“Apologetics” Francis-Style...

The “Pope” Apologizes to Evangelical 
Pentecostals in Caserta, Italy


Another day, another Bergoglio horror story. On Monday, June 28, 2014, “Pope” Francis visited his Protestant friend “Pastor” Giovanni Traettino in Caserta, Italy, to engage in another heretical “let’s all just get along” pep talk and to apologize for Catholics who allegedly “persecuted” and “condemned” Pentecostals in the past, which, so the Argentine apostate claimed, was the result of being “tempted by the devil.”

A generous collection of photos and also some raw video footage of Francis’ visit to his fellow-non-Catholic “brothers” has been posted by the Call Me Jorge blog, here:

News coverage of the event itself, with plenty of quotes and other information, can be found in the following articles and posts:

The following video on the event was published by Rome Reports:

Enough has already been written about Francis’ heretical ecumenical agenda. The man is simply not a Catholic. The links that follow will once again demonstrate this, comparing the Novus Ordo doctrine and practice to the genuine Roman Catholic position, which is unchangeable because the truth does not change. 

Pope Pius XII himself refuted the errors of the ecumenists, which were already around in his day and even as far back as the 19th century, in the following eloquent way:

Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.” Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16; underlining added.)

In 1949, the same Pope Pius XII also issued the decree
Ecclesia Catholica on the Ecumenical Movement, a text so rich in practical guidance and so clearly contrary to today’s Modernism emanating from the Vatican, that it could practically be quoted in full in this post — but we will simply provide the link:

Almost 65 years later, this document is still 100% relevant: Among other things, it speaks of the danger of exaggerating the defects of Catholics in dealing with Protestants and of disguising the faults of the Reformers. It emphasizes that under no circumstance may Catholic doctrine be impaired or conformed to the heresies of the Protestant sects. It clarifies that it would be wrong to say that we should pay greater attention to those things on which we agree with Protestants than to those things on which we differ. And it insists that true Christian unity is only possible if Protestants abandon their errors and return to the Catholic Church.

Heard that from Francis lately? Or from any of the Vatican II “Popes”?

True Catholic Teaching on Ecumenism and Christian Unity:

See Also:

Step by Step to Sodom & Gomorrah...

Novus Ordo Blogger Ponders if Celibate Homo Partnerships could be a “Valid Vocation”

“Elizabeth Scalia is a Benedictine Oblate and the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos. She is an award-winning writer and a regularly-featured columnist at First Things and at The Catholic Answer Magazine
Thus says the biographical snippet at her blog, The Anchoress. It continues: “Read her books, Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life and ‘I Don’t Want to Be a Hoo-er’ (*And You Shouldn’t Want to be One, Either), with Foreword by Cardinal Timothy Dolan.”

Get ready to face-palm: On July 16, 2014, Ben Conroy posted an entry at Scalia’s blog in which he publicly ponders the question whether “a committed, lifelong, celibate partnership between two gay people [could be] a valid vocation, a holy thing, a place where virtue and love might flourish”.


Effectively endorsing “a group of [celibate] gay Catholics – like Eve Tushnet, Aaron Taylor, Gabriel Blanchard, and Melinda Selmys –, and Christians of other denominations – such as Wesley Hill, Kyle Keating, and Julie Rodgers”, Conroy relates that these people believe that their “‘being gay’ can be a gift as well as a cross. They believe it’s possible both to be an out and proud gay Christian, and to live out a celibate life (or in some cases a married one – Selmys and Keating are married to people of the opposite sex in what they call ‘mixed-orientation marriages’)
”. How about that!

But wait — there’s more! Conroy continues:

If we accept some of the distinctions these writers have made – that to be gay is not reducible to what the catechism calls “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, that being gay can be a call to particular, unique kinds of virtue, that the modern, Western notion of sexual and romantic partnership has appropriated kinds of love that historically were also found in non-sexual relationships – doesn’t that open up a space for the idea of a committed, lifelong, celibate partnership between two gay people as being a valid vocation, a holy thing, a place where virtue and love might flourish?

Lindsay and Sarah, who blog at a A Queer Calling, describe themselves as “a celibate, LGBT, Christian couple reflecting on life together”. They don’t see their relationship as marriage or a marriage analogue, nor do they see it as vowed friendship. But they live together, describe each other as partners, as a team, and as a family, and have committed to one another for the rest of their lives.

Is there a place in orthodox Christianity generally, and in Catholicism specifically, for Lindsay and Sarah, or couples like them? (They haven’t yet revealed which tradition they belong to).

(Ben Conroy, “Homosexuality, Celibacy and Partnership: An Awkward Question”, The Anchoress, July 16, 2014)

How about we answer that with a resounding “NO”? Especially considering that any romantic attraction someone might have to a member of the same sex must be firmly resisted, because it is in and of itself depraved and wrong — it is contrary to nature, to the created order, and aims at an unnatural sexual act.

As long as this attraction is not willed and is resisted, there is no sin, of course, because there is then no attachment of the will, but the idea that we can assent to or tolerate the attraction, the affection, and the partnership as long as there is no sexual activity — is ludicrous, reprehensible, and absurd.

So, no, there is no place for this wickedness in “orthodox Christianity”, which Mr. Conroy somehow separates from “Catholicism”, as though there were any kind of “orthodox Christianity” apart from Catholicism.

The Novus Ordo Sect is fading fast, ladies and gentlemen, and soon it will be even more irrelevant than it already is now. This is probably the precondition for the true Catholic Church to rise gloriously once more in the sight of all scoffers and doubters.

See Also:

Bergoglio’s 11th Interview

“One-On-One with the Pope” —
Francis’ 10 Tips for a Happy Life include
“Live and Let Live” and “No Proselytism”


It seems that “Pope” Francis is interested in letting each and every publication in the world have its own special interview with him, and this time (July 27, 2014), it’s for the Argentine Viva, a Sunday supplement to the Clarín newspaper.

At this point, details are still spotty, as almost nothing has yet been published online about the content of the 77-minute interview, which was recorded on video. Entitled “Mano a Mano con el Papa” — “One-On-One with the Pope” — it is an account of journalist Pablo Calvo’s conversation with the Argentine papal pretender.

A few days ago, Clarin had already released a brief teaser clip of the interview. Here it is again:

It is a really good thing that Calvo recorded the conversation on video; this way, no one will later be able to say, “Who knows if these words attributed to the Pope are even accurate?!” — as has been the fashion lately.


One substantial excerpt of the interview’s content has been released online so far, however: Francis has given “10 Suggestions for a Happy Life”, which we share below (in Spanish original). Now, keep in mind, this is a Modernist speaking, so please proceed with caution — do not expect to find Catholic content here:

1) Viví y dejá vivir. [Live and Let Live.] "Acá los romanos tienen un dicho y podríamos tomarlo como un hilo para tirar de la fórmula esa que dice: 'Anda adelante y deja que la gente vaya adelante'. Viví y dejá vivir, es el primer paso de la paz y la felicidad".

2) Darse a los demás. [Join others.] "Si uno se estanca, corre el riesgo de ser egoísta. Y el agua estancada es la primera que se corrompe"

3) Moverse remansadamente. [Contain your activity.] "En Don Segundo Sombra hay una cosa muy linda, de alguien que relee su vida. El protagonista. Dice que de joven era un arroyo pedregoso que se llevaba por delante todo; que de adulto era un río que andaba adelante y que en la vejez se sentía en movimiento, pero lentamente remansado. Yo utilizaría esta imagen del poeta y novelista Ricardo Güiraldes, ese último adjetivo, remansado. La capacidad de moverse con benevolencia y humildad, el remanso de la vida. Los ancianos tienen esa sabiduría, son la memoria de un pueblo. Y un pueblo que no cuida a sus ancianos no tiene futuro".

4) Jugar con los chicos. [Play with the children.] "El consumismo nos llevó a esa ansiedad de perder la sana cultura del ocio, leer, disfrutar del arte. Ahora confieso poco, pero en Buenos Aires confesaba mucho y cuando venía una mamá joven le preguntaba: '¿Cuántos hijos tenés? ¿Jugás con tus hijos?' Y era una pregunta que no se esperaba, pero yo le decía que jugar con los chicos es clave, es una cultura sana. Es difícil, los padres se van a trabajar temprano y vuelven a veces cuando sus hijos duermen, es difícil, pero hay que hacerlo".

5) Compartir los domingos con la familia. [Share Sundays with the Family.] "El otro día, en Campobasso, fui a una reunión entre el mundo de la universidad y el mundo obrero, todos reclamaban el domingo no laborable. El domingo es para la familia".

6) Ayudar a los jóvenes a conseguir empleo. [Help young people find work.] "Hay que ser creativos con esta franja. Si faltan oportunidades, caen en la droga. Y está muy alto el índice de suicidios entre los jóvenes sin trabajo. El otro día leí, pero no me fío porque no es un dato científico, que había 75 millones de jóvenes de 25 años para abajo desocupados. No alcanza con darles de comer: hay que inventarles cursos de un año de plomero, electricista, costurero. La dignidad te la da el llevar el pan a casa".

7) Cuidar la naturaleza. [Take care of nature.] "Hay que cuidar la creación y no lo estamos haciendo. Es uno de los desafíos más grandes que tenemos".

8) Olvidarse rápido de lo negativo. [Quickly let go of negativity.] "La necesidad de hablar mal del otro indica una baja autoestima, es decir: yo me siento tan abajo que en vez de subir, bajo al otro. Olvidarse rápido de lo negativo es sano".

9) Respetar al que piensa distinto. [Respect those who think differently.] "Podemos inquietar al otro desde el testimonio, para que ambos progresen en esa comunicación, pero lo peor que puede haber es el proselitismo religioso, que paraliza: 'Yo dialogo contigo para convencerte', no. Cada uno dialoga desde su identidad. La Iglesia crece por atracción, no por proselitismo".

10) Buscar activamente la paz. [Actively seek peace.] "Estamos viviendo en una época de mucha guerra. En África parecen guerras tribales, pero son algo más. La guerra destruye. Y el clamor por la paz hay que gritarlo. La paz a veces da la idea de quietud, pero nunca es quietud, siempre es una paz activa”


Notice in particular that there is no mention of anything supernatural here, it’s all totally geared towards this earthly life, which must necessarily end, and which is not our eternal destiny, not the reason for our existence. True happiness in this life is
impossible. Would have been nice for him to mention. Then again, not being a Catholic, he wouldn’t understand.

Our favorite in the above “10 Commandments of Happiness” is point no. 9, in which Bergoglio says: “pero lo peor que puede haber es el proselitismo religioso, que paraliza: ‘Yo dialogo contigo para convencerte’, no” — “but the worst [attitude] you can have is that of religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I dialogue with you in order to convert you’, no.” 

This is definitely a familiar theme with Mr. Bergoglio, who said in January 2014 that “[t]o dialogue means to believe that the ‘other’ has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute” (source).

Well then, welcome to Francis’ New Gospel, that of “live and let live”, where the worst thing you can do is try to convince the other that the Catholic Church alone has the absolute truth.

Tom Droleskey has provided an insightful commentary on this nonsense, here:


The July 27 Cover of CLARIN

There is more content of the interview in Spanish at this link. But you’ve probably already read enough.

UPDATE 28-JUL-2014: Slim Novus Ordo coverage of the interview has now appeared:


The guy that finds “virtue” in stable homo relationships...

Francis appoints Berlin’s Homo-Friendly
“Cardinal” Woelki as new “Archbishop” of Cologne


On July 11, 2014, the Vatican issued a press release announcing that Berlin’s “Cardinal” Rainer Maria Woelki had been appointed by the Modernist-in-Chief Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) as the new archbishop of Cologne to fill the vacancy left by the conservative (by Novus Ordo standards) “Cardinal” Joachim Meisner, who had resigned in February of this year. Woelki’s appointment is significant for two reasons: (1) Cologne is Germany’s largest diocese; (2) Woelki is soft on the homosexual agenda. Here are the relevant news stories:

Mr. Woelki is known for his “open-mindedness” regarding pervert relationships, to the point that he’s even been nominated for an award for it. John Allen sums it up nicely:

[Woelki] became an apostle of dialogue, holding meetings with leaders of the gay community and saying that, while the church believes marriage is between a man and a woman, it can also see that a long-term caring relationship between two people of the same sex deserves special moral consideration.

Woelki developed into a sort of Francis before his time, calling on the church to dial down the rhetoric in the culture wars.

“The church is not a moral institution that goes around pointing its finger at people,” he said. “The church is a community of seekers and believers, and it would like to help people find happiness in life [sic].”

In 2012, a German “Alliance against Homophobia” actually nominated Woelki for a “Respect Award,” saying he had promoted a “new cooperation with homosexuals in society.” (Woelki expressed gratitude but politely declined.)

(John L. Allen, Jr., “On sex and money, Pope Francis sets his course, The Boston Globe, July 12, 2014)

You can see why Francis would transfer him to a diocese where he can do even more damage.

Of course, like clockwork, some Novus Ordo “conservative” bloggers started trying to find ways to say that this isn’t necessarily cause for concern, and that Woelki did not say what the evil media quoted him as saying, or that it was taken out of context, or that it was just a bad translation. Sound familiar?

Before we look at some things that have been written about this, let’s look at what Cologne’s new “archbishop” actually said that triggered this whole controversy. The words in question were originally uttered by Mr. Woelki in Mannheim at the biannual German Catholic Conference (Katholikentag) in May of 2012. He said verbatim:

Wenn zwei Homosexuelle Verantwortung füreinander übernehmen, wenn sie dauerhaft und treu miteinander umgehen, muss man das in ähnlicher Weise sehen wie heterosexuelle Beziehungen.



If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they take care of each other permanently and faithfully, this must be viewed in a similar manner as with heterosexual relationships.

It is true that here Woelki is speaking not of the act of sodomy, but of the “care” that same-sex “lovers” show each other. Yet, what the “cardinal” says here is still completely unacceptable. “Faithfulness”, whether permanent or temporary, in a sodomite relationship — just like in an adulterous or otherwise impure heterosexual relationship — is not a virtue, is not something good, something to be admired or praised, accepted or recognized. It is an abomination because it perpetuates an anti-natural, wicked state of affairs and is grounded and occurs in the context of a relationship that is fundamentally and intrinsically disordered and vile. The romantic affection between two people of the same sex is intrinsically depraved and disgusting. This is something Woelki leaves out of consideration completely, because for him, in typical Novus Ordo fashion, all homosexuality is reduced to sexual acts, when this is merely one component of it.

So, for Woelki to look for partial “virtue” in homosexual affection, is grotesque and absurd. By analogy, one might as well see “virtue” in the loyalty two partners in crime show in not telling on each other, or decency in a crook who scams everyone except for elderly widows. But Woelki’s attempt is not surprising, because in the Modernist Vatican II religion, everything can be separated into elements and praised in part, so that they believe in “partial” virtue, “partial” faith, “partial” church membership, etc., which always proves to be the slippery slope leading, for all intents and purposes, to practical acceptance of a given error or evil.

In any case, in subsequent interviews with German newspapers, Woelki was asked to elaborate on his comments made at the Catholic Conference regarding the “care” and mutual “responsibility” shown by perverts towards each other. In order to counteract claims about bad translations and distorted contexts, below we are providing not only a faithful translation of the “cardinal’s” words but also the necessary links and German original text so everyone can see exactly what was said and in what context and can access the entire transcripts.

Here are the relevant excerpts of the interviews:

Interview with Die Zeit (July 8, 2012)

ZEIT: Vom Katholikentag wird eine Aussage von Ihnen zitiert, die Ihnen eine Menge Ärger eingetragen hat. Sie sagten über homosexuelle Partnerschaften: »Ich halte es für vorstellbar, dass dort, wo Menschen Verantwortung füreinander übernehmen, wo sie in einer dauerhaften homosexuellen Beziehung leben, dass das in ähnlicher Weise zu heterosexuellen Partnerschaften anzusehen ist.« Stehen Sie zu diesem Satz?

Woelki: »Man hüte sich, sie in irgendeiner Weise ungerecht zurückzusetzen«, heißt es im Katechismus über Menschen, die homosexuell veranlagt sind. Wenn ich das ernst nehme, darf ich in homosexuellen Beziehungen nicht ausschließlich den »Verstoß gegen das natürliche Gesetz« sehen, wie es der Katechismus formuliert. Ich versuche auch wahrzunehmen, dass da Menschen dauerhaft füreinander Verantwortung übernehmen, sich Treue versprochen haben und füreinander sorgen wollen, auch wenn ich einen solchen Lebensentwurf nicht teilen kann. Der Lebensentwurf, für den wir als katholische Kirche einstehen, ist die sakramentale Ehe zwischen einem Mann und einer Frau, die offen ist für die Weitergabe des Lebens. Dies habe ich so auch auf dem Katholikentag in Mannheim unmittelbar vor der von Ihnen zitierten Aussage gesagt.



ZEIT: At the Catholic Conference you made a statement that has gotten you into a lot of trouble. You said regarding homosexual partnerships: “I could imagine that where people take responsibility for each other, where they live in a permanent homosexual relationship, that this is to be viewed in a similar manner as with heterosexual relationships.” Do you stand by this affirmation?

Woelki: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”, the [Novus Ordo] Catechism [n. 2358] says about people who have homosexual tendencies. If I take this seriously, then I’m not allowed to view homosexual relationships exclusively as being “contrary to the natural law”, as the Catechism puts it [n. 2357]. I try also to recognize that in such relationships people take responsibility for each other in a permanent manner, have pleged loyalty to each other and want to care for each other, even if I cannot approve of such a way of life. The way of life we as Catholics stand for is the sacramental wedlock between one man and one woman that is open to procreation. This I also said in just this way at the Catholic Conference in Mannheim immediately before the statement you quoted.

And another interview:

Interview with Frankfurter Rundschau (August 17, 2012)

[FR]: Wir denken bei „Methode Woelki“ auch an Ihre Aussagen auf dem Mannheimer Katholikentag über die Anerkennung für homosexuelle Paare, die füreinander Verantwortung übernehmen. Weiten Sie damit nicht die Perspektive über den Lehrsatz der katholischen Kirche, dass gelebte Homosexualität dem Schöpferplan zuwiderlaufe?

[Woelki]: Wo immer Menschen füreinander da sind, verdient das Anerkennung. Bei erwachsenen Kindern, die für ihre Eltern sorgen, ist uns das selbstverständlich. Wenn nun gleichgeschlechtliche Partner ein vergleichbares Maß an Fürsorge zeigen, kann man ihnen doch nicht die Achtung dafür versagen. Ich habe jüngst von einem Paar gehört, wo der eine Partner den anderen in schwerer Krankheit gepflegt und bis zum Sterben begleitet hat. Das ist menschlich wertvoll und anerkennenswert.

[FR]: Wie könnte sich diese Anerkennung dann zeigen? Was ist zum Beispiel mit der Möglichkeit für offen homosexuell lebende Katholiken, sich in kirchlichen Gremien zu engagieren?

[Woelki]: Das kirchliche Lehramt hat wiederholte Male klar und unmissverständlich festgestellt, dass homosexuelle Handlungen „in sich nicht in Ordnung sind“, gegen das natürliche Gesetz verstoßen und deshalb von unserer Glaubensüberzeugung her nicht gebilligt werden können. Daran mache ich selbstverständlich keinerlei Abstriche.

[FR]: Aber was heißt das nun?
(Woelki schweigt lange und überlegt)

[FR]: Geht Ihnen gerade die Frage durch den Kopf, ob es der Sache schadet, wenn wir so auf diesem Punkt insistieren oder Sie sich womöglich noch weiter aus dem Fenster lehnen?

[Woelki]: Tatsächlich haben schon meine Worte von Mannheim sogleich die Kritiker auf den Plan gerufen. Nicht zu vergessen das „Internet-Lehramt“ mit seinen gewohnt polemischen Attacken, die gegen einen Kardinal gerichtet, womöglich noch erbitterter ausfallen als ohnehin schon. Weitere Polarisierung bringt uns aber sicher nicht voran.

[FR]: Die Bundespolitik ist gerade dabei, das zu tun, was sie in Mannheim gefordert haben – mehr Anerkennung für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare durch Besserstellung im Steuerrecht.

[Woelki]: Es ist Angelegenheit des säkularen Staates, solche Dinge für seine Bürger zu ordnen. Klar ist: Für uns als katholische Kirche ist die Ehe von Mann und Frau, die offen ist für Kinder, das Ideal des Zusammenlebens und auch das Modell, das wir favorisieren. Auch im Grundgesetz stehen Ehe und Familie als natürliche Grundeinheit der Gesellschaft (so die allg. Erklärung der Menschenrechte) unter besonderem staatlichem Schutz.



[FR]: Regarding the “Woelki Method”, we are also reminded of the statements you made at the Mannheim Catholic Conference about recognition of homosexual couples who take responsibility for each other. Aren’t you thereby expanding the perspective about the doctrine of the Catholic Church that active homosexuality is contrary to the design of the Creator?

[Woelki]: Wherever people are there for one another, this deserves recognition. When it comes to adult children who care for their parents, we take this for granted. So when homosexual partners show a comparable measure of care, we cannot refuse them this respect. Recently I heard about a [homosexual] couple where one partner nursed the other throughout serious illness and accompanied him until death. This is worthy of great respect on a human level and deserves credit.

[FR]: How, then, could this respect be shown? For example, what about the possibility of Catholics who live in an openly homosexual way to participate in church committees?

[Woelki]: The church’s magisterium has reiterated several times in clear and unmistakable terms that homosexual acts “are in themselves disordered”, that they are contrary to the natural law and therefore cannot be approved as far as our faith convictions go. Of course I do not compromise on any of that.

[FR]: But then what does this mean?
(Woelki remains silent for a long time and deliberates)

[FR]: Are you currently pondering whether there will be undesirable consequences if we insist on this point or if perhaps you go out on a limb even further?

[Woelki]: Indeed even what I said in Mannheim immediately brought critics into the arena. We must not forget the “internet magisterium” with its usual polemical attacks, which, directed against a cardinal, might turn out even more acrimonious than they already would anyway. But surely any further polarization won’t help us move forward.

[FR]: The federal government is currently doing what you called for in Mannheim — more respect for homosexual couples by granting them tax advantages.

[Woelki]: It is the business of the secular state to arrange for things like that for its citizens. It is clear that for us as the Catholic Church, the marriage between a man and a woman, open to children, is the ideal of living together and also the model favored by us. Even in the [German] constitution matrimony and the family are specially protected by the state as the natural basic social unit (according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

This is exactly what Woelki said, like it or not. One can see that he’s trying to steer a “middle course” between rejecting perversion and accepting it, by recognizing the “good” found among perverts with regard to each other. And this is completely unacceptable.

In addition, regardless of Woelki’s intent, this endeavor to find a “middle way” between rejecting all same-sex relationships and endorsing them will prove to be but the tip of the first domino that will knock all the rest of them over in due time. We have seen this again and again in the Novus Ordo Church and also in secular society, whether it be on issues such as religious liberty, freedom of conscience, abortion, divorce, contraception, etc. It always begins with this sort of compromise, which, because it is flawed in principle, eventually leads to a complete surrender of moral truth, at least in practice. 

This is how the Novus Ordo Sect has caused Catholic truth to be eclipsed and gradually rendered powerless. Mr. Woelki is about to embark on the same ship again, and his insistence that holy matrimony between a man and a woman, open to life, is the “model favored by” the church will be considered as laughable as irrelevant in the near future. Notice how, in the second interview, Woelki couldn’t really give a clear answer when the interviewer challenged him, “But then what does this mean [in practice]?” Here you can already see that Woelki has no idea about even the desired practical outcome of his attempt to have it both ways.

Indeed, what good could possibly be accomplished by the “Catholic Church” recognizing that some sodomites “care” for each other (in a twisted sort of way, since they obviously don’t give a hoot about each other’s souls)? Nothing whatsoever! It would only serve as the stepping stone to accepting homosexual unions, at least for all practical intents and purposes. 

This is something the following two blog posts, unfortunately, do not take into account. These are “conservative” Novus Ordo bloggers who try to exonerate Cologne’s new “archbishop” by pointing out what he “really” said. The problem is just that what he really said is still unacceptable:

Aside from what Woelki really said, however, we must also take into consideration that, although we are to understand another’s words in the most charitable way possible, nevertheless we cannot be naive and leave out of account the fact that Modernists often are deliberately ambiguous, even contradicting themselves at times, in order to appear in doubt or confusion and thus to allow for their errors to spread with impunity, as exposed by Pope Pius VI.

Let’s not be foolish here: There is nothing stopping “Cardinal” Woelki from stepping up to a microphone and denouncing sodomy and sodomite relationships in no uncertain terms — just to make sure everyone knows where he stands and the evil media don’t cause a false impression ever again. But of course, he does no such thing. 

Instead, Woelki sat idly by as Germany’s Gay and Lesbian Association (LSVD) nominated him for a “Respect Award” that same year. As John Allen says in the quote above, Woelki declined the nomination, but the reason why he did so adds more fuel to the fire: Because he did not want to be honored for merely “showing respect” to perverts, which, he said, should be a “matter of course” for a “Christian”! (source

Yes, for Woelki, further confusing and eliminating the boundaries between the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and mortally sinful sodomite relationships, and further eroding Catholic moral principles in a godless society neck-deep in the worst kinds of impurity, is equal to showing “respect towards all people” which is a “matter of course” for him as a “Catholic Christian.” Where is the respect shown to salutary truth and the good of souls?! 

Apparently Pope Benedict XIV had never gotten the memo Woelki got because in 1749 His Holiness wrote:

A new kind of war against the enemies of our salvation must now be waged. The license of thinking and acting must be curbed. The luxury and the pride of life must be restrained and cupidity for gain must be kept in check. All impurity must be purged and all enmity eliminated. All hatreds must be abolished. Sound the trumpets and declare a spiritual war against the enemies of the cross of Christ. Strengthen the languid hands of your soldiers and straighten their bent knees. In the first place, make straight the path for those who have decided to come to this citadel of religion, this impregnable stronghold. Let them hear from you that they are not called here for leisurely roaming nor to view strange sights; but they are summoned to carry arms in a Christian militia and to undertake the labors of fighting and war. What are the arms that Satan fears if not the vigils of the pious, their prayers, fastings, almsgivings, their works of Christian humility and of mercy? By these the tyrannical domination of human cupidity is overcome, and the kingdom of love is strengthened and extended.

(Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Peregrinantes, nn. 11-12; underlining added.)

Whether he realizes it or not, Woelki’s tightrope act can only have one possible outcome: the public perception of homosexual relationships as morally equal to heterosexual ones, and the practical acceptance of sodomy and perverted relationships by “Catholics” with a concomitant condemnation of all opposition as “hateful”, “homophobic”, and “unchristian.” Woelki is thereby proving himself to be a very effective servant of the Gaystapo, at best as a “useful idiot.”

Below you will find a very interesting and informative radio interview with the courageous Randy Engel, an author and researcher into the infestation of homosexuals and pederasts in the Vatican II Church. Though she is not a sedevacantist and believes the Vatican II Sect to be the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have lots of respect for Mrs. Engel, who brings competence, charity, clarity, and courage to this important battle.


In late 2013, Engel wrote this scathing Open Letter to Francis, excoriating him for the pederasty and homosexuality in his church, and his failure to do anything meaningful about it. This letter is a must-read that will leave you absolutely speechless.

Randy Engel is the author of the 2006 monumental work The Rite of Sodomy, which is difficult to obtain in print but has been released in multi-volume electronic reading format:


Put on your Surprise Face...

Two More Protestants Confirm Francis told them He’s Not Interested in Converting Them

A few weeks ago, Evangelical Protestant Brian Stiller made some waves among those who still tenaciously cling to the laughable idea that Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is a Roman Catholic, when he reported that Francis had told him explicitly, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism.” We reported on the matter at length in a blog post here.

Of course, one immediate “objection” we heard right away was that the Protestant Stiller could just be lying about this, and we can’t assume his report is accurate. (Hey, what in Bergoglios tenure and past could possibly lead you to believe he would have said this, right?) This was one of the things that ultimately led blogger Steve Skojec to post the following interesting contribution:

But now, other Protestants who attended the same luncheon with Francis that Stiller reported on have confirmed Stiller’s account that Francis stated point-blank that he was not interested in their conversion. See the following video made by “non-denominational” charismatics John and Carol Arnott of Catch The Fire, who relate their experience of visiting Bergoglio at the Vatican (the bombshell quote comes at 6:39 into the video):

Protestants John and Carol Arnott share their experience visiting Francis

In case you cannot view the video, the quote is as follows:

We were able to hear his heart, and he was saying, “You know, I’m really not expecting any of you to join the Catholic Church. Please understand that’s not what this is about. What we’re talking about is a unified position to go before the world and say we are proclaiming Christ as the only hope of salvation.”

(John Arnott, “Meeting with Pope Francis”; quote from video above)

This heretical claptrap is perfectly in line with everything else Francis has said and done. Please review our post “Francis Not Interested in Converting Protestants” for more analysis and a devastating reality check on how Francis’ heresy contrasts with the traditional teaching of the true Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

Since the above video was made, Anglican “bishop” Tony Palmer, who also participated in the same luncheon with Francis and can be seen in the video, was killed in a motorcycle accident. Click here for our coverage of that tragic story.

Fair Warning...

Video Preview:
New Francis Interview to be released July 27


The madness just won’t stop. “Pope” Francis has given his eleventh (!) interview now, this time to the Argentinian Sunday paper Viva, in which he speaks, among other things, about the continuing wars and violence, the problem of youth unemployment, and his forthcoming encyclical letter on the environment, which we have dubbed his Summa Ecologica. (Perfect timing, eh? The Middle East is drowning in bloodshed against Christians, and Francis will write about the problems of deforestation in the Congo. Priceless!)

The interview will be released as a video (which will surely be accompanied by a transcript), of which the above clip is an excerpt provided by the Argentine newspaper Clarín, to which Viva is a Sunday supplement: 

For more on the Modernist apostate Jorge Bergoglio, who falsely claims to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, click here.

Stacking the Deck with more Heretics...


Francis appoints Über-Modernist Enzo Bianchi to Vatican’s Council for Ecumenism

“Pope” Francis is once again causing chaos. On July 22, 2014, “His Holiness” appointed the Modernist layman Enzo Bianchi of the
Bose Monastic Community as an advisor to the Vatican's so-called Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

As Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi reports:

On Tuesday [July 22] Pope Francis appointed new members and consultants to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. While no one seriously expected the Argentinian Pope to appoint Tradition-minded Catholics to this important body, nevertheless the Pope’s choice of Enzo Bianchi, the lay prior and founder of the ecumenical monastic community of Bose is still surprising.

Bianchi belongs to that progressive-adogmatic part of the church that interprets the Second Vatican Council and the Popes as he pleases. Msgr. Antonio Livi, who has criticized Bianchi’s theology in sundry articles, does not hesitate to label the prior of Bose a “false prophet.” For Bianchi, a representative of a horizontal, anthropocentric Christianity, the only path to salvation is “replaced by a demagogic search for peace, an illusiory universal harmony and a laicist solidarity”, according to Catholic historian Cristina Siccardi. [This is] A part of the church that was thought to have been overcome under Pope Benedict XVI. Under Pope Francis, on the other hand, Bianchi, a darling of the media and friend of Cardinal Martini’s, was made a consultant for ecumenism.

(Giuseppe Nardi, “Enzo Bianchi the ‘False Prophet’ is new Consultant for Ecumenism”,, July 23, 2014)

Bianchi is
on the record endorsing a “reformed papacy”, one which is “no longer feared” and that the Eastern Schismatics could work with (sounds a lot like Joseph Ratzinger ’82). In addition, he adheres to the thoroughly heretical concept of an “ecumenism of blood” — one of Francis’ favorite ideas — according to which Christian unity is realized in a common martyrdom.

In a post on Bianchi and the “ecumenism of blood”, the married-with-kids Novus Ordo priest “Fr.” Dwight Longenecker endorses the concept heartily, mocking the serious and eternally-important theological differences between orthodoxy and heresy, between the Divinely-Established True Religion and a man-made counterfeit, between Catholicism and Protestantism, as “petty quarrels.” This cavalier attitude is actually not surprising, as Longenecker himself is a convert from Anglicanism, and he converted to the Novus Ordo Sect rather than the Catholic Church and so has never learned real Catholicism or joined the True Church. 

Let’s face it: Most Novus Ordos don’t believe for a minute that Catholicism alone is the true religion and all others false — rather, the most they believe is that Catholicism is merely the best option among many, or the religion with the “most truth” compared to others, but by no means is it the only, the exclusive way to salvation. This error takes its origin in the false idea that Faith can be possessed in part, in elements, when the truth is that it is an integral whole that can only be possessed in full or not at all. (On this, see our informative post, “Does the Catholic Church merely have the ‘Fullness’ of Truth?”)

So, what’s up with this “Ecumenism of Blood”?

The term is as powerful rhetorically as it is devoid of Catholic theology. Notice in Longenecker’s post linked above, there is no theological substance even being hinted at — it’s all based on emotion: “In prison I don’t suppose people will fuss about whether a brother or sister has worked out every detail of their theology or upheld every line of canon law.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? 

Longenecker appeals entirely to our emotions here, but even this he does in an underhanded way, namely, by misrepresenting the issue. What does “upholding every line of canon law” have to do with martyrdom or with the fact that Protestantism is a false religion and Catholicism the only true one? And, just what does he mean by this anyway? Can he give some examples? He is being deliberately vague because the vagueness is what gives the argument its persuasive force. You’re only supposed to feel that he is right, not understand it.

The same goes for “working out every detail of one’s theology” — this is totally vague, and with good reason. But what is Longenecker saying here? There’s no point in speculating because no matter what one comes up with, he can always respond by saying, “That’s not what I meant.”

The absolute impossibility of an ecumenism of blood is definitively enunciated by the Council of Florence in its Decree for the Jacobites, under Pope Eugene IV in 1442:

[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino; Denz. 714; underlining added.)

This absolutely, definitively, and infallibly excludes any possibility of an “ecumenism of blood.” No one dying for the name of Jesus Christ can attain to eternal life unless he is joined to the Catholic Church, either as a formal member, or, if invincible ignorance should obtain, through the genuine virtues of Faith, hope, and charity, the latter of which, to be true charity, must animate the sincere desire to enter the Catholic Church, even if this desire be only implicit. The great anti-Modernist Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains:

…the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the life of grace is available by the power of Christ only “within” His kingdom, His Mystical Body, which, in this period of the New Testament [i.e., as opposed to the time of the Old Covenant —NOW], is the visible Catholic Church.

…Now, while it is possible to have a desire to be within the Church, and, indeed even to be a member of the Church, without having the love of charity for God, it is quite impossible to have charity without being within the true Church, at least by an implicit desire to dwell in it. The love of charity is, by its very nature, a sovereign affection.

…The love of charity is essentially something in the line of intention rather than of mere velleity. The man who loves God with the true affection of charity actually intends, insofar as it is possible for him to do so, to do the will of God. It is definitely the will of God that all men should enter and live within the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man who really loves God with the affection of divine charity not to be within the Church as a member or at least to desire with a sincere and effective, even though perhaps only an implicit, intention to enter this company.

Hence, if a man is not “within” the Church at least by a sincere desire or affection, he has not the genuine love of charity for God.

(Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation [Westminster: The Newman Press, 1958], pp. 38-40).

This scenario, under which someone who objectively professes heresy but is subjectively not guilty of the sin of heresy and instead possesses the love of charity and genuinely seeks to believe all that God has revealed, is killed for professing Christ, is known as the Baptism of Blood. (The term ‘baptism’ here is to be understood loosely, as it merely produces the grace of regeneration, not the sacramental character [indelible mark], and many who profess heresy but are not subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy already received a valid sacramental baptism in their own church. Cf. Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, s.v. “Baptism”.)

This Baptism of Blood is infinitely far removed from the heretical notion of an “ecumenism of blood”, which claims that Catholics and heretics are spiritually and/or theologically united by being killed for professing allegiance to Christ. If this were so, then it would mean that the motive of the killer can cause religious unity between Catholics and Protestants, two religions that are exclusive of each other because their claims are mutually exclusive and per se irreconcilable.

Whereas in a baptism of blood, the martyr dies within the Catholic Church of our Lord, and any adherence to heresy is entirely accidental and not intended (i.e. not pertinacious), in the proposed “ecumenism of blood” anyone who professes allegiance to Christ is per se considered united to the Church, regardless of any attachment to heresy or a false religion. This is clearly condemned by the decree of the Council of Florence, quoted above. 

To put it succinctly: In the baptism of blood, being united to the Catholic Church is a necessary precondition for one's martyrdom to lead to salvation; whereas in the ecumenism of blood, unity with the Catholic Church is, at best, the inevitable consequence of the martyrdom. This would then make any and all martyrs ipso facto into Catholics, and one might as well include Muslims then, too, for there is no theologically satisfactory reason why if a Protestant who dies for his faith goes to Heaven, this couldn’t also be affirmed of a Muslim dying for his religion. The inevitable result of this is indifferentism, the idea that it ultimately doesn’t matter what religion you profess.

And thus we see that an “Ecumenism of Blood” is an absurdity, simply the latest in Modernist-indifferentist hogwash dressed up as Catholic theology and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace by the enemies of the true Catholic Faith. Beware of the Modernists, who cleverly seek to eliminate all distinction between true religion and false religion.

True Catholic Teaching on Ecumenism and Christian Unity:

If you can figure it out, see a doctor immediately!

Novus Ordo Logic

Why would you want THIS…



…if you can have THIS?



Guess which one of these is considered by the Vatican to represent a “New Springtime” in the Faith!

(And to all those who are complaining to us that the first photo above is actually of an “indult Mass”, offered by an invalidly-ordained “priest” in the Vatican II Sect, we answer that while this is true, it is completely irrelevant to the point being made here, which is about the stark contrast these pictures portray externally.)

See Also: 

Ahead of Meeting with Francis...


Protestant “Bishop” Tony Palmer
Killed in Motorcycle Accident

UPDATED 22-JUL-14 01:57 GMT

On July 20, 2014, at 4:30 pm ET, Protestant “Archbishop” Charles Hill posted a note on Facebook, announcing that Anglican-Evangelical “Bishop” Tony Palmer, whom “Pope” Francis was going to meet later this month in Caserta, Italy, had been killed in a tragic motorcycle accident. Hill’s post reads:

We are in prayer for the family of Bishop Tony Palmer who was in a motorcycle accident this morning in the U.K. after hours of surgery he went home to be with the Lord. He was a good friend and brother in the vineyard.

A day later, the news of Palmer’s death was officially confirmed by The Order of the Ark Community, of which Palmer was a co-founder. The message of condolence reads:

Dear Friends and Companions,

It is with deepest sadness that I inform you that +Tony Palmer went to be with Jesus yesterday evening. +Tony died from injuries sustained in a motorbike accident yesterday morning and although surgeons tried to save him for 10 hours, they were unable to do so. We humbly ask that +Tony’s family be given space to grieve at this incredibly difficult time but we encourage you to leave your condolences on this page for them the read as a source of encouragement and strength. Thank you all for your continued support and prayers.

Peace & Good +

[Message by James Green at The Ark Community, July 21, 2014]

The deceased is the same Tony Palmer
to whom Francis sent a video message some time ago, referring to the Protestant layman as his “brother bishop.” It is the same Tony Palmer the “Pope” met just a month ago at the Vatican for a luncheon (see “The Evangelical Lunch”). 


Palmer speaking with Francis in the Vatican late June 2014

Meaning no disrespect to the deceased Palmer, we must point out that this is the
umpteenth time that something tragic, something terrible, something frightening has happened in connection with something done, planned, or desired by “Pope” Francis, such as the terrible war, persecution, and bloodshed in Iraq after Francis offered interfaith prayers for “peace” in the Vatican together with Jews and Muslims (where the latter boldly prayed for “victory over the infidels”).

We should privately pray for the soul of Tony Palmer and keep in mind that Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors [1864], n. 17).

As the same Pope Pius taught in an Apostolic Letter on the convocation of the First Vatican Council:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868])

How far this is from the heretical ecumenism and phony “search for unity” promoted by the Modernist Vatican II Sect of which Francis is the head. As blogger Louie Verrecchio rightly points out: “The sudden death of Tony Palmer lends perspective to just how much is at stake when it comes to the deeply troubling words and deeds of the current pope [sic]” (source). Such as, for example, Francis’ explicit admission, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism” (source).

Let us pray that somehow, by a miracle of divine grace, Mr. Palmer was able to convert to the True Faith before being called so suddenly to appear before his Judge, who desires “all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).

More on the Death of Tony Palmer:

See Also:

Hey, what’s one more at this point...


A Little Heresy from Richard Rohr

Consider yourself blessed if you’ve never come across the name or theology of “Fr.” Richard Rohr, one of the Novus Ordo Sect’s most dangerous Modernists in the United States. Officially a “Franciscan priest”, Mr. Rohr — ordained in 1970 in the doubtfully valid Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI — is a master of syncretism, mixing traces of Catholicism with lots of New Age and Modernist “spirituality” that he administers to people at his “Center for Action and Contemplation” in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

We have exposed Rohr and the dangers of his false theology and false spirituality before in the following post:

Rohr’s satanic New Age agenda also includes “retreats” in the desert where, so he boasts, oftentimes men will strip naked and jump over a fire. As Rohr himself relates:

We often have camp-fires, and I know some of you have been at these where it happens, so you know what I'm talking about. Always, always, there's some guys — I mean, is it in their hard wiring? — they'll strip and have to leap over that fire, burning their balls. . . . I don't know what it is. They're the “real” men, who can leap over the fire, naked.

(“Fr.” Richard Rohr, OFM; quoted in Stephanie Block, “Coloring Outside the Lines”)

Of course, Rohr is in full communion and good standing with the apostate Vatican II Church, which only takes serious action against people actually suspected of being Catholics (see example here).

On July 11, 2014, Richard Rohr used his Twitter account to disseminate a favorite Modernist heresy: the idea that grace is inherent in nature. Here is Rohr’s actual tweet, from his Twitter handle @RichardRohrOFM:

In case you cannot view the embedded tweet, Rohr says: “Grace is inherent to creation from the very beginning.”

This is unmistakable heresy, condemned by various Popes through the ages, and definitely a consequence of Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X rightly called the “synthesis of all heresies” (Encyclical Pascendi, n. 39). It is a damnable error resurrected once more by some proponents of the Nouvelle Theologie, the “New Theology”, condemned as crypto-Modernist by the Catholic Church in the 1930s-1950s and effectively endorsed by the Novus Ordo Sect at Vatican II in the 1960s and ever since (for an academic treatment of the Nouvelle Theologie by one of its heretical proponents, conceding also the Catholic pre-Vatican II opposition to it, see Jurgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Theologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II).

Reality Check: Rohr’s Thesis is Heretical

  • Pope St. Pius V, Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (1567): 
    • “Absurd is the opinion of those who say that man from the beginning, by a certain supernatural and gratuitous gift, was raised above the condition of his nature, so that by faith, hope, and charity he cherished God supernaturally.” —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1023)
    • “The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.“  —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1026)
    • Note: St. Pius V condemns the above errors as “heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, and as giving offense to pious ears.” (Denz. 1080)
  • Pope Clement XI, Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus (1713): 
    • “The grace of Adam is a consequence of creation and was due to his whole and sound nature.” —CONDEMNED (Denz. 1385)
    • Note: Clement XI condemns the above error as “false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively“ (Denz. 1451). In addition, on August 28, 1718, in his bull Pastoralis Officii, Pope Clement decreed the excommunication of all who refused to adhere to his Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus (source).
  • Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei (1794): “The doctrine of the synod [of Pistoia] about the state of happy innocence, such as it represents it in Adam before his sin, comprising not only integrity but also interior justice with an inclination toward God through love of charity, and primeval sanctity restored in some way after the fall; in so far as, understood comprehensively, it intimates that that state was a consequence of creation, due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature, not a gratuitous gift of God, [is condemned as] false, elsewhere condemned in Baius, and in Quesnel, erroneous, favorable to the Pelagian heresy.” (Denz. 1516)
  • Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis (1950): “Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.” (n. 26; Denz. 2318)

The above references to “Denz.” are to the 1954 edition of Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, available for free as online text here, or to purchase in hardcover here.

The reason why this particular heresy is so popular today is that if sanctifying grace is inherent in created nature, and not a gratuitous gift of God (i.e., freely given by God as an undeserved “add-on” that elevates and perfects nature), then it follows that man cannot lose this grace through original or mortal sin, as it is part of his nature, and he would then retain it as long as he remains man (i.e. always). In this way, then, Eternal Life would be “owed” to all human beings on account of their humanity, and so all would ultimately go to Heaven, and hell would be empty. Sound familiar?

This damnable heresy of course also then implies that Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice on Calvary was useless and had no real, propitiatory purpose or effect, since original sin then did not, according to this heresy, deprive us of sanctifying grace. Which is exactly what many of today’s “Catholics” believe, such as “Archbishop” Robert Zollitsch, who declared in an interview in 2009 that he doesn’t believe Christ died to atone for our sins and appease the just wrath of Almighty God but only in order to show solidarity with human suffering:

The most famous modern-day “Catholic” theologian who defended the heresy that denies the gratuity of the supernatural order was Fr. Henri de Lubac, a French Jesuit quite revered and esteemed in the Novus Ordo Church (in fact, Antipope “Saint” John Paul II made him a “cardinal” in 1983). His book Surnaturel (“Supernatural”) got him in trouble with the Vatican’s Holy Office and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in particular. He was silenced by the Jesuit Superior General and several of his books were ordered withdrawn from theological libraries. 

The denial of original sin, which follows from this heresy, is also a popular and recurring theme among Modernists. You won’t be surprised (or perhaps you will) to find out that another well-known Modernist who came to “re-think” original sin is Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the man who claimed to be “Pope Benedict XVI” from 2005-2013:

No wonder Richard Rohr is in such good standing with the Modernist church.

See Also:

Uh… no, he couldn’t!

“Fr.” Zuhlsdorf:
“Pope could give a Priest Permission to ‘Break’ the Seal of Confession”

UPDATE 19-JUL-2014 18:48 GMT: Just as we were getting ready to publish this, we noticed that the Rev. Zuhlsdorf had already deleted his controversial post. Which is good — it is an admission that he was wrong — though it would have been better to leave the post up and retract it (as we’ve done before when the need arose) so that the people already affected by it can see the correction. But either way, it’s good the post is gone, and hopefully it won’t return. We all make mistakes. So please read what follows with this in mind, that “Fr. Z” has since deleted his remarks.

We recommend “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf spend less time updating his blog and adding items to his Amazon wish list, and a little more time studying actual Catholic theology.

On July 18, 2014, in another “this-news-is-outrageous-so-why-don’t-you-purchase-something-from-my-store” post on the state of Louisiana’s alleged attack on the seal of confession, the full-time internet “priest” made a stunning claim: “Yes, the Pope could give a priest permission to “break” the Seal of Confession. I stretch my mind to imagine the circumstances when a Pope would do that, but, yes, a Pope can do that.”

The Rev. Zuhlsdorf said this as a “correction” to an article he was recommending by Aaron Taylor in the Novus Ordo First Things magazine. Mr. Taylor had written, quite correctly: “If subpoenaed to testify and asked about what he heard during confession, the court will effectively be asking Fr. Bayhi to choose between being sent to prison and committing what Catholics consider to be such a serious offense against the sacrament that not even the Pope himself can dispense from the law’s requirements in this area.

On which “Fr. Z” commented as follows:

BTW… Mr. Taylor erred in his piece when he wrote: “…not even the Pope himself can dispense from the law’s requirements in this area [i.e., the Seal of Confession].” 

Yes, the Pope could give a priest permission to “break” the Seal of Confession. I stretch my mind to imagine the circumstances when a Pope would do that, but, yes, a Pope can do that.

(Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, “Seal of Confession under Threat by the State: Follow-Up”, July 18, 2014)

Someone then added an entry in the combox and said: “The Pope cannot give a priest permission to break the Seal. At least Aquinas doesn’t think so, and I’ll go with him on that.” The commenter, named
Cordelio, then provides a link to St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 11, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2 (see also Article 4 on that, by the way), in which the Angelic Doctor teaches:

Reply to Objection 2. The precept concerning the secret of confession follows from the sacrament itself. Wherefore just as the obligation of making a sacramental confession is of Divine law, so that no human dispensation or command can absolve one therefrom, even so, no man can be forced or permitted by another man to divulge the secret of confession. Consequently if he be commanded under pain of excommunication to be incurred "ipso facto," to say whether he knows anything about such and such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he should assume that the intention of the person in commanding him thus, was that he should say what he knew as man. And even if he were expressly interrogated about a confession, he ought to say nothing, nor would he incur the excommunication, for he is not subject to his superior, save as a man, and he knows this not as a man, but as God knows it. 

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., q. 11, a. 1, ad 2)

That’s pretty clear and authoritative, coming from the theologian the Catholic Church recognizes as the “Universal Doctor.” (Anticipating what some might now say, please see “St. Thomas Aquinas’ Position on the Immaculate Conception”). While it is probable that the supplement to the third part of the Summa here quoted was actually compiled by Fr. Reginald of Piperno, the content is nevertheless based on St. Thomas’ Commentary on the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard (source).

Because of Cordelio’s comment and evidence provided, Mr. Zuhlsdorf then added an update to his blog entry, which reads:


It may be that St. Thomas Aquinas argued that not even a Pope can permit the breaking of the Seal of Confession. Fine. I remind the readership that the Angelic Doctor, as great as he is, is not the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium. (Neither is St. Augustine, and in the past Pope’s have had to remind people that he isn’t.)

I have the moderation queue switch ON. I may permit some comments if they contribute something new and interesting to this entry.

(Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, “Seal of Confession under Threat by the State: Follow-Up”, July 18, 2014)

In case the blog post is taken down or changed, you can view a screenshot of the relevant excerpt here (click image to enlarge):



Now, perhaps we missed it, but as far as we know, Zuhlsdorf did not provide a shred of magisterial evidence for his contention that the Pope can dispense a priest from the seal of confession, or can permit him to break it. Such an idea would mean that the seal is not of divine origin, bound up intimately with the sacrament as instituted by Christ, but rather is simply an ecclesiastical law, a convention the Church maintains and that she has full control over.

In fact, Mr. Z’s comment indicates that the Pope is not really subject to the seal of confession himself, and can dispense himself from it any time he pleases. Not that he would, but that he could. Not only would this mean that no one should want to confess to the Pope, it would also mean that people could no longer feel confident that their confessions will remain confidential with their own parish priests because, what if the Pope permits — or even orders — their priests to break the seal?

No, “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf: You are wrong; Aquinas is right. The Pope can do no such thing. The sacrament would be rendered odious and people would begin to avoid confessing their sins. It would be a complete slippery slope; it would be a genie that, once having left the bottle, could never be put back in.

But there is more evidence than just the foregoing that the Pope could not permit a priest to break the seal of confession. In his great 4-volume work Moral and Pastoral Theology, Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., confirms the position of St. Thomas, which is that of the Church:

The obligation of the seal is of the gravest, on the grounds both of justice and of religion. The obligation of justice is obvious, for violation of the seal is violation of an entrusted secret as also of a natural secret, if, as usually happens, the sin confessed was occult [i.e. not publicly known]. The obligation of religion arises from the fact that the Sacrament is to be treated with reverence, as an institution of Christ our Lord, and as a means of entering into relations with God. The obligation of the seal arises certainly from divine law, and most probably from divine Natural law, on the presupposition that the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ, and that the secret confession of sins was enjoined by Him

In other words, since Christ instituted the Sacrament and imposed on all the baptized the obligation of secret confession, He thereby instituted a secure means of seeking forgiveness of sin, safeguarded, that is, in the highest degree from every circumstance extrinsic to the tribunal that could possibly redound to the shame, inconvenience, or annoyance of a penitent. It is obvious, therefore, that the secret of the confessional differs in kind from every other secret, in that it may never be disclosed, not even to the penitent outside confession, and that it extends even to the smallest detail. There is no slight direct violation of sacramental secrecy.

(Fr. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, 3rd ed. [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938], pp. 316-317; underlining and paragraph break added.)

Maybe “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf should be adding Fr. Davis’
Moral and Pastoral Theology to his Amazon wishlist, instead of $1,200 radio transceivers and $700 solar panel chargers. Just a thought. But then, with all the blogging, facebooking, target shooting, appeals for money, traveling, dining, lecturing, TV watching, movie reviewing, Kindle reading, and combox moderation — who has time for Catholic theology?

More on “Father Z”: 

“I can’t believe it’s not Catholic!”

Vatican Radio:
“Homosexuality Need Not Be ‘Cured’”

“Pope” Francis may say he doesn’t know who’s part of the notorious Vatican Gay Lobby, but we suspect he can find some of them at the German branch of Vatican Radio, which posted a photo of two young men kissing while waving a rainbow flag, as part of a news story on the heretical “Bishop” Stephan Ackermann on July 17, 2014. The post can be seen here, but, just in case it gets removed, we provide a screenshot here (UPDATE 18-JUL-14 12:22 GMT: Vatican Radio has just replaced the offensive photo with a photo of “Bp.” Ackermann):


Time to block Vatican Radio in your Internet Filter 
— the original post with the offensive picture

The story about “Bishop” Ackermann is bad enough (also see the links beneath this news piece), but it is even worse for Vatican Radio to illustrate it with such an act between two men. (Clearly, the idea is to further desensitize the “Catholic” culture to public perversion.) The title of the post is D: Homosexualität muss nicht “geheilt” werden — “G[ermany]: Homosexuality Need Not Be ‘Cured’”, a paraphrase from Ackermann’s “dialogue” with homo perverts in his diocese of Trier.

We are providing a translation of the entire post by Vatican Radio, for full details and context:

G[ermany]: Homosexuality Need Not Be “Cured”
[July 17, 2014]

Stephan Ackermann, the bishop of Trier, takes a critical view of efforts to “heal” homosexuality. There is no official church backing of such initiatives, Ackerman said on Wednesday night in Saarbrucken. The paper Die Zeit had recently reported on doctors who advertise changing your sexual orientation and who are therefore considered an “insider’s tip” among conservative Christians. Ackerman spoke at a discussion round organized by the Association of Lesbians and Gays (LSVD) of the Saar region, in which approximately 100 people participated. The two-hour meeting was the first of its kind in Germany. In smaller settings, similar discussions had taken place before with representatives of lesbians and gays, such as in the diocese of Essen and ahead of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Germany in 2011 in the archdiocese of Berlin.

Controversial Provision in Church’s Employment Law

The focus of the meeting in Saarbrücken was questions concerning ecclesiastical employment regulations and how the church deals with sexuality. One topic was the so-called obligations to loyalty, according to which church employees who live in a homosexual relationship and would like to have this relationship legally recognized must expect getting fired. In a “Saarbrucken Appeal”, the LSVD called on Ackermann to declare publicly “that in his diocese, employees of the Catholic Church no longer need to fear being dismissed from work on account of registering a homosexual partnership.” This is to apply at least to “non-vocational professions”, such as physicians and nurses in Catholic hospitals.  

Ackerman asked people to understand that obligations to loyalty are important to the ecclesial profile of an institution. At the same time, he admitted to the existence of “tensions” in some areas, “which are not good.” The [German] bishops are presently taking part in in-depth discussions about what shape these obligations to loyalty are to take in the future, according to Ackermann. The bishop of Trier assessed the dialogue in Saarbrucken as “sincere.” He wants to be “ready to listen”, he said, and contribute to greater mutual understanding in controversial matters. The organizers, too, emphasized that they were interested in building bridges and fostering mutual dialogue. In what manner this dialogue will be continued is still an open question at the present time.

(kna 17.07.2014 mg)

Link to Original Story here
Translation: Novus Ordo Watch

More links regarding what “Bishop” Ackermann said at the discussion:

By the way, the head of the German branch of Vatican Radio is Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit. That would explain a lot.

Reality Check:

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

“A new kind of war against the enemies of our salvation must now be waged. The license of thinking and acting must be curbed. The luxury and the pride of life must be restrained and cupidity for gain must be kept in check. All impurity must be purged and all enmity eliminated. All hatreds must be abolished. Sound the trumpets and declare a spiritual war against the enemies of the cross of Christ. Strengthen the languid hands of your soldiers and straighten their bent knees. In the first place, make straight the path for those who have decided to come to this citadel of religion, this impregnable stronghold. Let them hear from you that they are not called here for leisurely roaming nor to view strange sights; but they are summoned to carry arms in a Christian militia and to undertake the labors of fighting and war. What are the arms that Satan fears if not the vigils of the pious, their prayers, fastings, almsgivings, their works of Christian humility and of mercy? By these the tyrannical domination of human cupidity is overcome, and the kingdom of love is strengthened and extended.” (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Peregrinantes (1749), nn. 11-12)


     Published July 16, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!

What a Mess! “Youth Mass” in Brazil

He has a microphone, and he’s not afraid to use it...

Don Bruno Unleashed

His name is Bruno Maggioni. He’s a well-known and popular Novus Ordo priest in Italy who is famous for dancing, clapping, and singing secular songs during weddings he officiates. See the videos below — what a joke the Novus Ordo priesthood is, a parody of itself. Priceless!

Don Bruno unleashed: a John Wayne he ain't

[Face palm]

Who is the center of attention in this “Mass”? Jesus Christ or Don Bruno?

Don Bruno sings “Mamma Maria” by Ricchi e Poveri...

…and ends it with a kiss for the bride — and TWO for the groom! ;-)

How a Catholic priest instead ought to act and carry himself is wonderfully explained by the words and example of Pope Saint Pius X: 

See Also:

Sexual Innuendo to Drive Sales...


New Low for “Fr.” Zuhl$dorf:
“Use Protection!”

We’ve said it before, and, unfortunately, we have reason to say it again: The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf — “Father Z” — is apparently a full-time professional businessman using the “traditional Catholic priesthood” as a sales gimmick. 

In case our previous posts and sample links didn’t convince you of our less-than-stellar view of this man...

…we now have even more confirmation that his morals are as questionable as the validity of his priesthood:

Using sexual innunedo (!) in the title of one of his blog posts dated July 11, 2014, “Fr. Z” tries to drive more sales. The title is: “Advice from a priest: Use protection!” You can view his post here.

Anyone who hasn’t lived under a rock for the last 100 years can spot the deliberately suggestive ambiguity, the innuendo, contained in this phrase: “Use protection” is, of course, a popular euphemistic slogan employed by the liberal-pagan left to tell people to contracept when they fornicate so they are “protected” from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. In other words, “use protection” is typically used as an exhortation to commit two mortal sins at the same time: fornicate and contracept. What a perfect slogan for a “priest” to use to get more of your money!

But don’t get us wrong: We’re not suggesting that Zuhlsdorf is trying to promote contraception or fornication. Definitely not. His post is about nothing sexual or moral at all actually — it is about “recommending” (read: selling) uninterruptible power supplies that protect you from power failures.

Is there anything wrong with doing that? Of course, selling battery backups is not wrong; in fact, such devices are rather important if you want to keep your computer safe. What is wrong, however, is the shamefully indecent way “Father Z” is doing it: by using a perceived hidden sexual message as an attention grabber to get people to click on and read the post, which contains sales links. Obviously, the more clicks on the links, the more sales, and the more sales, the more cash for him, as he gets paid a commission from Amazon based on the total value of items sold.

So, Zuhl$dorf’s latest tactic is to create in people’s minds an association with sexual sin and, having piqued their curiosity in this way, to hope they will purchase the linked products, thus increasing his bank account balance. Now there’s a great priestly role model for you! (Please don’t think for a minute Mr. Z actually cares about your computer — he obviously doesn’t even give a hoot about your soul).

In case the blog post in question should mysteriously disappear from his site, we have taken a screenshot of it. As you can see, we have added some red markings and numbered them — below we provide comments on each. 



This is the indecent title of the blog post which serves as Zuhlsdorf’s attention grabber to entice people to click and see what the post is about. People are naturally curious about sexual matters, which is precisely what Mr. Z is counting on. So people will click, only to find out that the “priest” blogger wants to sell them electronics.

(2) This is one of the first things you see when you look at the blog post: Z’s Amazon search box. Anything you buy through that, he will get a commission on, typically around 6.5%.

(3) Here Z assures his visitors from the United Kingdom that he has a search box for the UK version of Amazon as well. Wouldn’t want to miss out on all the cash from your British fans, now would you?!

(4) A hard-to-miss “Donate” button. In addition to sales commissions, Mr. Z also begs his supporters for direct cash. Poor guy — his “bishop” must not have enough money to pay him a salary!

(5) Here “Fr.” Z notifies his visitors that though one-time donations to him are great, it would be even better if he could be sent cash on a recurring basis, by means of convenient direct debit through Paypal. Ker-ching!

(6) This is a direct product link to AmaZon he wants you to click on so you can spend $60 (as of the time of this writing) on an uninterruptible power supply he gets paid a commission on. 

(7) In case you want to spend more, “Fr.” Zuhl$dorf offers you this alternate product for $180, on which he will make, roughly estimating, $10 per item sold.

John Zuhlsdorf has stated before (on a broadcast with Michael Voris) that he gets tens of thousands of hits a day on his blog. So let’s do some math to see just how lucrative his “Father Z” business might be for him — we’ll be very charitable and make some very conservative assumptions that will err on the side of less money for him:

Let’s assume that...

  • he gets 20,000 hits a day
  • on average, he sells $50 worth of products through Amazon for every 1,000 hits (=each hit produces an average of 5 cents of Amazon sales revenue)
  • his average Amazon commission is 6.5% (standard)

This would come to

$50 x 20 x 0.065 = $65 per day

Now assume these $65 per day for 365 days...

= $23,725 per year minimum Amazon commission

Not bad for a single man who doesn’t really have anything to do all day. Plus, remember that this is a minimum amount based on very conservative estimates, and this does not even include the sales commissions he gets on everything else he sells on his blog through stores other than Amazon, such as Mystic Monk Coffee, his Cafe Press Fr. Z’s Store, Ammunition Depot, and — nor does it include the donations people send him directly, or the salary he (presumably) gets from his bishop in Italy, or fees he might get paid for speaking at conferences and/or parishes.

Overall, Zuhl$dorf seems to have a pretty comfortable online business. Other people have to work long and hard, and support families, for the kind of money you can figure coming in for Wine-and-Dine Zuhlsdorf from putting up sales links and blog commentary all day (and don’t forget the Z Cam!). It’s sad to have to say this, but indications really are that “Fr. Z’s Blog” is primarily a business, where the smells and bells of Catholicism are used to lure people to provide a comfortable living for a man who loves to tout his “priesthood” (from John Paul II!) without ever much doing the typical work of a priest. The fact that, as he points out on his [old] Facebook page (the new one is here), he completed undergraduate and graduate college studies in theater (!) helps to underscore, rather than undermine, our point: He needs your cash, because the show must go on!


John Zuhlsdorf enjoying the fruits of his online business

So, if you ever happen to come across his blog again, just remember this little six-letter acronym as your reality check:
WDTPRS — What Does The Phony Really Sell?

To use a quote, duly adapted to the case at hand, based on Mt 16:26 and attributed to St. Thomas More addressing Richard Rich (in the movie A Man for All Seasons): “Why John, it profits a man nothing to give up his soul for the whole world… But for Sales?!


His view for awhile...

You may wonder why we even bother criticizing Mr. Zuhlsdorf, why we pay any attention to him. Are we guilty of envy perhaps?! No, the truth is simply this: “Father” Zuhlsdorf has tremendous influence in the blogosphere over the souls of a lot of good-willed, pious people who seek to be genuine Roman Catholics. His site gets tens of thousands of hits a day, as we already said, and his Twitter followers are roughly 24,000 as of the time of this writing. Do not underestimate the damage this man inflicts on the few who are left in the world who mean to be good traditional Catholics — and now instead waste their precious time reading his blog posts about bird feeders, target shooting, movie reviews, and the breadcrumbs he found on his economy-class plane seat. (Hey, whatever it takes to make sure people don’t have time to read pre-Vatican II Catholic theology!)

It is charlatans like “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf who keep so many attached to the Novus Ordo Sect; following him is considered “hip” and “cool” by people who think themselves traditional and orthodox (by Novus Ordo standards) — all because of the externals (“Look, he wears a biretta, stands up to Nancy Pelosi, and was ordained by the Pope! Oh my gosh, he knows so much Latin!”). It is especially people like him who make the Vatican II religion look credible as the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that’s a real shame.

The faster he is unmasked, the better for all.

Looking for More? We only keep the 15 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.