“Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord's vineyard.”
—Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical
Christianae Reipublicae (1766)


Ongoing Amoris Laetitia Fallout: CHAOS WATCH (click)


It’s getting serious...


Amoris Laetitia and the Coming Schism:
Retrospect and Prospect

Shortly before the Synod on the Family of 2014 — the first of the two mini-councils, whose final result was the toxic exhortation
Amoris Laetitia — we put the question before our readers: How long until schism?

After this initial post, we followed up now and again to report on various happenings that indicated that indeed a serious rupture within the Vatican II Sect was beginning to take shape:

On April 8, 2016, the very day the Vatican released Francis’ post-synodal exhortation that has effectively permitted public sinners to approach the Novus Ordo sacraments without requiring conversion first, the reputable German Vaticanist Andreas Englisch warned that a schism with Benedict XVI as Antipope, although he believed it to be unlikely, could not be ruled out:

Earlier in 2014, and even as early as December of 2013, we had already detected the beginnings of a schism in a phenomenon we decided to label “Resignationism”, a position taken by a number of Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists who believe that Benedict XVI’s resignation on February 11, 2013, was made under duress and was therefore, per Novus Ordo Church law, invalid. In other words, so-called “Resignationists” believe that Benedict XVI is still the validly reigning Pope, not Francis:

In conjunction with the Resignationist thesis, and adding another twist to the whole thing, claims then appeared that in any case it was “Cardinal” Angelo Scola, the “Archbishop” of Milan, who was elected “Pope” in the 2013 conclave, before Jorge Bergoglio:

While many may have thought at the time we published these posts that the possibility of a schism was an absurd and silly thought, things are looking quite a bit more serious today. Since the publication of Francis’ lengthy and verbose post-synodal document Amoris Laetitia, great turmoil has befallen the Novus Ordo world, something we’ve been chronicling at our special Chaos Watch page here. Our own commentary on the document and our analysis of various reactions to it can be found in our special-edition podcast: TRADCAST 013.

Against all this background, Inside the Vatican has now published in its entirety an English translation of an interview with the 89-year-old conservative German Novus Ordo philosopher Robert Spaemann, a personal friend of Benedict XVI’s, whose words certainly add some real fuel to the fire:

Every priest who holds to the sacramental order hitherto in force may undergo forms of bullying from their faithful and be put under pressure by their bishop. Rome can now impose the directive that from now on only “merciful” bishops will be appointed, bishops who are willing to soften the existing order.

Chaos has been erected as a principle with the stroke of a pen.

The Pope should have known that with such a step he splits the Church and leads her toward a schism.

This schism would not reside at the periphery, but in the very heart of the Church. God forbid.

One thing, however, seems certain: what seemed to be the aspiration of this pontificate — that the Church would transcend her “self-referentialness” in order to go out to meet persons with an open heart — with this papal document has been destroyed for an unforeseeable length of time.

One must now expect a secularizing boost and a further decline in the number of priests in large parts of the world. One can easily verify that, for some time, the bishops and dioceses with a clear attitude regarding faith and morals have the highest number of priestly vocations. It must be borne in mind here what St. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians: “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?” (1 Cor 14: 8).

(Robert Spaemann, in Robert Moynihan, “Letter #37, 2016: The Danger of Schism”, Inside the Vatican, Apr. 28, 2016; German original here; alternative translation here.)

You know things are serious when reputable people like Englisch, Spaemann, and Robert Moynihan, editor-in-chief of 
Inside the Vatican, start talking about schism. These are people who have no interest in making fools out of themselves or in needlessly putting their credibility on the line.

Another journalist who has contributed an interesting revelation to the current discussion is the Italian columnist Giuseppe Reguzzoni. On Maurizio Blondet’s blog Blondet & Friends, Reguzzoni writes:

A distinguished voice in the Roman Curia associated with one of today’s most important Catholic periodicals did not hide the anger of Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: The text of Amoris Laetitia that was put before him [to review] was much more innocuous than the one that was actually published.

(Giuseppe Reguzzoni, “Nella sua Chiesa, Kasper impone il Terrore giacobino. Per ‘misericordia’”, Blondet & Friends, Apr. 29, 2016; our translation.)

To those who object that we sedevacantists are trying to “talk a schism into existence”, so to speak, because we think this will help our cause, we would like to clarify that it is not so: We do not — or at least not necessarily — think that a schism inside the Vatican II Sect would be a good thing, and here’s why: Although a Novus Ordo schism would be a positive occurrence insofar as it would make plainly visible to all that the supposed “unity” in the Vatican II Church is illusory and thus get a lot of people to re-evaluate if they should perhaps look into Sedevacantism after all, there would also be a very grave danger that could allow people to continue to be blinded for decades to come: Those who, in the event of a schism in which Benedict XVI plays Francis’ “conservative” counterpart, flock to the “Pope Emeritus”, would be under the serious but emotionally satisfying illusion of having escaped the Modernist deception, which they would see only in Francis’ sect, whereas the truth is, of course, that it began long before Francis, namely, in 1958 with the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as the first false pope (“John XXIII”)

Thus a Ratzinger-vs.-Bergoglio schism could actually prevent a number of conversions to Sedevacantism because the Ratzinger adherents would with great satisfaction believe themselves to have eluded the false Modernist Church, when the truth is that they would only have adjusted rooming arrangements within the the same deadly anti-Catholic sect. The Ratzinger sect and the Bergoglio sect would be but two wings of the same bird.


At this point it could be a good idea to revisit something that can perhaps shed more light on the truly bizarre events we have witnessed since Benedict XVI’s resignation in February 2013: During a secret 5-day trip to Peking, China, in mid-November 2011, “Cardinal” Paolo Romeo, “Archbishop” of Palermo (see photo on left), met with Italian businessmen and local church officials and announced to them with great assurance that Benedict XVI would be dead within 12 months. The listeners were so aghast at the confidence with which Romeo made the prediction that they understood him to be hinting at an assassination plot against the “Pope”.

This startling news was reported in a two-page, highly-confidential internal Vatican document allegedly written by “Cardinal” Dario Castrillon Hoyos to brief Benedict and perhaps also other high-ranking Vatican officials on Romeo’s assertions made in Peking. The report was leaked to the left-leaning Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, which published a front-page article entitled, Complotto Contro Il Papa: Entro 12 Mesi Morirà (“Plot against the Pope: Within 12 Months He will Die”) on February 10, 2012 — exactly 1 year and 1 day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation. The online versions of the article can still be accessed:

Dated December 30, 2011, the classified paper was written in German, Benedict’s native language, allegedly to ensure that as few people as possible would be able to read it in case it got into the wrong hands. Il Fatto released only one page of the document, which we have translated into English. You can download a PDF file of the translation with the original appended, here:

When the Vatican press office was asked to comment on the matter, the spokesman, “Fr.” Federico Lombardi confirmed the authenticity of the document but, not surprisingly, downplayed the whole matter as “nonsense not to be taken seriously”, on which grounds he then refused to give any further comment.

According to the leaked paper, “Cardinal” Romeo also predicted the election of Angelo Scola as Benedict XVI’s successor. Despite the fact that this didn’t happen, one ought not to dismiss it lightly, especially inasmuch as Scola is rumored to have indeed been elected at the conclave that followed but before Bergoglio, as mentioned earlier. Besides, the document relates the following: “Romeo prophesied just as self-confidently that even now it had already been secretly determined that in any event the successor to Benedict XVI would be a candidate with Italian roots.” In other words, even if Scola would not be elected, it would definitely be someone “with Italian roots.” Notice that the report does not say “an Italian” but someone with “Italian roots” — someone like… Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

Born in a typical Italian immigrant family, where the Piedmontese dialect is still spoken and where he considers it a duty to improve himself, Jorge Mario has a very special relationship with his grandmother Rosa.

(Elisabetta Piqué, Pope Francis: Life and Revolution: A Biography of Jorge Bergoglio [Chicago, IL: Loyola Press], p. 39; underlining added.)

“Pope” Francis, although himself born in Argentina, has Italian roots. In 1927, his grandparents moved from Italy to Argentina, directly to Buenos Aires (see Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope [New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.], pp. 4-5). His last name — Bergoglio — is “an Italian surname” (Piqué, p. 54).

Thus, no matter what one may think of the other predictions allegedly made by “Cardinal” Romeo, he definitely hit a home run on this point. Not an Italian but someone with “Italian roots” indeed became the de facto successor to Benedict XVI. When Romeo himself was asked about the allegations made against him in the explosive paper, he denied having said that Benedict would only live for another year, and claimed that what the newspaper had published was incoherent and all made up. 

But, as Il Fatto Quotidiano speculated after Benedict announced his resignation on Feb. 11, 2013, perhaps Romeo did indeed predict the end of Benedict’s “pontificate” but was speaking figuratively, having instead his resignation in mind rather than an assassination attempt, and was misunderstood by his audience. This too cannot be ruled out, especially considering that Italian journalist Antonio Socci had already gone on the record on Sep. 25, 2011, to predict that it was conceivable that Benedict XVI would resign. 

The following links corroborate our summary:


Vatican insider and “papal” biographer: Andreas Englisch

Adding to the bizarreness of it all is the fact that the aforementioned German Vaticanist, Andreas Englisch,
also predicted the resignation of Benedict XVI, in an interview given on April 16, 2012, the day Benedict celebrated his 85th birthday. True, Englisch like Socci based his prediction on the claim that during the waning days of the John Paul II “pontificate”, the then-“Cardinal” Ratzinger had verbalized his conviction that a Pope who is as ill as John Paul II then was, should resign, and it is for this reason that he (Englisch) thought Benedict would eventually throw in the towel. However, given that at the time of the Englisch interview there was no serious indication that Benedict XVI was suffering from any gravely distressing physical limitations, and given that two months prior to the interview, “Cardinal” Romeo’s alleged prediction about Benedict’s impending death had been exposed by Il Fatto Quotidiano, one may wonder whether Englisch’s daring and potentially embarrassing prognostication about “Pope” Ratzinger’s eventual resignation might not have been based on some other inside information as well. 

Englisch’s concluding words lend further credence to the legitimacy of such speculation:

…During the Renaissance and also the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had extremely bad experience with Antipopes, that is, with several Popes [reigning] at the same time, even though paragraph 22 of Canon Law expressly provides for a papal resignation. The problem that presents itself is simple: Let us assume a Pope resigns. Then a successor is elected who makes some sort of decision that does not sit well with the retired Pope. Then, in theory, he [the retired Pope] could say: I’m changing my mind. I am the Pope! And then we have a huge problem.

(Andreas Englisch, “Dieser Papst wird zurücktreten” [“This Pope will resign”],, April 16, 2012; our translation.)

According to the scenario described by Englisch, (1) a Pope resigns; (2) the new Pope does something the old Pope does not like; (3) the old Pope starts a schism. Even though most people back in 2012 thought they would never see (1) happen, it did; as far as (2) goes, it either has already happened or could be very close to happening; the question is probably only whether (3) might also come true. Now don’t say, “There’s no way that will ever happen.” Haven’t enough things happened in the last three years you once would have sworn up and down would never take place?

Every effect must have a proportionate cause. We have witnessed bizarre events and may very well see stranger things still. The underlying causes to what has transpired since Benedict’s resignation could be much deeper and complex than many have imagined.

Did Benedict XVI ultimately resign in order to ward off an attempt on his life? Was indeed “Cardinal” Scola elected first and only then “Cardinal” Bergoglio in the follow-up conclave? We may never know the answer. But thankfully, we do not need to know in order to know that all of these men — their occasional outward appearances to the contrary notwithstanding — are Modernists and not Catholics, and hence all of them are ineligible to be the head of the Catholic Church.

What this ongoing drama does allow us to see, in any case, is that to say that a real schism is brewing in the Modernist sect is quite justified indeed, and that “Pope” Bergoglio seems determined to bring everything now to a head. However, we suspect that a formal rupture will not take place until the moment that key figures in the Vatican come to the conclusion that an actual schism could only make things better, that it would be the lesser evil compared to letting things continue to go their way. Once this “nothing more to lose” situation has been reached, we will see the fit hitting the shan.

The Novus Ordo Sect seems to be finally destroying itself. Let us try to save as many souls from that sinking ship as possible. The tragic truth is that it is easier to deceive people than to convince them that they’ve been deceived.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, we entrust all souls of good will to thee. Obtain for them the grace of conversion and then of final perseverance. Amen.

See Also:


08: What Would our Lord Jesus REALLY Do?

As the Novus Ordo Sect’s bogus Year of Mercy continues, so does our truly Catholic counterpart, the Year of Exclusion, Judgment, and Condemnation, where we zero in on various truths of the holy Catholic Faith that are considered by our sorry society as extremely judgmental, exclusionary, negative, hateful, bigoted, intolerant, condemnatory, unwelcoming, dogmatic, narrow-minded, and everything else that isn’t politically correct.

Today we reprint, with the kind permission of the author, a recent post from the Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog, focusing on what has been called the other side of Christ:


A popular sign among Protestants (as well as some members of the Vatican II sect) is the symbol "WWJD?" Present on jewelry, t-shirts, and bumper stickers, the letters stand for "What Would Jesus Do?" It sounds nice, but it's actually more Protestant private interpretation. Just as they interpret the Bible apart from the Teaching Authority of Christ's One True Church, they ask you to attempt and "read God's Mind." But God's ways are not like our ways, so who's to say what Christ would do in any given situation? Even some Traditionalists are guilty of this kind of subjectivism, when I hear them say things like, "Can you imagine Pope St. Pius X making changes in the rubrics like Pope Pius XII?" I can't read the minds of prior popes, and weren't each of them equally protected by the Holy Ghost as the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

I bring this up because last week during a conversation covering many topics, someone I know told me, "Jesus never condemned homosexuals." I asked him how he knew this, and he told me (I kid you not) he learned it  from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whom he described as a "theologian" who knew the Bible well. My friend, a member of the Vatican II sect, was seeking guidance from his personal knowledge of the Bible and the so-called "expertise" of  a president turned preacher. Not condemning sodomy and approving the sodomite lifestyle is allegedly an example of "doing what Jesus would do." When you turn to private interpretations, public mistakes are sure to follow. Without an infallible guide, your personal likes and dislikes are attributed to Christ; He becomes like you, rather than vice-versa as the "WWJD" would lead you to believe.

As a result, the "Jesus" many follow is One Whom:

  • will allow everyone to go to Heaven because He “loves you just the way you are” (no apologies to anti-Catholic bigot Billy Joel)
  • thinks of peace and not divisiveness
  • doesn't require obedience
  • requires a "holiness" that means being "nice"
  • only teaches "love" including love of the acts committed by sinners
  • will never say anything to offend anyone for any reason
  • will never tell anyone they are evil for their deeds
  • will never require penance
  • calls everyone (even those who don't believe in Him) "His children"
  • will never allow anyone to go to Hell
  • wants you to do whatever makes you happy
  • never requires self-sacrifice
  • wants everyone to live in luxury
  • transforms the Commandments into suggestions

This is an evil caricature of Jesus Christ. They (wittingly or not) have Satan as their guide. As to homosexuality, my friend told me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality and it is discussed in the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus) but is "misinterpreted." Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for not being hospitable, not for homosexuality.  Rather than discuss the sorry sect that is the "church of Begoglio," I decided to show how badly informed Mr. Carter was on the issue.

Sodom and Gomorrah Were Condemned for Homosexuality

The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.

Jesus Christ refers to Sodom in the Gospel no less than Four Times

Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

  • St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)
  • St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
  • St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."
  • St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."

The Inescapable Logic

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sexual immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? Jimmy Carter's theology is no better than his politics. Unfortunately, this did not register with my friend because "it's just your interpretation," there are other scholars who disagree with "my" interpretation, and doesn't Frankie say, "Who am I to judge"? It was getting late, I had to go and wished my friend well. 

However, this encounter serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist” (R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. If they really want to know "What Would Jesus Do?" the correct question to ask is "What Does The Church Actually Teach?"

(Source: “WDTCAT?”, Introibo Ad Altare Dei, Apr. 25, 2016; bold, italic, and underscore formatting in original.)

Related Links:

Total run time: 2 hrs 32 mins…

TRADCAST Episode 013
The Amoris Laetitia Super Show

The Traditional Catholic Podcast


After an unintentional hiatus of a month, TRADCAST is back with a special edition that deals exclusively with “Pope” Francis’ Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and the ongoing fallout from it. TRADCAST 013 was published on Apr. 26, 2016, and is available for free download or streaming. In this podcast, which has a total run time of 2 hours and 32 minutes, we first review the Vatican’s presentation of Amoris Laetitia delivered on April 8 and then dismantle some of the worst passages of the official text. We demonstrate how insidious and harmful to souls the document really is and show how Francis introduces outrageous ideas under the cover of innocuous-sounding feel-good terminology that actually aims to undermine all of Catholic moral theology by abolishing even the very concept of mortal sin. Lastly, we review various reactions from different camps and provide a hard-hitting refutation of the false “traditionalists” who are denouncing the document while still maintaining that its author is the Vicar of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

CAUTION! You will be drinking from a fire hose of information for 2.5 hours straight! Loaded with insightful content, hard-hitting zingers, memorable aphorisms, and brilliant fireworks! Don’t miss this TRADCAST and spread the word!

You can listen free of charge by clicking the YouTube video above, or you can go to our TRADCAST 013 page, where you will find all the information you need for this show, including links to all the articles, blog posts, Church documents, etc., mentioned in the podcast, and where you will also find ways to download this episode to your computer and sign up to be notified of new episodes by email.


TRADCAST? Francis does NOT approve!

See Also:

Hell’s Apostle is overjoyed...


Hans Küng: Francis Allows Free Discussion on Infallibility Dogma

Earlier this year, the world’s most notorious apostate claiming the name “Catholic” — after Jorge Bergoglio himself, of course — sent an open appeal to “Pope” Francis to allow free discussion of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility (declared in 1870 by Pope Pius IX). Tied to the publication of Volume 5 of his Collected Works, which is specifically dedicated to the topic of infallibility, Fr. Hans Kung sent a letter to the “Pope”, asking that the dogma be re-opened for discussion:

Receive this comprehensive documentation and allow a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion in our church of the all the unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma. In this way, the problematic Vatican heritage of the past 150 years could be come to terms with honestly and adjusted in accordance with holy Scripture and ecumenical tradition. It is not a case of trivial relativism that undermines the ethical foundation of church and society. But it is also not about an unmerciful, mind-numbing dogmatism, which swears by the letter, prevents thorough renewal of the church’s life and teaching, and obstructs serious progress in ecumenism. It is certainly not the case of me personally wanting to be right. The well-being of the church and of ecumenism is at stake.

I am very well aware of the fact that my appeal to you, who ‘lives among wolves,’ as a good Vatican connoisseur recently remarked, may possibly not be opportune. In your Christmas address of Dec. 21, 2015, however, confronted with curial ailments and even scandals, you confirmed your will for reform: ‘It seems necessary to state what has been — and ever shall be — the object of sincere reflection and decisive provisions. The reform will move forward with determination, clarity and firm resolve, since Ecclesia semper reformanda.’

I would not like to raise the hopes of many in our church unrealistically. The question of infallibility cannot be solved overnight in our church. Fortunately, you (Pope Francis) are almost 10 years younger than I am and will hopefully survive me. You will, moreover, surely understand that as a theologian at the end of his days, buoyed by deep affection for you and your pastoral work, I wanted to convey this request to you in time for a free and serious discussion of infallibility that is well-substantiated in the volume at hand: non in destructionem, sed in aedificationem ecclesiae, ‘not in order to destroy but to build up the church.’ For me personally, this would be the fulfillment of a hope I have never given up.

(Hans Kung, quoted in “Infallibility — Hans Kung appeals to Pope Francis”, National Catholic Reporter, March 9, 2016; italics given.)

Well, now the “Pope” has responded, and Kung is overjoyed: Francis has given the green light!

On the evening of April 26, the National [Non-]Catholic Reporter published Kung’s reaction:

On March 9, my appeal to Pope Francis to give room to a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion on the problem of infallibility appeared in the leading journals of several countries. I was thus overjoyed to receive a personal reply from Francis immediately after Easter. Dated March 20, it was forwarded to me from the nunciature in Berlin.

In the pope’s reply, the following points are significant for me:

  • The fact that Francis answered at all and did not let my appeal fall on deaf ears, so to speak;
  • The fact that he replied himself and not via his private secretary or the secretary of state;
  • That he emphasizes the fraternal manner of his Spanish reply by addressing me as Lieber Mitbruder (“Dear Brother”) in German and puts this personal address in italics;
  • That he clearly read the appeal, to which I had attached a Spanish translation, most attentively;
  • That he is highly appreciative of the considerations that had led me to write Volume 5 of my complete works, in which I suggest theologically discussing the different issues that the infallibility dogma raises in the light of holy Scripture and tradition with the aim of deepening the constructive dialogue between the “semper reformanda” 21st-century church and the other Christian churches and postmodern society.

Francis has set no restrictions. He has thus responded to my request to give room to a free discussion on the dogma of infallibility. I think it is now imperative to use this new freedom to push ahead with the clarification of the dogmatic definitions, which are a ground for controversy within the Catholic church and in its relationship to the other Christian churches.

(Hans Kung, quoted in “Fr. Hans Kung says Francis responded to request for free discussion on infallibility dogma”, National Catholic Reporter, April 26, 2016; italics given.)

For all those who may have forgotten who Fr. Kung is: Born on March 19, 1928 in Sursee, Switzerland, he was ordained a true Roman Catholic priest on October 10, 1954, for the diocese of Basel. The Holy Office under Pope Pius XII took notice of the Swiss apostate right away. Despite his manifest and tenacious denial of the Faith — including the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity — Kung to this very day remains a priest in good standing with his diocese (currently headed by “Bishop” Felix Gmür). He has been teaching “theology” at the University of Tubingen since 1960.

After numerous quarrels with the Novus Ordo Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith, on December 15, 1979, the Congregation’s Prefect, “Cardinal” Francis Seper, declared several of Kung’s books to contain errors incompatible with Catholic — even Novus Ordo! — teaching and announced that Kung was no longer permitted to teach theology under the name of “Catholic” and could not be considered a Catholic theologian (see the Novus Ordo “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” 72 [1980], pp. 90-92).

Despite his clear heresies and the dangerous influence he held as an active university professor, the Vatican did not excommunicate Kung, did not suspend him, and did not even remove his priestly faculties. The effect was that Kung continued teaching as before at the same university, though no longer as part of the “Catholic” faculty. He became professor of “ecumenical” theology instead. The secular world has long hailed him as a courageous “rebel Catholic” and frequently consulted him on “controversial” Catholic questions as a “critical voice of reason” against (what they perceived to be) the militantly-hardline Vatican.


A suit-and-tie priest early on:
Fr. Hans Kung with Fr. Francis Sweeney, SJ

In the fall of 2013, Kung announced that he is gradually going blind, suffers from Parkinson’s Disease, and is mulling whether to commit suicide (“euthanasia”). We covered this in the following post:

In late 2013, the German leftist magazine Der Spiegel conducted an interview with Kung about a possible self-induced exit from this earthly life. The opening lines of the interview, which was never published in English, are absolutely telling about the spiritual state of this man and his “faith”:

SPIEGEL: Professor Küng, will you go to Heaven?

Küng: Well I certainly hope so. [“Das hoffe ich doch sehr.”]

SPIEGEL: What would indicate that you will go to hell [instead] is you being a heretic in the eyes of the Church.

Küng: I am not a heretic but a critical reform theologian, who, in contrast to many of his critics, does not use medieval theology, liturgy, and canon law as his standard but the Gospel.

SPIEGEL: Does hell even exist?

Küng: All the talk about hell is a warning that a man can completely miss the meaning of his life. I do not believe in an eternal hell.

SPIEGEL: If hell means losing the meaning of life, then that is a fairly earthly conception.

Küng: Sartre says that hell is other people. Men make their own hell, for example in wars like in Syria or also in an unscrupulous capitalism.

(Hans Kung, “Ich hänge nicht an diesem Leben, Der Spiegel, Dec. 9, 2013; our translation.)

This speaks volumes. Kung is no Catholic but a heretic who doesn’t like the label; he trashes the incredibly rich Catholic theology of the Scholastic age; he denies the dogma of hell (as well as virtually all other dogmas); he claims that his own theological junk is the fruit of an authentic understanding of the New Testament; and he presumptuously announces that of course he will go to Heaven (the original German conveys the sense of presumption, not the Catholic virtue of hope). In fact, Kung is such an obvious Modernist that even the secular interviewer noticed, who immediately caught on that hell loses or at least completely changes all its meaning if it is simply reinterpreted as a “warning not to miss the purpose of life”.

That Kung himself has missed the purpose of life is evident from the fact that he has expressly stated he may kill himself, since according to him there is “no point” to being alive as a theologian who, due to Parkinson’s and progressing blindness, cannot read or write anymore.

The true and ultimate purpose of every human life is the Beatific Vision, to enjoy Eternal Perfect Bliss by seeing face to face the very Trinue God — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — whom Hans Kung denies.

See Also:

Happy Earth Day to youuuu...

Your Religion?


“It Doesn’t Matter!”
Just “Work Together”!

Okay, everyone, it’s time to get your surprise face ready: For anyone who was still in doubt about what Francis’ central message to the world from the last 3+ years has been, he has now repeated it in plain English — well, Italian actually — in case his words and actions so far have not been clear enough: It doesn’t matter what religion you are.

Speaking off the cuff to a group of youngsters at Rome’s Villa Borghese park on April 24 to commemorate so-called “Earth Day”, the Argentinian papal pretender said the following:

...Look, these are the things that come to my mind. How to do this? Simply in the awareness that we all have something in common, we’re all human. And in this humanity, we can get close to each other to work together … “But I belong to this religion, or to that one …” it doesn’t matter! [Non importa!]

Let’s all go forward to work together, respecting each other, respecting! I see this miracle: the miracle of a desert that becomes a forest. Thanks for everything you do!

(“Pope Francis on Earth Day: ‘Transform deserts into forests!’”Crux, April 24, 2016; Italian original here.)

This confirms everything we’ve been saying about Francis from day one. This man is nothing but a Naturalist, a Modernist, and an Indifferentist. He preaches the “gospel of man”, as though the purpose of human existence were found in this temporal life, as though we all lived for a merely earthly purpose.

To those who now rush to Francis’ defense, saying that he only meant that it doesn’t matter what religion one is as far as “working together” to make this world a better place, we respond: First, that this too is part of the Naturalist thesis, that “humanity” is to rise above the differences of religion and work towards the creation of an earthly paradise, as though this world were our true and lasting home and religion just a side issue of no great consequence; second, that Francis would have an obligation to ensure that his words are not misunderstood and taken in an indifferentist sense, to which end he could have easily added that we ought to use every opportunity to evangelize non-Catholics, lest having given their lives for this world they should suffer eternal death and all their work have been in vain; and third… let’s be serious: When has Francis ever given the impression that it does matter what religion one professes? This latest utterance of his fits perfectly into the entire framework of his false gospel of man, which is geared not towards the salvation of souls but towards hugging trees and feeding the hungry. Those of a different religion are only to be “respected” and never to be evangelized in any meaningful sense.

We have proven again and again that Francis is a Naturalist and Indifferentist, especially in the following posts:

Francis preaches the doctrines of Freemasonry, the archenemy of Catholicism. He puts man in the place of God. Saint Pius X had something to say about that:

Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5)

When do Francis and the Vatican II Church ever invoke God? Usually, God is invoked only to comfort us, to forgive our sins, or to solve our problems — He has basically been reduced to a psychological bandaid. When is it ever mentioned that we have duties towards God? That we owe Him, in the strict sense, all our love, Faith, loyalty, and obedience? That God “is a jealous God” (Ex 34:14; Nah 1:2)? That we must make reparation for our sins? That we have a strict obligation to adore, praise, and thank Him? It is never done — any possible rare exception would merely serve to prove the rule. In the Novus Ordo Sect, the Most Holy Trinity is not the One God of Majesty and Glory (cf. Acts 7:2; Apoc 15:8); rather, He is treated like the village idiot who should consider himself lucky that anyone bothered to show up at all for the “Eucharistic celebration”. The empty pews and empty confessionals of the Novus Ordo prove it.

In his 1884 encyclical against Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII denounced the Masonic sects and their false doctrines of Liberalism, Indifferentism, and Naturalism. See if this sounds familiar:

If those who are admitted as members [in Freemasonry] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age — that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus, n. 16; underlining added.)

Francis’s Naturalist, dogma-less, non-judgmental religion certainly appeals to the anti-Catholic secular world, for it recognizes its own ideas in Francis’ message. This is why he is popular and beloved by the world, yet at the same time no one really takes him seriously and he is no boon to “Catholicism”:

Given the prattle Francis puts out on a daily basis in his countless sermons, speeches, interviews, and off-the-cuff remarks, which are full of pseudo-spiritual talk about “tenderness” and “caressing the poor” and contain endless platitudes about helping the environment and sharing one’s dreams, it will no doubt begin to dawn on people at some point that no one needs a Catholic Church or a Pope if his main job is simply to regurgitate what can essentially be found on any Hallmark greeting card.

This is not to say, of course, that we can simply neglect the corporal works of mercy. We cannot: “Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God” (1 Jn 4:7). However, what Francis preaches is not the supernatural charity of Christ, but an earthly “luv”, independent of the true religion, a faux love that is made palatable with recycled slogans from the 1960s.

In his condemnation of Sillonism, Pope St. Pius X put things in perspective in this regard, explaining genuine Christian love, the “charity of Christ” (Eph 3:19):

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which [the Sillonists] found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting. 

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.


We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. 

But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. 

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. 

He was as strong as He was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. 

Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [“Our Apostolic Mandate”], 1910; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

See, then, how great is the difference between Francis’ fake humanist “luv” and true Christian charity.

Related Links: Francis’ Indifferentism & Naturalism


A Doctor of the Church weighs in...

Can a Pope be a Private Heretic?


St. Robert Bellarmine Speaks

As we announced approximately one year ago, the monumental theological work De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”) of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., has now been translated into English, for the first time ever. The translator is Mr. Ryan Grant of Mediatrix Press, and the English-speaking world owes him a tremendous amount of gratitude.

The English On the Roman Pontiff has been published in two volumes, with the first volume containing Books I and II, and the second volume containing Books III, IV, and V. The first volume was first made available last year, whereas the second volume was released only a few weeks ago. Here it is:


On the Roman Pontiff - De Romano Pontifice
by Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J.

Volume 2: Books III, IV & V

Available in Softcover & as Kindle eBook

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine was a member of the Society of Jesus, a Jesuit. He was declared a Saint by Pope Pius XI in 1930, and was made a Doctor of the Church by the same Pope in the following year. His feast day is May 13, the same day Our Lady of Fatima first appeared in 1917. He is the patron saint of catechists and has been called the “Doctor of the Papacy”, and for good reason. His writings were a most reliable guide during the proceedings of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which, by authority of Pope Pius IX, defined the dogma of papal infallibility and issued eloquent teaching on the Papacy, the Church, and the Magisterium. In his decree declaring St. Robert a Doctor of the Church, Pope Pius XI extolled his keen mind, his strong morals, his great learning, and his brilliant teaching, and highlighted in particular Bellarmine’s teaching authority with regard to the papacy:

But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognised by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the [1870] Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent.

(Pope Pius XI, Decree Providentissimus Deus declaring St. Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church, Sept. 17, 1931)

It is no surprise that when the question was raised at the Council what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic, it was the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine that informed the bishops’ answer:

In the last few years, as the “pontificate” of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) has proven itself a bizarre, chaotic, and obviously heretical freak show, we have been seeing a number of arguments raised that a manifestly heretical Pope would remain Pope until he be deposed by an official judgment by the Church or by specific cardinals. But the arguments that are usually used to support this position are almost exclusively based on theological opinions advanced only before the First Vatican Council of 1870, whose rich teaching on the papacy makes the idea of a heretical-but-valid Pope completely untenable, as we demonstrate in the two essays linked above. The teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, on the other hand, is typically either distorted, given secondary importance, or ignored altogether by those who would appeal to theological opinions that were permitted before Vatican I but are clearly no longer acceptable after the council and the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Although St. Robert argued at length that a Pope who falls into public heresy would by that very fact alone immediately cease to be Pope, without the need for any official declaration, he did not believe that such a scenario was really possible to begin with. His argumentation, given in Book II, Chapter XXX, which we have also made available in full on this site, is entirely hypothetical — he explains what would be the case if such a thing could happen.

In Book IV, Chapters VI and VII, the Doctor of the Church explains why, in his view, it is not possible for a Pope to be a  heretic even as a private individual. He answers various objections, including those made by certain anti-sedevacantists in our day, according to which certain Church documents seem to imply that a Pope can indeed deviate from the Faith — such as the canonical Si Papa, Act 7 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, and the teaching of Pope Innocent III — and explains that this does not mean to suggest that papal heresy is in fact possible.

We are making the content of Book IV, Chapters 6-7, available with the kind permission of the translator, Mr. Ryan Grant (to prevent misunderstanding, we would like to clarify that Mr. Grant is not a sedevacantist). Click below:

The semi-traditionalists of our day are at a loss to reconcile the absurdity that is “Pope Francis” with the Catholic doctrines and dogmas on the Papacy. As each Catholic has the obligation to submit with docility to the Supreme Pontiff and his teachings, laws, and liturgical rites, under pain of schism, the absurdity of such a concept as a heretical-but-valid Pope becomes even more glaring. A few links for your review:

As we ponder the truly frightening and unprecedented situation which we have found ourselves confronted with since Angelo Roncalli (“Pope John XXIII”) claimed the papacy in 1958 and summoned the Second Vatican Council, let us never forget that this diabolical subversion of Catholicism was actually foretold, in one way or another, by a number of individuals in recent Church history, who based their predictions on their deep knowledge of Sacred Theology and the Holy Scriptures:

Like her Divine Founder, the Catholic Church is undergoing the Passion: As the Mystical Body of Christ, she suffers mystically what Christ suffered physically. And like her Lord and Head, the Church too has been betrayed by those who should have defended her: The Modernists, said the great Pope Saint Pius X, “put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 3; cf. Mk 14:10).

Unfortunately, just as many abandoned our Blessed Lord in His darkest hour, so many are now abandoning the true Church, either for a false church that is more appealing to them, or for the pleasures of the world. Hence our Divine Savior exhorted us to persevere to the end and pray much, so as not to fall away in time of temptation (cf. Mt 25:1-13; Mt 26:41; Mk 4:2-20; Lk 18:8; Rom 11:21-22).

Clearly, the “operation of error” which St. Paul warned against in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 is upon us. May the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, confirmed and reinforced by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, ever be our guide, and may his intercession ever be our help and protection!

St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us that the Lord may deign to grant to His Holy Church once again a true Roman Pontiff, who will condemn the diabolical sect begun by Angelo Roncalli and restore the True Catholic Church to her former glory in the sight of all doubters!

See Also:

Refreshing Catholic Truth...

Recent Conferences by Bishop Sanborn:


The Great Apostasy, Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Church, and Sedevacantism

In these first few months of 2016, sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn has done some traveling and given conferences on true Catholicism, the changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council, and the current state of “Catholicism” in the Novus Ordo Church. The audio recordings of these highly informative talks have now been made available by His Excellency to the general public and can be downloaded or streamed free of charge below.

Bp. Sanborn is rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida. He is a frequent guest on various radio programs produced by True Restoration. In 2004, His Excellency engaged in a public debate with Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a representative of the Novus Ordo religion, regarding Vatican II’s ecclesiology. The passionate debate and a follow-up conference can be watched here.

Below, find the audios of Bp. Sanborn’s most recent conferences:

Vatican II: A Substantial Change of the Catholic Religion
(by Bp. Donald J. Sanborn; delivered in Budapest, Hungary, 2016)

The Novus Ordo Church, Vatican II, and Sedevacantism
— A Complete Overview of the Great Apostasy
(by Bp. Donald J. Sanborn; delivered in Fresno, California, 2016)

Direct download: FresnoTalkSanborn2016.mp3

Questions & Answers
(by Bp. Donald J. Sanborn; delivered in Fresno, California, 2016)

For more free audios published by Most Holy Trinity Seminary, including weekly sermons by various truly Catholic clerics, access the seminary’s sermon & podcast page here.

Unrelated to Bp. Sanborn’s conferences, but still related to the topic of Catholic Traditionalism, we have produced a brief video clip entitled: “Just how traditional are today’s mainstream Traditionalists?” Have a look and see how the people who are at the forefront of what is taken for Traditional Catholicsm somehow always manage to ignore the traditional Catholic doctrine on the Papacy and the Magisterium — for the simple reason that it contradicts their position:

Yes, today’s mainstream “Traditionalists” are very untraditional when it comes to adhering to the traditional teaching on the Papacy and the Magisterium. Or when was the last time you heard the SSPX, John Vennari, John Salza, Chris Ferrara, or any other of these self-appointed “resisters” quote this:

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5; underlining added.)

The truth is that because of their stubborn refusal to accept the fact that Francis and his five predecessors have been anti-Catholic usurpers rather than true Catholic Popes, they must ignore, minimize, reject, or distort the traditional Catholic teaching on submission to the Pope. But it is impossible, nay insane, to attempt to save Catholic Tradition by rejecting Catholic Tradition. It is like trying to borrow one’s way out of debt — an obvious contradiction.

This error, among others, is the reason why they are spinning their wheels trying to “resist” a false church until it magically turns into the Catholic Church. Such a senseless attempt is doomed to failure, being built not on the rock of Catholic principle but on the sand of wishful thinking promoted by skilled rhetoricians and gifted journalists (cf. Mt 7:24-27).

More on the Errors of Vatican II:

See Also:


     Published April 20, 2016

Why you’re not Novus Ordo anymore - Example No. 827

Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive... well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.