vaccine mandates, "family planning," baby-killing" and the great transhumanist global reset of 2030:

If Schwab is the most dangerous person alive today, his predecessors deserve honorable mentions. In an investigative report by journalist Johnny Vedmore, it’s revealed that Schwab wasn’t the mastermind behind WEF and The Great Reset.

That honor goes to his three mentors — John K. Galbraith, a Canadian-American economist, diplomat and public policy maker, Herman Kahn, who created concepts on nuclear deterrence that became official military policy, and Henry A. Kissinger, who recruited Schwab at a Harvard international seminar, which was funded by the U.S. CIA.

“If you have a decent knowledge of Klaus Schwab’s history, you will know that he attended Harvard in the 1960s where he would meet then-professor Henry A. Kissinger, a man with whom Schwab would form a lifelong friendship,” Vedmore explained.19

“My research indicates that the World Economic Forum is not a European creation. In reality, it is instead an operation which emanates from the public policy grandees of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixonian eras of American politics; all of whom had ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the associated “Round Table” Movement, with a supporting role played by the Central Intelligence Agency.

There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies.

In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever present threat of global thermonuclear war … their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s … they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and … they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.” (The Role Of Henry Kissinger In Spawning The World Economic Forum. Also see Dr, Robert Malone's COVID jabs were a CIA operation to depopulate the world.)

Mind you, Henry Alfred Kissinger was highly intelligent, and he had a great sense of self-deprecating humor.

Alas, intelligence and humor do nothing to save one's immortal soul, something that a lifelong Jewish pro-abortion globalist who popularized amorality was not concerned about in the slightest. He now has all eternity to suffer the consequences of his unbelief and the evils he committed in the advanced of a "new world order" that has no place at all for the wisdom of Pope Pius XI, who discussed the conditions for authentic world peace in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Henry Kissinger's prescriptions for “peace” were founded on making warfare upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, thus helping to predispose men to be at war with each other at a moment’s notice in the domestic cell that is the family, in their neighborhoods and their cities and in their country. (From Henry Alfred Kissinger Worked Against the Interests of the Prince of Peace Throughout His Entire Life. Also see Forty Years Of Emboldening, Appeasing And Enabling Killers, part one, for how Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI honored the Catholic pro-abort and pro-sodomite named Leon E. Panetta, upon his retirement of United States Secretary of Defense upon Panetta’s visit to the conciliar Vatican on January 16, 2013, the Feast of Pope Saint Marcellus I, and thanked him for helping to "protect the world" while consigning the preborn to death very readily.)

So, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV met with David Axelord.

What else is new?

I have gone on at length about this at an hour when I should be asleep (I had woken up nearly four hours ago and found news about the Miles Christi report in an email) because I want to exhort those who read this website not to fall into the trap of the false opposites as Prevost/Leo’s meeting with David Axelrod does not make Donald John Trump into a hero as no man who would threaten to “wipe out an entire civilization” and who enables the genocide of the innocent preborn by refusing to enforce the Comstock Law and thus permitting abortion pills to be mailed in violation thereof is anything other than as much a tool of the adversary as have been and continue to be the conciliar “popes.”

Today, Friday, April 10, 2025, is Friday in Easter Week.

Dom Prosper Gueranger commented on Easter Friday as follows in The Liturgical Year:

Eight days ago, we were standing near the cross, on which died the Man of Sorrows, (Isaiah 53:3) abandoned by His Father, and rejected, by a solemn judgment of the Synagogue, as a false Messias: and lo! this is the sixth time the sun has risen upon our earth since the voice of the Angel was heard proclaiming the Resurrection of this adorable Victim. The Church, His widowed spouse, then lay prostrate before the justice of the eternal God and Father who spared not even His own Son, (Romans 8:32) because He had taken upon Himself the likeness of sin; but now she is feasting in the sight of her Jesus’ triumph, for He bids her be exceedingly glad. But if within this glad Octave there be one day, rather than another, on which she should proclaim His triumph, it surely is the Friday; for it was on that day she saw Him filled with reproaches (Lamentations 3:30) and crucified.

Today, therefore, let us meditate upon our Savior’s Resurrection as being the zenith of His own dear glory, and as the chief argument whereon rests our faith in His Divinity. If Christ be not risen again, says the Apostle, your faith is vain; (1 Corinthians 15:17) but because He is risen again, our faith rests on the surest of foundations. Our Redeemer owed it to us, therefore, that our certainty with regard to His Resurrection should be perfect. In order to give this master-truth such evidence as would preclude all possibility of doubt, two things were needed: His Death was to be certified, and the proofs of His Resurrection were to be incontestable. Jesus fulfilled both these conditions, and with the most scrupulous completeness. Hence, His triumph over death is a fact so deeply impressed on our minds that even now, nineteen hundred years since it happened, we cannot celebrate our Easter without feeling a thrill of enthusiastic admiration akin to that which the guards at His tomb experienced when they found their Captive gone.

Yes, Jesus was truly dead. The afternoon of Friday was at its close, and Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took down the Body from the cross; they gave it, stiff and covered with blood as it was, to His afflicted Mother. Who could doubt of His death? The terrible agony of the previous night, when His human Nature shrank at the foresight of the cup He had to drink; the treachery of one and the infidelity of the rest of His Apostles, which broke His sacred Heart; the long hours of insult and cruelty; the barbarous scourging, which Pilate devised as a means for softening brutal Jews to pity; the cross, to which He was fastened with nails that opened four founts of Blood; the anguish of His agonizing Heart, when He beheld His Mother at the foot of the cross; the burning thirst which choked the throbs of life still left; the spear that pierced His side through to the very Heart, and drew from it a stream of Blood and water:—thee are proofs enough that death had made God his victim. Dear Jesus! they are now but so many motives for us to love Thy beautiful glory. How could we, for whom Thou didst suffer death, be unmindful of the sufferings that caused it? How could we forget them now, for they enhance the splendor of Thy Resurrection?

He, therefore, gained a true victory over death: He appeared on the earth as a conqueror of a very different kind from any that had hitherto been known. Here was a fact which it was impossible to deny: a Man, whose whole life had been spent in obscurity, was put to death by the most-cruel tortures, and amidst the insulting shouts of His unworthy fellow citizens. Pilate sent to the Emperor Tiberius an official account of the judgment and death of One, whom he represented as calling Himself the King of the Jews. What would men think after all this, of them that professed themselves followers of this Jesus? The philosophers, the wits, the slaves of the world and pleasure, would point the finger of scorn at them and say: “Lo! these are they that adore a God who died on a cross!” But if this God rose again from the grave, is not His death an evidence of His Divinity? He died, and He rose again; He foretold His death and His Resurrection; who but a God could thus hold in His power “the keys of death and hell?” (Apocalypse 1:18)

Yet so it was: Jesus was put to death, and rose again from the grave. How do we know it? By the testimony of His Apostles; they saw Him after He had risen, they touched Him, they conversed with Him for forty days. But are these Apostles to be credited? Surely they are, for never was there a testimony that bore such internal evidence of truth. What interest could these men have in publishing the glory of their Master, who had been put to a death that brought ignominy both upon Himself and them, if they knew that He never rose again, as He had promised He would? The chief priests bribed the soldiers to say that while they were asleep, His disciples, poor timid men as they were, came during the night and stole away the Body. They thought, by this, to throw discredit upon the testimony of the Apostles. But what folly! We may justly address to them the sarcastic words of St. Augustine: “What! do you adduce sleeping witnesses? Surely, you yourselves must have been asleep, to have had recourse to such a scheme as this!” (Enarrat. in Psalm. lxiii) But as for the Apostles, what motive could they have for preaching the Resurrection if it never took place? “In such a supposition,” says St. John Chrysostom, “they would have looked upon their Master as a false prophet and an impostor: and is it likely they would go and defend Him against the accusations of a whole nation? Would they expose themselves to all manner of suffering for One who had so cruelly deceived them? What was there to encourage them in such an undertaking? The rewards He had promised them? But if He had not fulfilled His promise of rising again, how could they trust to the rest of His promises?” (In Matt. Homil. lxxxix) No: we must either deny every principle of nature and common sense, or we must acknowledge the testimony of the Apostles to be a true one.

Moreover, this testimony was the most disinterested that could be, for it brought nothing but persecution and death upon them that gave it. It was a proof that God was with such men as these who, but a few hours before, had been timid cowards, and now were fearless of every danger, asserting their conviction with an intrepidity which human courage could never inspire, and this too in cities which were very centers of civilization and learning. The world was made to listen to their testimony, which they confirmed by miracles; and thousands of every tongue and nation were converted into believers of Jesus’ Resurrection. When, at length, these Apostles laid down their lives for the doctrines they had preached, they left the world in possession of the truth of the Resurrection; and the seed they had down in lands where even the Roman Empire had not extended its conquests, produced a quick and world-wide harvest. All this gave to the astounding fact, which they proclaimed, a guarantee and a certainty beyond suspicion. It was impossible to refuse such evidence without going against every principle of reason. Yes, O Jesus! Thy Resurrection is as certain as Thy death. Thy Apostles could never have preached, they could never have converted the world, as they did, unless they had had truth on their side.

But the Apostles are no longer here to give their testimony: the equally solemn testimony of the Church has succeeded to theirs, and proclaims, with a like authority, that Jesus is no longer among the dead. By the Church we here mean those hundreds of millions of Christians who have proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus by keeping, for now nineteen hundred years, the Feast of the Pasch. And can there be room for doubt here? Who is there that would not assent to what has been thus attested every year since the Apostles first announced it? Among these countless proclaimers of our Lord’s Resurrection, there have been thousands of learned men, the bent of whose mind led them to soft every truth and who, before embracing the faith, had examined its tenets in the light of reason; there have been millions of others, whose acceptance of a dogma like this, which puts a restraint on the passions, was the result of the conviction that the only way to eternal happiness is in the due performance of the duties this dogma imposes; and finally, there have been millions of others who, by their virtues, were the support and ornament of the world, but who owed all their virtues to their faith in the death and Resurrection of Jesus.

Thus, the testimony of the Church, that is of the wisest and best portion of mankind, is admirably united with that of the Apostles, whom our Lord Himself appointed as His first witnesses. The two testimonies are one. The Apostles proclaimed what they had seen; we proclaim, and shall proclaim to the end, what the Apostles preached. The Apostles made themselves sure of the Resurrection, which they had to preach to the world; we make ourselves sure of the veracity of their word. They believed after experience; so also do we. They had the happiness of seeing, hearing, and touching the Word of Life; (John 1:1) we see and hear the Church, which they established throughout the world, although it was but in its infancy, when they were taken from the earth. The Church is that tree of which Jesus spoke in the parable, saying, that though exceeding small in its first commencement, it would afterwards spread out its branches far and wide. (Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:31-32) St. Augustine in one of his Easter sermons has these fine words: “As yet, we see not Christ; but we see the Church: therefore let us believe in Christ. The Apostles, on the contrary, saw Christ; but they saw not the Church except by faith. They saw one thing, and they believed another: so, likewise, let us do. Let us believe in the Christ, whom, as yet, we see not; and by keeping ourselves with the Church, which we see, we shall come at length to see Him, whom as yet we cannot see.” (Sermo, ccxxxviii. In diebus Paschalibus, x)

Having thus, O Jesus! the certainty of Thy glorious Resurrection, as well as that of Thy death on the cross, we confess Thee to be the great God, the Creator and sovereign Lord of all things. Thy death humbled, Thy Resurrection exalted Thee: but Thou Thyself wast the author of both the humiliation and the exaltation. Thou saidst to Thine enemies: No man taketh My life away from Me; but I lay it down of Myself; and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. (John 10:18) None but a God could have such power, none but a God could have exercised it as Thou hast done: we, therefore, are confessing Thy Divinity when we confess Thy Resurrection. We beseech Thee, make worthy of Thine acceptance this humble and delighted homage of our faith! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Easter Friday.)

Holy Mother Church can never deceive us, nor can she ever be headed by men who make light of or, worse yet, countenance Mortal Sins in the name of “accompaniment” and a false belief that it is neither possible nor desirable even to attempt to obey the moral law perfectly, and it is unthinkable that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would seek to support sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and appoint like-minded men to his hierarchy or to treat pro-aborts in public life with honor and respect, no less to seek out their “worthless” advice on political matters.

It is also not possible for a true pope to offer praise to the idols of pagan religion and to serve as an instrument of a new world order that mocks and excludes the Social Reign of Christ the King.

How ironic it is that the Abbot of Solesmes wrote about the triumph of Catholic Rome over the gods of Olympus when commenting on today’s Gospel passage from the Gospel of Saint Matthew:

St. Matthew’s description of the Resurrection is shorter than those given by the other Evangelists; his few brief words on Jesus’ appearing to the Apostles in Galilee, are the subject of today’s Gospel. It was in Galilee that our Lord vouchsafed to show Himself not only to the Apostles, but moreover to several other persons. The Evangelist tells us how some of those that were thus favored, readily believed; and how others doubted, before yielding the assent of their faith. He then relates the words wherewith Jesus gave His Apostles the mission to preach the Gospel to all nations; and since He is to die no more, He promises to be with them forever, even to the end of the world. But the Apostles are not to live to the end of the world: how, then, will He fulfill His promise? The Apostles, as we said before, are perpetuated by the Church; the two testimonies—of the Apostles and of the Church—are inseparably linked together; and our Lord Jesus Christ preserves this united testimony from error or interruption. The liturgy of today brings before us a proof of its irresistible power. Peter, Paul, and John preached Jesus’ Resurrection, and established the Christian faith in Rome; five centuries after, the Church, which continued their work, received from an Emperor the gift of the temple, which had once been consecrated to all the false gods, but which St. Peter’s successor dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God, and to that legion of witnesses of the Resurrection, whom we call Martyrs. At the sight of this magnificent edifice, which for three hundred years had been deserted by the pagans, but now is reconciled by the Church, and holds within its walls the Christian people, our neophytes could not refrain from exclaiming: “Oh! truly is Christ risen, who, after being put to death on the cross, thus triumphs over the Cæsars, and over the gods of Olympus!” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Easter Friday.)

Allelulia! Christ is Risen!

This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad.

May the Glorious Mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary we pray during these days of Easter joy help us to keep focused on the possession of Heaven while we attempt, no matter how feebly, to plant a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus of all things in Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us. 

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

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