WHILE WE CELEBRATED THE ADVENT, CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR

 posted by frenchie

Pope Francis recently condemned the "cruelty" of another israeli air strike, which led to the death of another 7 children from a single Palestinian family, in Gaza, according to a communique from the civil defense of the territory.

" Yesterday, Children were again targeted. It is simply plain cruelty, it has nothing to do with war. I wish to say it publicly because it wounds my heart"  The Pope declared while talking to members of the Curia of the Holy See.

The speaker for the Civilian defense of the Gaza Strip Mahmud Bassal denounced " a new massacre by the occupiers (Israel) who "martyred 10 members of the Khalla family, who was targeted by an aerial strike on the family's house in Jabalia, near the town of Gaza. All the victims are from the same family, including 7 children, the oldest one being 6 years old, adding that there was also 15 severely wounded."

The Israeli armed forces affirmed that the Gaza Civil Defense statement does not match its own information. Tsahal claims that it hit several terrorists who operated a military structure, that belonged to Hamas, and represented a threat to its own troops.

This Israeli statement matches almost all its statements when it is accused to have targeted, Hospitals, schools, Churches and refugee camps consisting at this time of flimsy tents.

Pope Francis who is 88 years old, has constantly called for Peace since the October 7th attack and the campaign of retaliation and terror that followed it. Recently the Pope has used harsher terms than in the past against the Israeli operation now in its 14th month.

While the western press has been for the most part silent or apologetic about the Israeli operation, Francis in November declared "the arrogance of the invaders is taking over the need for dialogue in Palestine. A position which is starkly different than the usual Vatican tradition of Neutrality.

At a time when the World Health Organization remains totally mute about the bombardment of the last Hospital left standing in Gaza, Francis appears to be a single voice in the desert. In excerpts of his soon to be published Book, the Pope argues for a minutious study to legally determine if the situation in Gaza constitute a genocide, an accusation strongly rejected by Israel.

OF POPE FRANCIS, NOTRE DAME OF PARIS AND THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT

 posted by Frenchie,

On December 15th 2024 at 10;35 Anonymous commented, in an exchange with Tim regarding the Neos: " I was disappointed to read that Pope Francis declined to attend the re-opening of the Notre Dame Cathedral, that iconic monument of French Catholicism in Paris. I do hope there was a representative from the Vatican present at the re-opening which I hope will contribute to the revitalization of the Church in France ( and indeed in all of Europe)".

This is a comment fairly representative of many Catholic's concerns, which reflect both a lack of knowledge about the present and past situation of the Catholic Church in France, as well as the reason for Pope Francis not attending that ceremony.

I have never been an apologist for Pope Francis, and his many declarations which are often contradicting and confusing. In fact I have often criticized his modernist approach which betrays his close ties to the Peronist movement in Argentina (which was responsible for the deliquescence of the country), and the Jesuit movement of Social Justice in South America. A movement totally not understood in the USA, but central to Francis world view. It is often seen as a precursor to the woke movement, in many regards it is socially more radical. Should you be interested you just need to consult the webpage of the Jesuits, to quickly comprehend their goals and motivations. Nothing has changed in their approach since they were expelled from several countries and severely reprimanded, by no less than 5 popes. They only bided their time, kept a low profile before being rehabilitated, yet fundamentally their core beliefs never changed.

That having been established, Francis had several good reasons not to be used as a prop by Macron (the french president). Further despite all his confusing stands on so many issues, Pope Francis has been very consistent about his views of the Masons and their relentless efforts to destroy the Catholic Universal Church. Bergoglio has always seen the Masons and their allies as an existential danger to the Church. He has made numerous clear warning about the danger that Masons represent, and he has encouraged the Bishops to take steps to counter their influence and denounce their nefarious agenda.

On  December 9th 1905, the french government of the III Republic signed a earth chattering Law regarding the separation of Church and State. The law titled: "Loi du 9 decembre 1905, concernant la separation des Eglises et de l'Etat" applied to all christian churches. It confiscated all Church properties, and gave the buildings to the municipalities. Regulated what could or could not be said inside, as well as what could be displayed in and out of the said buildings. It changed the status of priests as employees of the State, and listed penalties both civil and penal for infringing said law.  Therefore the Notre Dame of Paris Building is the property of the municipality of Paris. While the Cathedral is use for the worship of the Catholic faithful, under the care of the Archbishop of Paris, there is no guarantee that the state could not transform it into a Museum, a Mosque or a Protestant Temple. Actually the Mayor of Paris, Mrs Hidalgo, along her city council of Greens, Communists and GLBTists floated the idea to turn the Cathedral into a museum for several months after the fire. More recently a conservative member of the council, who is a muslim suggested charging an entrance fee to enter the Cathedral.

The 1905 law was the brainchild of two french politicians: Emile Combes 1835-1921 a radical socialist, and a free mason of the grand orient since 1869. Aristide Briand 1862-1932, socialist, cofounder of the Humanite (the communist party daily) Free Mason of the trait d'union orient de St Nazaire 1887, and finally of the Knights of the workers 1895. Aristide Briand was the President of the council of Ministers 6 times, a Nobel Prize Winner, and one of the main advocate for the league of Nation, and a commercial Europe. Basically a globalist before we knew what it meant.(A Masonic goal of world government led by an enlighten elite) It is in this context that Pope Francis has always refused to visit Paris. He previously visited Strasbourg for the  Youth movement week, and Marseille, which he titled the oldest city of the western Mediterranean. 

Meanwhile Macron, the President of the French Republic, also a Mason, who is being challenged at home consistently, and whose personal life is far from being stellar, is in dire need to look as presidential as possible. His policies have ruined the country, and he has tried without shame to appear as an international star. (which he has failed completely) . His plan for the re-opening of the Cathedral was so radical and in poor taste, that even the spineless Council of French Bishops opposed it. The plan was something along the lines of the opening of the Paris Olympics. A compromise was finally reached with a two part re-opening. One where the world leaders would be welcomed in a semi religious ceremony, the other the next day which would re-consecrate the Cathedral as a place of worship. This of course was not acceptable to the Pope. 

To answer Anonymous question of a Vatican official attending the ceremonies. The answer is yes, of course. The official being the Nuncio for France.

Meanwhile, the Pope chose to accept the invitation to visit Corsica by the Cardinal Bishop of Ajaccio, a Franciscan, and currently the youngest Cardinal of the Conclave. There was a moment of uncertainty because the authorization for a visit had to be accepted by the President of the French Republic. Of course Macron being Macron, made the Pope wait till the last minute, to give his approval. In the end fearing a backlash from the notoriously hot tempered Corsicans, he relented. In the end Francis became the 1st Pope to visit Corsica, another step on his policy of outreach to the Mediterranean communities, and gave Macron a lesson in diplomatic tit for tat.

As for the revitalization of the Churches of France and Europe, it has been on the way for several decades.  Almost 60 years after Vatican II and its catastrophic consequences for our Church, the revitalization has come mostly from the traditionalist movement, which has done a tremendous job of outreach to the young and the non believers. Here lies the conundrum, the modernist movement within the Church has not only taken the sacred out of the liturgy, it has also emptied the churches of its faithful. The irony is that the churches in France and Europe that have high attendance and devout following are the traditionalists. France which for decades lost thousands of priests to death and retirement while churning out barely 100 new priests a year, has seen a three fold increase in vocations. Yet these vocations are mostly from traditionalist communities. A similar movement also has happened among religious communities of Religious Sisters and Brothers. Hence the Vatican is faced with a dilemma. While promoting modernists to Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals, the base of the European priesthood is made of traditionalist priests, while the modernists of the 60s are now in their 80s or 90s. This probably explains some of the knee jerk reactions we see from time to time. Further the priests  brought in from Africa, South America and India to fill the gaps in Europe mostly come from far more conservative societal background, which compound the issue for the Vatican.

It is a perfect case of damned if you do, damned if you don't 

P.S: One of several reasons Francis has been relatively harsh vis a vis of the Neocatumenates, is that he does not like their Judeo Masonic structure and their Masonic tendencies to secrecies.

FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS

By Tim Rohr

As many now know, Pope Francis has authorized priestly blessings for couples in "irregular unions," including same-sex unions. Most of what is in the news is filtered one way or another so you are encouraged to read the source document as posted on the Vatican website.

HOW MUCH LOWER CAN WE SINK?

By Tim Rohr

Text of a talk given to the Latin Mass Society in London on November 24th, 2023. Mr. Sire’s audio of this talk can be heard here.

MY NOTE: The following is a copy of the text from the original article. However, I have segmented it into paragraphs for easier reading. Added links and emphases are mine. I share my final comment at the end.

+++++

When Joseph Shaw proposed this talk to me in early September, I suggested the title “Pope Francis: how much lower can we sink?”, but the fact is that since then we have been overtaken by events. 

Over the past eleven years we have all seen Pope Francis’ pontificate in a trajectory of accelerating descent into more and more overt betrayal of Catholic doctrine, but I must say I did not foresee the Gadarene rush we have seen just within the last three months. 

If we want to assess the very grave events that are happening around us, we need to try and understand the man we now have sitting on the throne of Peter. 

So before I comment on recent developments I would like to add some details to the picture of Pope Francis which I gave in my book The Dictator Pope, which was first published six years ago.

The Dictator Pope

To give you some background on this book, I should explain that I arrived to work in Rome in April 2013, less than a month after the election of Pope Francis, and I lived there for the next four years. I was working for the Order of Malta, an organisation which has close links to the Holy See, and I quickly began to hear the reports that were privately coming out of the Vatican. 

They showed a very different Francis from the genial, liberal figure, who was being presented by the world’s media. Insiders were saying that, as soon as the publicity cameras were off him, Francis became a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, given to foul language, and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which were known even to the Vatican chauffeurs. 

Over the next couple of years I continued to hear inside information, for example from the late Cardinal Pell about the internal politics involved in the two Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015. Let us bear in mind that in his first years Pope Francis had barely shown his hand and that people assumed he was the liberal reformer that the Church supposedly needed. 

SACKING ROME - FROM THE INSIDE

By Tim Rohr

I previously opined about why I believed it took so long to get the Vatican to act on the Apuron case, and why, when the Vatican did act, it had to create a legal apparatus to address clerical sex abuse by a bishop. 

The Vatican had to do this because the usual offenders were almost always priests and they were dealt with by their bishops. 

But who deals with an offending bishop? At the time, no one - which is probably why Apuron became infamous for whispering "no one can get me" to people he thought were his confidants. 

As we know, it was only due to pounding public pressure (more than a year of pickets, almost daily news stories, the millions of visits to this blog, and ultimately the enactment of a law which enabled victims to sue the archdiocese) which brought the Vatican to Guam in the person of Cardinal Raymond Burke in February 2017. 

A year later, March 2018, Pope Francis removed Apuron as Archbishop of Agana and prohibited him from physically returning to Guam. 

It can be assumed that before the Pope forcibly removed Apuron that he most likely asked or even begged Apuron to resign. 

Francis - at the advice of his legal counselors - most likely hoped Apuron would resign because by forcibly removing him, Francis (i.e. "the Vatican), in effect, would be acting in the capacity of an employer and thus opening the door for institutional liability to the Vatican.

Prior to the Apuron affair, popes removed problem bishops from their dioceses but it appears to have always been via a request to resign (and probably promises of a cushy Rome pad and other perks). 

In Apuron's case, we can assume that he refused to resign due to the support of the second most powerful person in the Vatican at the time, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, who was the Neocats' inside guy. 

The Neocats had a lot to lose if Apuron fell. So they propped him up and created conspiracy stories. (One such conspiracy was reportedly led by "Tim Rohr and Associates," and it's still "a thing.")

Given the pressure from Filoni and the legal realities of liability, the pope most likely did not want to forcibly remove Apuron. And, the fact that he did anyway, is a sort of silent witness to just how serious Apuron's crimes were, especially after the pope himself denied Apuron's later appeal. 

Nevertheless, removing Apuron opened the door for lawyers to paint the Vatican as an employer, and we've seen several lawsuits here in Guam naming The Holy See (the Vatican) as a Defendant. 

But probably because Guam is a distant and small diocese, and because Apuron's crimes were so heinous, there is little support to sue the Vatican. Most people are quite thankful that the pope stepped in.

However, the same is not true in Tyler, Texas where the pope has forcibly removed a bishop from his diocese and named no crime. And according to Catholic writer John Zmirak, the pope has really stepped in it this time.

During the clerical sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, the Holy See deftly escaped direct criminal liability in US courts — for potentially hundreds of billions — by arguing, amongst other things, that a pope doesn’t have the power to remove a bishop against his will.

This was necessary to demonstrate that bishops aren’t employees of the Vatican. Many years later and [Francis ] has just done precisely that by sacking the holy Bishop Strickland.

Read more at: Pope Francis May Have Just Accidentally Saved My Church … by Bankrupting it.

NOTE: Speaking of Filoni, I came across this JW post from 2017 about Filoni himself exposing the Vatican to liability due to his micromanaging of RMS - which was exposed after the Laity Forward Movement banged on the RMS front door. 

POPE: "CARDINAL BURKE IS MY ENEMY"

 

“Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I take away his apartment and his salary,” the pope had said at the Nov. 20 meeting, according to Bussola’s undisclosed Vatican source. 

FULL STORY

BISHOP STRICKLAND - AND GOING DOWN IN FLAMES ISN'T THE WAY

By Tim Rohr

BREAKING: Pope Francis personally removes America’s Bishop Joseph Strickland

Story at LIFESITE NEWS

Some key excerpts from the story:

In removing Bishop Strickland from the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, Pope Francis has canceled one of the most faithful, forthright and vocal bishops in the United States.

Bishop Strickland had been formally asked to resign by Pope Francis, in a request that came via the papal nuncio Cardinal Cristophe Pierre. Strickland declined this request, but now – upon the direct order of the Pope – is vacating his diocesan see.

a bishop’s ‘privation’ of office as being possible only in the face of guilt for ecclesiastical crimes (say, canonically illegal actions in regard to ecclesiastical property, contra cc. 1377 or 1389).”

Last year, Pope Francis removed Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, another outspoken advocate of Catholic teaching, from the Diocese of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, without explanation, reportedly due to his support for conscience objections to COVID jab mandates.

Bishop Strickland, 65, is well known among LifeSite readers for his unequivocal defense of Catholic teaching, teaching that is often cast in confusion by papal statements or messages.

Also, there is some worthwhile YouTube commentary here @thecatholicman. 

+++++

It may surprise some, but I am, for now, going to take a contrarian view. And here it is:

The pope could never have touched Bishop Strickland had Strickland confined his "faithful, forthright" Catholic teaching to his diocese, the sheep for which he is canonically the shepherd. 

Every bishop is a direct apostolic descendant, and so long as said bishop shepherds his own flock within the prescripts of revelation and magisterially defined dogma and doctrine, no one, not even a wayward pope, can harm him. 

Strickland's "achilles heel" is that he went beyond his flock, and, via social media (mostly Twitter), addressed the rest of the Catholic World - over which he had (and has) no apostolic authority. 

Strickland personally demonstrated his willingness to go "out of bounds" when he personally showed up at a protest of the L.A. Dodgers game in protest of "pride night," during which the so-called "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" were honored by the Dodgers, and whereat Strickland delivered an address  condemning the "Sisters." 

Strickland's appearance in LA (not his diocese) made him a hero to Catholic conservatives and otherwise orthodox faithful; however, Strickland, in "strick (land)" legal terms, was out of his jurisdiction. 

Strickland would have been completely within his jurisdiction if he had remained home in Tyler, Texas - of which he is the Ordinary - and delivered the same address. 

I like Strickland, and as a deeply conservative Catholic, I want guys like Strickland to prevail. But...they MUST know how to do it. 

And going down in flames isn't the way. Maybe more later. 

MEANWHILE, AFRICA RISES

By Tim Rohr

In a recent post (yesterday, actually) I re-reported what the NY Times was reporting about the conclusion of Pope Francis' weird Synod on Synodality.

In short, the conclusion was a massive DUD - at least for the progressives, given that said Synod, after a three-year build up, held their best hope ever for the (Catholic) Church to change its teaching on all things "sacred" to them: everything from homosexual relations to the ordination of women.

However...!

However, not reported by the Times is probably the REAL REASON Francis backed down from his much-trumpeted synodal agenda: simple math, or more specifically, demographic math.

It's no secret that the Catholic Faith, if not all of Christianity, has been waning in The West for a very long time. 

True, the decline of the Christian Faith in The West can be blamed on everything from modernity to the exposition of the the rot of Catholic clergy sex abuse. 

However, the real bottom line for The West is that we just aren't reproducing - not just converts, but babies, children - the next generation.

Western Christian churches are not so much empty because of scandals or watered-down doctrine, but because western clergy, including many Catholic clergy, since the 1960's, have embraced and have quietly allowed for - if not promoted -  artificial contraception.

Whether one is for or against contraception, the fact is: Nature doesn't care. 

Contraception means less children and a smaller future for whoever embraces it - while cultures which eschew it, continue to "be fruitful and multiply."

This is why some experts believe Europe will be mostly Muslim by 2050 (and the U.S. mostly Latino). 

Europe will not be Muslim by Jihad. There is no need. Christians, mostly white, European Christians, are simply contracepting themselves out of existence. 

But back to the Synod and its conclusion. 

Just a few days before said conclusion of the Synod, the Catholic News Agency posted:

Vatican statistics: Africa had biggest increase in Catholics, while numbers fell in Europe

This isn't news and it isn't new. This has been going on for decades. 

In fact, the most powerful person in the universal Catholic Church, probably much to Francis' consternation, is a Black Man, a Black African Man, a certain Cardinal Robert Sarah - who many thought would be the next pope after Benedict quit The Chair in 2013.

After Benedict quit, Sarah was sidelined, and Francis was elected under suspicious circumstances - which is why some, if not many, question the legitimacy of his papacy.

Upon his election - in almost Banana Republic style - Francis would be quick to get rid of his most powerful adversaries: the likes of Sarah (who, at the time was Prefect of the very powerful Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and (Cardinal Raymond) Burke (who, at the time was Prefect for the Apostolic Signatura - the "Supreme Court" of the Vatican) from the papal halls of power.

But, as the saying goes, "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature." And, in fact, it's not only "not nice to fool Mother Nature," it's impossible. As the great-late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said: 

"God will forgive, man may forgive, but Nature never forgives." 

In short, and by way of analogy, a habitual drunkard, may, at the end of his life, repent for his drunkenness. And while he may find forgiveness from God and his wife (if he still has one), he will not find forgiveness from Nature. 

It will kill him anyway.

For nearly 70 years, Europe, followed by the rest of The West, has been preaching, teaching, and providing for a chemically, surgically, and mechanically "spaded" population...and mostly limitless access to abortion in case any of that fails. 

Meanwhile, Africans, Muslims, (and in The West) Latin Americans, continue to do what Nature manufactured them to do: reproduce...which is what all of Nature seeks to do unless it is "chemically, surgically, or mechanically" impeded by "bright" human beings. 

Certainly there are the concerns relative to the "quality of life" of those children who make it through the womb. But Nature cares nothing for that. In the end, "quality of life" will find its own measure: there will be no quality of anything if there is not life to work with. 

In the End

In the end, at least for Francis and his Synod, the reality is that the progressives of The West are old and soon to be dead - leaving, via their own decree, a just-as-dead lack of progeny. 

Meanwhile, Africa will rise...and probably already has.

FRANCIS PICKS ON PARISH SECRETARIES

By Tim Rohr

According to an FB Page titled "Padre Pio Events Scotland," Pope Francis allegedly said the following this past Saturday during the homily at Mass at Casa Santa Marta:

"Think of a single mother who goes to the Church or the Parish, and tells the secretary: I WANT TO BAPTIZE MY SON." And the attendant says: No, you can't, because you're not married.. Let's keep in mind that this mother had the courage to continue with a pregnancy, and what is she facing? With a door closed! And so, if we continue this path and with this attitude, we are not doing the people, God's People right. Jesus created the seven sacraments and with this attitude we created an eighth: the sacrament of pastoral customs! WHO GOES TO THE CHURCH MUST FIND OPEN DOORS AND NOT TAXES OF FAITH". 

Francis goes on to say some other stuff, which I will copy later, but for now, let's address the scenario Francis presents at the beginning of his homily. 

First, if this pope is the master of anything, he is the master of creating "straw men," or, in this case, since the parish secretary is usually a woman, "straw women." 

Note: Rather than cite several examples of Francis' "expertise" at creating "strawmen," just google "Pope Francis straw men," or read more here. 

Second, there is NO Catholic Church law requiring that a parent be married as a prerequisite to the baptism of a child. I copy here directly from the relevant section of Canon Law: 

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

There is NOTHING here which requires the parent of the child to be married. NOTHING. (See here for other info.)

And as for the godparent(s):

Can. 872 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

Can. 873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

There is NOTHING in Church Law which requires either the parent or the godparent to be married. The focus of Church Law is entirely on ensuring that the child, once baptized, will be raised and supported in the Faith. 

So why does Francis pick on poor parish secretaries? 

The short answer is "because he can, so he does." The longer answer is because they are easy "whipping boys" (in this case, girls), and useful for Francis to cast himself as the "Pope of the peripheries" - a common Francis theme - a champion of the supposed outcast, even if the outcast is not actually cast out.

As is his usual, Francis does not spend time on backing up his attacks with any references (since there aren't any), but goes on to justify his stomping on anyone he feels like stomping on by casting himself as a Regular-Joe who eats hot dogs and wears tennis shoes - but who is nevertheless, a saint:

Pope Francis just said, "We need saints without veils, without underwear." We need jeans and sneaker saints. We need saints to go to the movies, listen to music and hang out with their friends. We need saints that put God first and stand out in University. We need saints who seek time to pray every day and know how to fall in love with purity and chastity, or who consecrate their chastity. We need modern day saints, 21st century saints with spirituality embedded in our time. We need saints committed to the poor and the necessary social change. We need saints who live in the world, sanctify themselves in the world and who are not afraid to live in the world. We need saints who drink Coke and eat hot dogs, who are internet users, who listen to iPod. We need saints who love the Eucharist and who are not ashamed to have a beer or eat pizza on the weekend with friends. We need saints who love cinema, theater, music, dance, sports. We need sociable, open, normal, friendly, joyful, fellow saints. We need saints who are in the world and know how to taste the pure and good things of the world, but without being worldly." That has to be us!!!

Those who approach the Church should find the doors open and not find people who want to control the faith. This is what the Pope said Saturday morning during Mass in the Casa Santa Marta. 

My Note: I have no issue with whatever Francis wants to do or say. He is the pope. He is answerable only to God - for Whom he is the Vicar. Meanwhile, though, I will defend parish secretaries - assuming of course they don't do what Francis accuses them of doing. 

As a PS, several months ago I made a couple of posts about the actions of a parish secretary in regards to the funeral of a relative (here and here). Not happy with what the parish secretary said, I made an appointment with the pastor and all was well. It may be, that CATHOLICS WHO CARE, may need to persevere every once in a while. The "secretary" isn't the pastor. 

PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM OFFERS HIMSELF IN TRADE TO HAMAS

By Tim Rohr

Catholic patriarch of Jerusalem offers to be exchanged for hostages held by Hamas

Link

I doubt Hamas will take him on his offer. Slaughtering children is much more useful for terrorists than holding or even killing a bishop.

But still. It's an awesome step for a Catholic prelate to offer himself up in a world of Catholic prelates who not only mostly run for cover, but party at synods while their Church collapses. 

Meanwhile, if there ever was a time for Francis to step up, it is now. 

Imagine a pope, this pope, Pope Francis, offering to do what this obscure bishop is offering to do. The benefits are fantastic.

First, should Francis lose his life in this "trade," he would certainly and immediately go to Heaven as a Martyr and would thereafter be immediately proclaimed a Saint.

Second, Francis is near the end of his earthly life anyway. 

Third, Nothing would turn "the world" more against Hamas, and terrorism generally, than the killing of a pope by terrorists.

Fourth, it is heavily rumored, that ISIS, if not Hamas, has already targeted Rome and the Pope.

Fifth, God will exact his vengeance - which I believe Hamas knows - and, which is why Hamas would never take such a deal. They would rather slaughter children on social media. 

THE MOST POPULAR MAN IN ARGENTINA COMMENTS ON ABORTION AND THE POPE

By Tim Rohr

Javier Milei is a former Argentinian football (soccer) star as well as a sometimes rockstar. He is also a current candidate for the presidency of Argentina. And he's not a fringe candidate. 

As the AP reports: 

"Milei... rocked Argentina’s political establishment when he received the most votes in August primaries that serve as a massive poll of voter preferences ahead of the October election."

He also recently rocked the world with an interview by Tucker Carlson. The full interview is worth a listen, but for our purposes, the following is what Milei had to say about abortion and Pope Francis.

+++++

TUCKER CARLSON: You oppose abortion. Why?

MILEI: I’ll say libertarian, "liberal," because in English the word "liberal" means something different. So, let me say, as a libertarian, we believe in the unrestricted respect for the lives of others, robed in a principal of non-aggression, and the defense of life, liberty, and property. And if we cleave to these ideas of liberty, one of the most fundamental aspect is to defend the right to life. 

Philosophically speaking I am in favor of the right to life. Beyond that, there is a scientific justification to be had. It’s the fact that life begins at conception. It’s at that very instant that a new being begins to evolve, with its own unique DNA. 

While it’s true that women have a right to their own bodies, the child in a woman’s womb is not her body. That child is not her body. That makes abortion a murder, enabled and aggravated by a power imbalance against a child that has no way to defend itself. 

And beyond that, there is a matter of mathematics. Life is a continuum with two quantum leaps: birth and death. Any interruption of the interim is murder. 

TUCKER CARLSON: So, I would think, you’re a Catholic, you said. You’re just defending, really, the Catholic life principle. The pope, the current pope is from Argentina, I would think he would support you, instead he has criticized you and you’ve called him a communist. Why the disconnect?

MILEI: Well, first because the Pope plays politics. He has a strong political influence. And he has shown a great affinity for dictators such as Castro and Maduro. He is on the side of these bloody dictatorships. 

TUCKER CARLSON: I’m sorry…Raul Castro is a murderer?

MILEI: Right, and Fidel Castro was also a murderer. 

TUCKER CARLSON: But the pope, you believe the pope has an affinity for Raul Castro?

MILEI: Yes, that’s right. He has an affinity for murderous communists. In fact, he won’t denounce them. He’s quite lenient to them. He’s also lenient toward the Venezuelan dictatorship. He’s lenient towards the entire Left even when they are true criminals. That’s a problem. 

But he also takes social justice as the central element of his vision. That’s difficult, because what is social justice, truly? It’s stealing the fruits of one person’s labor and giving it to someone else. 

So it means two things. 

First: it’s stealing. The problem with that is that one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not steal. To support social justice is to support stealing. So one problem is that it violates the Ten Commandments. 

The other problem is that it creates unequal treatment under the law. And I don’t think that’s fair for some people to be rewarded while others are punished, all through the power of the State that wields a monopoly on violence. 

My Comment: Wow. Just wow. Imagine if we had such guys like him in national, or even especially in local (Guam) politics. He has my vote if I could give it. Meanwhile, here in Guam, we wait...and wait. 

YES, I ACTUALLY THINK HE IS THE POPE

By Tim Rohr

For about a decade now, opposition to Pope Francis has been growing ever louder, and not just from "rigid" (the pope's favorite derogatory adjective) traditionalists, but from a growing number of so-called "moderates" (I'd call them "lukewarm"), and even liberal Catholics who fear the pope is going too far too fast.

Story on the pic 

For those who would like a crash course in what is going on, see Frenchie's recent post ON THE SYNOD ON SYNODALITY, and/or see "Cardinal Burke drops bombshell on Synod of ‘ideology’ and ‘schism’" (the article contains a link to a free pdf book titled “The Synodal Process is a Pandora’s Box."

I don't claim to be any sort of visionary, but I began saying the same ten years ago when this Argentine cardinal presented himself, after election as Supreme Pontiff, upon the loggia high above St. Peter's Square in 2013. 

Why I immediately thought there was trouble ahead is a post for another day, but to summarize, the "pope of mercy" has been anything but merciful, and the "pope of humility" has been anything but humble, and the pope has been...well, anything but pope. (In fact, he insists on only being a bishop - the bishop of Rome.)

True, we've had troublesome pontiffs before. In fact, we've had some really bad dudes, particularly in what came to be called the "Iron Age of the Papacy." But usually these guys were too busy killing each other or conniving on how to harbor ever more power and mistresses to have time to propagate profound doctrinal error - something the present pontiff appears to have both time and the will to do.

All of the foregoing is to preface the following. 

Naturally, there are alarmists, some of whom are ordained. Recently a certain U.S. priest, already a known "alarmist," posted a "gloves-off" YouTube attack upon the Francis Papacy, even going so far as to suggest - or even declare - that Francis ("Bergoglio" - his pre-pope last name - and as his detractors call him) is not the pope.

As I am semi-known as a lighting rod for controversial Catholic issues, I received several emails and messages linking to this latest alarmist attack. 

I am quite sure that the senders did not expect my reply - which I will copy below, however, most replied with "good point." Here is my reply to the attack on Francis:

Yes. I actually think he is the pope in the same way God gave Israel corrupt kings as punishment for their worshiping other gods. Catholics have been worshiping other gods for quite a while, e.g. majority of Catholics voting for Obama and Biden. So God said, “okay, here you go, here’s Francis.” Rather than harangue on the pope, priests like (name redacted) should be telling Catholics to pray, fast, and get off birth control.

I don't know about the rest of the Catholic world, but for the U.S. to abort 4,000 babies a day post-Roe, and for U.S. Catholics - which comprise the largest single voting bloc (25%) - to consistently support pro-abortion presidential candidates, well there's little to complain about when it comes to Francis. 

And to bring it home, again, for Guam, perhaps the most Catholic place in the world per capita: to be, for three decades, post-Roe, the easiest place in the nation to procure an abortion - and even now, post-Dobbs, the only place in the nation where "Roe continues to have vitality"... well, we hardly need some synod (or "sin-odd" as I like to spell it) to screw things up further. 

God doesn't condemn anyone to Hell. He just lets us have our way.

++++

Meanwhile, and soon, there is this:

ABORTION BILLS ON THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISCREDIT TIM ROHR

By Tim Rohr

This post at COMPLICIT CLERGY begins:

In late July 2018, a small group of Catholic laymen gathered to discuss the Theodore McCarrick sex scandal. A mix of emotions was in the room that day: sorrow, frustration, anger, disappointment and disgust. How was it that Theodore McCarrick had been allowed to abuse so many young men over multiple decades?

Read the full post here.

By the time this group met (I'll call it "the McCarrick Group"), we lay Catholics in Guam, beginning in 2013, had already dealt with a far larger and longer clergy sex abuse scandal, and the former Archbishop Apuron had already been found guilty and sentenced by the Vatican in March 2018. And, as I read through the post, it appeared that the McCarrick Group had taken a page right out of the Guam playbook. 

Thinking that the McCarrick group had studied the Apuron situation in Guam is no mere fanciful thinking. Though McCarrick was a much bigger player in the Catholic world than Apuron, there is a connection between the two cases. And had the McCarrick scandal not exploded in Pope Francis' face when it did (August 2018), Apuron, despite having been found guilty and removed from Guam, might have regained his office and brought vengeance upon those of us who stood up to him.

Francis himself made the connection between McCarrick and Apuron during an interview on a flight from Ireland to Rome in August 2018. The McCarrick scandal had just blown up and the blow-up was further blown up by a scathing 11-page letter by Archbishop Vigano, former papal nuncio to the U.S., which named Francis and several other bishops as being complicit in a McCarrick cover up. (Note: One of the bishops named by Vigano was Cardinal Edwin O'Brien who personally threatened me in October 2016.) 

Here is what Pope Francis said about Apuron during that interview:

The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who the Vatican announced in March had been found guilty of "certain of the accusations" against him, which included sexually abusing young men decades ago.

Noting that Apuron is appealing the verdict, the pope said that because it is a "very, very difficult case," he had decided to "take the appeal upon myself."

"I took it upon myself and I made a commission of canonists to help me," Francis explained, adding: "It is a complicated case on one hand, but also not difficult because the evidence is very clear."

"But I cannot prejudge," he said. "I'll wait for the information, and then I will judge."

For those who had dealt closely with the Apuron situation here in Guam, it wasn't hard to see what was really going on behind the pope's conflicting statements saying: on the one hand that Apuron's was "a very, very difficult case," and on the other hand - only a sentence or two later - saying that Apuron's case was "not difficult because the evidence is clear."

These two very contrary statements by the Pope on such a serious matter - and public statements at that - pointed directly to the pressure he was under from what we call here in JungleWatch, "The Kikos," i.e. the Neocatechumenal Way leadership, who at that time, had significant influence with Francis via their "Red Pope," Cardinal Fernando Filoni.

Filoni's direct involvement to protect the neocats in Guam, and Apuron specifically, is too long to go into here and has already been demonstrated many times on this blog. Just type "Filoni" in the search bar at the top of this blog if you want to fill yourself in. 

In short, though, Apuron's downfall in Guam was a severe blow to The Kiko's worldwide, and they knew it. Apuron, at the time, was the only bishop in the world who would ordain neocat presbyters upon command from The Kiko's. If Apuron fell, The Kiko empire - a very lucrative one - might soon follow. So upon Apuron's initial conviction and sentencing, The Kiko's, most likely via their "Red Pope," sprang into action to get Apuron's conviction overturned via an appeal.

Thus we see the strange convolution where Francis bypasses the normal course of appeals via the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and tells the reporters that he will "take the appeal upon myself." I mean, really? The pope is going to stop what he's doing for the rest of the Catholic world and focus on what to do with a single wayward bishop from an obscure diocese in the middle of Oceania?

Don't get me wrong. Guam is my chosen home and I want the best for it, but you see where I'm going? There had to be something else at play to cause the pope to take on Apuron's appeal himself when there was a canonical apparatus to otherwise handle it, and then for Francis to have it on his mind in the middle of the interview about McCarrick.

Per my experience, I knew exactly what was going on. The Kiko's had gotten to Francis via the Red Pope and Francis was being pressured to overturn Apuron's conviction - especially since Apuron maintained not only his innocence but also that he was the victim of a "real estate conspiracy" led by ME. 

According to the church they allege he (Rohr) had a personal interest in the plan and was supposed to be involved in the multi-million dollar sale as a real estate mediator. - "Church says there's a plot to topple the archbishop," KUAM NEWS, June 3, 2016

Thus, the first order of business was TO DISCREDIT TIM ROHR. And they did that, or attempted to do that, by getting to certain persons close to me who then colluded with certain other persons close to Apuron, persons who were invested in seeing to my demise...and who were nicely rewarded afterwards, though, for some, those "rewards" are beginning to unravel. But that's a story for another day. (Meanwhile, pay attention to Kandit.)

And this is where McCarrick came to the rescue. Read the full news report and ask yourself why would Apuron's case be brought up in the middle of much larger world-shattering news like Cardinal McCarrick's case?"

Apuron was an outback-nobody, and McCarrick, as the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington DC for many years, was a kingmaker. So why did reporters bring up Apuron in the middle of their interview with Francis about McCarrick?

The answer is found in these words from the interview: "The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron..." 

Apuron wasn't just the "last bishop to have been judged by such a process," he was also THE FIRST. I don't have time to link all the stories, but the main reason the Vatican hesitated in engaging Apuron was because it did not have a process for prosecuting bishops for sex abuse. It only knew what to do with priests. 

This was big news at the time and the Vatican literally did not know what to do with Apuron. And it (The Vatican) would have probably ignored the whole matter (given Apuron's obscurity) had it not been for the FIFTY FOUR SUNDAYS that lay Catholics obstinately marched in front of the Agana Cathedral each and every Sunday during the symbolic 9:30am Mass and the ever present media coverage.

In the end, the pope denied Apuron's appeal. And I am very sure it was because the McCarrick scandal brought a spotlight to the Vatican and Francis was caught in the glare. Once that happened, Francis really had no choice but to be tough on Apuron. The whole world was watching. Otherwise, I think Apuron would have been exonerated by the pope and restored as Archbishop of Agana. 

As it is, Apuron's sentence was quite light. He was not laicized as most priests are once found guilty of similar abuses. He remains a bishop though he cannot present himself as one. And more importantly, for the Kikos, he remains a priest, apparently in good standing, and most likely celebrates their "Eucharist" in their "small communities." 

Meanwhile, I didn't make a dime on my so-called "real estate conspiracy." 

However, we must remember that Apuron is not done. Aside from the archdiocesan cases, there are cases which name Apuron personally as a defendant. When those cases will be brought to trial, I don't know. But if and when they are, we can be sure that Apuron and his defenders will drag up the whole conspiracy story again. I'm looking forward to it. There are certain people I want to subpoena. 

See also: SAVING APURON...THE REST OF THE STORY...FOR NOW (and the comments)

SORRY POPE BENEDICT - I WISH YOU HAD DIED IN PETER'S CHAIR

By Tim Rohr

As expected, the mainstream side of conservative Catholic media is rushing to canonize the late Pope Benedict XVI. A recent article by the EWTN-owned National Catholic Register echoed most of what that media is saying in its article "Benedict's Prophetic Voice." 

One thing for sure is that Benedict was indeed a saintly man, and the Church's saint-making process (canonization) pretty much looks only at the saintly qualities of its subject and not necessarily at what he or she said or did while occupying a particular ecclesial office, not even the Chair of Peter. 

So, in that regard, Benedict will most probably follow his predecessor, John Paul II, into sainthood -  though probably not while Francis is pope. 

According to some sources that dare to speak up about this, Francis has done his best to downplay the death of his predecessor:

— Neither in Vatican City, nor in its extraterritorial dependencies, nor in its nunciatures, was official mourning declared. The bells did not ring for death, nor did the flags fly at half mast. This last detail was surprising. Any country has this measure of mourning when a relatively important person dies. For the Vatican and for the court of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI was not. Curiously, the Italian state and Great Britain ordered their flags to be flown at half mast on December 31. - Caminante Wanderer (translated)

It's quite possible, given his "real" humility, that Benedict wanted it this way. But we don't know. What we do know - or at least intelligently conjecture - is that Benedict was run out of town by a red-robed mafia who replaced him with Francis. We know this because certain members of said Mafia have bragged about how they did it. 

How much Francis had to do with this coup, we don't know. But what we do know is that Francis has spent almost his entire pontificate undoing much of what Benedict did, i.e. the Vatican Mafia's agenda - in particular Francis' functional abortion of Benedict's restoration of the right of every priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass. 

In my opinion (not that it matters), the blame - if I can call it that - for much of the current mess the Church is now in lies with Benedict. Whether or not he was told by God to step down is something we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that Benedict's abdication - and that is what it was - opened the door for what walked in...or seeped in.

Sorry Pope Benedict, but I personally wish you would have died in Peter's Chair, like everyone of your predecessors save one. 

WAS JESUS REALLY POOR?

By Tim Rohr

Per an AP news story, Pope Francis, in his Christmas Eve sermon, reminds us that: 

“Jesus was born poor, lived poor and died poor." 

The pope went on to attack the usual suspects: 

"...men and women...in their hunger for wealth and power;" "human greed" at the expense of "the weak and the vulnerable;" "a world ravenous for money, power and pleasure;" "war, poverty and injustice;" "so much consumerism;" and "the greedy rush to possess and consume."

The AP story, however, rather than slavishly reporting the words of a pope the Media once adored for his "humility" (or rather his socialist-liberal views), appears to take pop shots at their once papal hero. 

A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

 Posted by frenchie.

Following his implementation of his Synod of Synodality, the new Code of Canon law, reorganization of the bodies of government, inside the Vatican, Pope Francis accelerate his deconstruction of the Church under the guise of a needed modernization of the Church at all cost. 

It seems that the disastrous results of modernization of western societies and of the Vatican II do not suffice, and that the reflection that would ensue in any normal organization, has turned into a rush forward, as if the pontiff was afraid not to be able to finish his mission before he is recalled by his maker.

Francis latest Motu Proprio titled: "Assegnare Alcune Competenze"

is turning some of the normal competences of the Vatican to local bishops.

You can read Vatican News 

Here 

What is very troublesome is that under the guise of decentralization, the Pope is giving great new opportunities for Sects like the NCW here on Guam to grow unabatted.

Further there shall be a transfer of power from the Vatican to the Bishops in the decision to the reduction of the obligations of masses under Canon 1308.

Finally this will also impact the Mass intentions that a priest can or not celebrate.

Quite a disturbing issue here on Guam where this is a integral part of the fiber of our local Church.

Lets pray that the Chancery will clarify this specific point to assuage people's fears.

WHY HAS Mc CARRICK BEEN THROWN UNDER THE BUS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

(Posted by Frenchie)

It is often said, that being Catholic is a daily struggle. Struggle to be a good Catholic, specially in a modern and increasingly secular, if not openly hostile world. But also a struggle to keep the faith, while facing a constant negative flow about our leaders, and keeping the faith despite or because of the poor example these leaders send us, almost on a daily basis.

It goes without saying, that as a Church, we have had a cornucopia of events that could challenge the most devout faithful.

On Guam in particular, we have been put through a series of ups and downs, in regards to our own clergy, as well as with that colonizing new disease: the Neocatechumenate Way.

Last year, a Vatican tribunal presided by Cardinal Burke at the request of Cardinal Mueller and Pope Francis, investigated allegations against our own corrupt, and deeply flawed former Archbishop, and found him guilty.

He subsequently appealed and unlike Mc Carrick, his appeal was accepted.

What has followed is both unnerving and disgraceful.

Unnerving, because it has left the faithful of Guam, and many in the USA and throughout the world, unable to close that chapter and move forward

Disgraceful, because it revealed, well before the Mc Carrick scandal, the deep level of corruption and back stabbing politics of the worse kind, both in the Church in the USA, and at the Vatican.

Last summer, during his return trip from Dublin to Rome,  Pope Francis himself, faced by the ever developing Mc Carrick scandal, and the revelations (never contested by the Vatican directly) made by Archbishop Vigano (former Nuncio to DC, and former administrator of the Vatican) alluded without being prompted by the journalists, that he would from now on on be handling appeals by Bishops, as in the case of Apuron.

What Pope Francis did in one swift move, was to deny what Cardinal Mueller had wanted: a permanent tribunal run by the Congregation for the propagation of faith.

Instead Mueller was not confirmed in his role, and subsequently retired.

The whole affair, we found out later was the brainchild of one of the most controversial Cardinal in Rome: the now disgraced (another one) Cardinal Coccopalmerio. Also one of these Social Justice Warriors, that have doted the Church since Vatican II

WHAT ABOUT THE SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS?

(Posted by Frenchie)

Archbishop Mc Carrick, the disgraced prelate and champion of the SJW of the American Church, through whom the scandal exploded once more, is supposedly on trial in Rome.

While a lead curtain has fallen on any communication about this case, it appears even to the least informed Catholic that Pope Francis has a definite agenda regarding this issue.

This agenda could impact us on Guam in a negative way.

Junglewatch is aware (thanks to some correspondence with one of the main actors in Rome) that Apuron was found guilty by his judges of the sexual charges he was accused of. 

We also are knowledgeable of the huge effort expanded by the Neos and their allies inside the Vatican, for this to never be published. 

Facing a backlash, they had to settle for a typical Vatican gibberish statement, which could be argued in a more neutral way by the Neos.

We now know, they certainly used that window of opportunity, to the best they could;  to pursue their only possible course of action: namely the destruction of anything and anybody related to this story, as well as the propagation of fantasist and fantastic scenarios dreamed by the Putrid Pius himself, relayed and distributed first in all the communities worldwide, and finally disseminated to the wider Church, thanks to their network of news media, that are either owned or controlled by the NCW.

If you actually read some of the apologists of Apuron in Rome, their main argument is that he was the victim of a conspiracy to silence a conservative prelate, by some leftist cabal led by a Real estate tycoon and some Chinese gangsters.

The only thing missing here is the kitchen sink.

WHAT POPE FRANCIS ERRATIC POSITIONS, MEAN FOR GUAM AND FOR APURON

(Posted by Frenchie)

Pope Francis, since his election has been a leader characterized by his own contradictions. As soon as he sat on the throne of Peter, he became the darling of the Social Justice Warriors crowd. This is specially true in Western Europe's media. (and by default, in North America) The mostly secular, anti-Catholic at its core, very leftist, IVth Estate, as they are often described, could not write enough articles, publish enough documentaries to laud the character and the works of this Pontiff.

His surprising, and often shocking declarations in regard to gays, unmarried couples, the mostly muslim migration wave that overtook Europe, his alignment with some of the worst enemies of the Church, his critics of President Trump, or more recently his cautions about a supposed return of anti Semitism: all have been welcomed with kudos by the Press corp, who cannot find enough adjectives to sing his praises.

At the same time, we have had some push back coming from some more traditionalist Cardinals who have demanded answers, albeit without any tangible results; but also coming from a possibly more potent resistance: the demand by victims of sexual abuse by the clergy, for real answers. This has been compounded by the extremely frustrating revelations that some of the most powerful leaders of the Church have been knowingly and willfully covering up and ignoring the grave crimes perpetuated by some of Francis biggest supporters in the Church.

This is potentially explosive.

For us on Guam these events are very confusing, and very far from our daily concerns. Yet it could have a deep and lasting impact on how we continue to deal with the healing of our Church, following the catastrophic administration of Apuron for over 30 years, and the cover up of sexual abuse of countless victims on our island.

MAKING SENSE OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS, ON THE SEXUAL COVER UPS.

(posted by frenchie)

Ever since the revelations about the shenanigans of former Cardinal Mc Carrick at the beginning of this summer, which were closely followed by the release of the Pennsylvania's Attorney General grand jury findings on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in that state; as well as the open letter of 11 pages by Archbishop Vigano, which openly accused several key prelates of the USCCB, and the Vatican, of coverup, revealing that Pope Francis had taken several controversial decisions in full knowledge of the issues; the media circus has gone full speed ahead with daily revelations to complicate what should be a clear cut issue.

We have written here at length about the jockeying by different currents inside the Catholic Church itself, as well as the obvious spinning by certain secular media outlets, according to their political leanings.

In the past two weeks we have been bombarded by so many opinion pieces, and partial information, that I found it necessary to kind of clean up the process a little and explain what is happening at this time.