Wednesday, June 1, 2016


There is no doubt that the press and their owners, the entertainment media is out of control. They have become like the dictators of relativism that Pope Benedict warned about. They rule with an iron fist and anyone who stands in their way is subject to serious humiliation and backlash. They have completely cooped politicians and government officials. President Barack Obama is a prime example of it. Europe's dictators of relativism, especially in government, are on steroids!

These media moguls who control the press and politicians as well as government policies, write the scripts for shows and produce them for general consumption. They have the morals of ally cats for the most part. They make teenagers look mature compared to them.

Thus we see the appeal of Donald Trump, an insider media superstar. He stands up to the media in all its forms and calls them out. He stands up to the government and politicians. He says things that neutralize them.

While I am not a fan of Trump's uncharitable remarks and his bullying, I am a fan of those who tell the truth even if brutally. The media needs to be tamed and knocked off the pedestal of sanctimony they have placed themselves. Along with them will fall the politicians who are like fascists when it comes to gender ideologies they are trying to shove down the throats of the world.

While the sex abuse scandal is serious business and precisely a scandal that needed reporter, the media, entertainment and otherwise, with an axe to grind, have focused only on the Catholic Church and her scandal when all religions and secular institutions which deal with children and teenagers have the same issues and scandals. We are not along, although you would not know this by the media's constant haranguing our the Catholic issue.

And bishops fear the media and genuflect to them. Our bishops need to act like Donald Trump and stand up to these dictators.

Here is a good article from  Crux that shows why bishops need to stop wringing their hands and Catholics in general too, and start acting like men!

If Spanish cardinal is homophobic, defenders suggest so is Pope Francis

By Ines San Martin

Vatican correspondent June 1, 2016

ROME—A Spanish cardinal is under fire for issuing warnings about a “gay empire” and denouncing the perils of “gender theory” in a recent homily, with pro-LGBT associations threatening to sue him for being homophobic.

Spain, generally considered one of the world’s most gay-friendly nations, has had anti-discrimination laws including penalties for “hate speech” since 1996.

Defenders of Cardinal Antonio Cañizares of Valencia, however, are quoting Pope Francis’ latest document on the family, which also defends traditional marriage and criticizes gender theory, with the unspoken implication apparently being that if the Spanish prelate is “homophobic,” then so is the pope.

Cañizares, who formerly served as the Vatican’s top official for Catholic liturgy, delivered a homily on May 13 at the local Catholic University, for the closing Mass of the school year at the John Paul II Institute, dedicated to the family.

In his remarks, titled “In defense and support of the family,” Cañizares said “the future of society is played out” in the family, and, because of that, it’s become a target.

“On the one hand, it’s the most valued, at least in the polls and even among young people, social institution, but it’s shaken to its foundations by serious, clear or subtle, threats,” he said.

“The family is haunted today, in our culture, by an endless threat of serious difficulties, and this is not hidden from anyone,” Cañizares continued.

“There we have legislation contrary to the family, the action of political and social forces, with added movements and actions of the gay empire, of ideas such as radical feminism, or the most insidious of all, gender theory.”

“Gender theory” is a somewhat obscure term, but in Catholic parlance it’s used to describe the ideas of scientists and cultural critics who regard differences between men and women as socially constructed rather than given in nature.

Some gender theorists say that people should be able to identify as male, female, in-between, neither or both, and discourage the stereotypical gender-based divisions, such as dolls for girls and trucks for boys.

Pope Francis is among its critics.

“Gender theory is an error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion,” he said in March 2015, when visiting the southern Italian city of Naples. Later in that speech he said “the family is under attack” because of it.

Soon after Cañizares’ remarks, several pro-LGTB and feminist organizations, such as Lambda, the LGBT collective of Valencia, the Collective for the Sexual-Affective Diversity and the Association of Families with Transsexual Minors announced they were going to file an official complaint with the “Office of Hate Crimes.”

Technically, they intend to charge Cañizares with “apologia,” a term in Spanish law for encouraging or defending a criminal act.

Seeing the reaction, Cañizares decided to publish the homily in full, with an accompanying note asking, “Is it homophobic to defend the family?”

He also requested “objective” lawyers and jurists to look at its content and decide if what he said is in fact “against the law” or homophobic.

In his letter, the cardinal says that the “censorship and condemnation” he received in some media, and the attacks from organizations and politicians, made him recall “stages of our past history” during which homilies and preachers were “censored and condemned.”

Cañizares was referring to Spain’s bloody civil war in the 1930s. During that time, 6,800 priests and religious men and women were murdered, many after being tortured, hundreds of churches closed and Catholics persecuted.

On Sunday the cardinal, former head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, was at it again, asking Catholics to disobey laws they believe to be unfair, based on the “most insidious and destructive ideology of humanity in all its history, which is gender ideology, which global powers try to impose upon us through more or less covert innocuous legislations, which mustn’t be obeyed.”

In his homily for the feast of Corpus Christi, Cañizares also said that Christians are called to “commit ourselves to witness the presence of God in the world. Do not be afraid to talk about God or to show signs of your faith with your head up high.”

He then said that “the public space is not neutral,” something which he argued was made evident by the fact that “in many places one hears disqualifications and attacks on the Christian faith and the Church; constant attacks and harassment by some to religious freedom.”

These groups, he said, would like to see the faith and the Church “confined strictly to the private space.”

At the end of his message, he stressed that the “culture of the Eucharist promotes a culture of dialogue, which in it finds strength and nourishment.”

Therefore, “it is a mistake to think that any public reference to faith will somehow undermine the genuine autonomy of the State [or] of civil institutions, or that it can even encourage attitudes of intolerance.”

However, Cañizares recognized, “there have been errors in history, even among believers… but this is not because of our Christian roots – which are and will always be Eucharistic – but because of the incoherence of Christians with their own roots, the Eucharist. ”

As the controversy has mounted, Bishop Esteban Escudero, an auxiliary of Valencia, released a statement supporting the cardinal, saying that in his May 13 homily Cañizares was “defending the family amidst the challenges the pope talks about.”

Escudero quotes Francis’ recent document Amoris Laetitia, on love in the family, released earlier in the year.

In it, the pontiff writes: “Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.”

Valencia is currently debating what local media describe as a “transsexuality law,” that would allow underage children to have their sexes surgically changed without their parents’ approval, with the government paying for the treatments.

The projected bill also makes it mandatory for schools to teach that “gender is fluid,” and that if she wants to “a girl can have a penis.”

If they refuse, the schools will lose all public funding, and could be fined 45,000 euros for each case raised.

Those opposing the new education bill do so saying it violates the parents’ fundamental rights to educate their children, and that it goes against schools’ religious identities.

Pope Francis has also lambasted what he believes to be an “indoctrination of children” on several occasions, such as April 2015, when he said that eradicating male and female identities does nothing to solve the problem of unfair or disrespectful treatment based on people’s gender.

Going back to April 2014, while addressing members of the International Catholic Child Bureau, Francis called for support of parents’ rights to decide the moral and religious education of their children.

“I would like to express my rejection of any kind of educational experimentation on children. We cannot experiment on children and young people. They are not lab specimens!” the pope said.

“A little over a week ago a great teacher said to me… ‘At times with these projects — referring to actual educational projects — one doesn’t know whether the child is going to school or to a re-education camp’,” he said.


Anonymous said...

This post is a joke, right Father? You are asking the bishops, this present bunch of Catholic bishops, to stand up to the culture and preach the Gospel and the truths of the Catholic Faith? Is this a joke.

The bishops who publicly backed Obama regarding so much legislation, Obama who is attacking the freedom of the Church to minister.

Bishops like Cardinal Dolan. Cardinal Dolan, where do we begin. Cardinal "Bravo" who publicly lauded a professional athlete for choosing to live an active homosexual life. Cardinal Dolan who gave his support for allowing gay lobby groups to publicly march in the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. The same groups that are now calling for all references to St. Patrick to be removed from the same parade. The same Cardinal Dolan who remained SILENTLY when the state of NY passed gay "marriage". And Cardinal gave the response that he was silent because he was assured by the pro abortion "Catholic" politicians that it wouldn't happen.

What about Cardinal O'Malley who caused grave scandal by attending in great pomp the public funeral of unrepentant pro abortionist Ted Kennedy. The same Ted Kennedy who did more than anyone in this country to promote the murder of unborn children.

What about Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, do we even have to go there.

What about Cupich who keeps saying that people in mortal sin are welcome to receive communion without going to confession and amending their lives.

And the list of scandals is truly endless. The bishops of this country for the last 50 years have abandoned the souls put in their charge and pretty much delivered them over to the wolves. And nothing is going to change. They are a spineless, effeminate, intellectually deficient undeserving men. Who is it possible that men of such low ability are able to rise to the top.

You are calling this bunch to rise to the challenge. Good luck with that one. Haven't you heard that amidst the destruction of the liturgy, the priesthood, religious life, Catholic education and now the papacy.....that this is the springtime of the Church. There has never been a better time in the history of the Church. You didn't get that message Father.

Anonymous said...

Sandro Magister gives evidence that parts of Amoris Laetitia are direct quotes from a document written 10 years ago by [now] Archbishop Fernández of Argentina who was appointed by Francis as a member of the original six member drafting committee for the synod.

Rorate Caeli apparently reported earlier that Archbishop Fernández was the ghost writer but now add:

"What we did not expect was for Tucho (pronounced TOO-cho) to merely copy-paste inside a papal document the most controversial parts of the exhortation from his own controversial words of the past -- articles written for no other reason than to counter the foundational encyclical of Pope John Paul II on the Moral Doctrine of the Church, and against all kinds of relativism, "Veritatis Splendor". The fabulous trick was revealed by Sandro Magister today.

So The Joy of Love (rather, The Joy of Tucho) is not only subtly, but truly and actually, the Anti-Veritatis Splendor -- and it was merely a papalization of the Relativistic words of Tucho, the great "mind" behind Pope Bergoglio."

Anonymous said...

Game set and match:

AL: 301)
As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” [Footnote 342].

[Footnote 341: cf. Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 65, a. 3, ad 2; De malo, q. 2, a. 2].
[Footnote 342: Ibid., ad 3].

(Fernández 2006: 156)
Saint Thomas recognized that someone could have grace and charity, but without being able to exercise well one of the virtues “propter aliquas dispositiones contrarias” (ST I-II 65, 3, ad 2). This does not mean that he does not possess all the virtues, but rather that he cannot manifest clearly the existence of one of them because the external action of this virtue encounters difficulties from contrary dispositions: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” (ibid., ad 3)."

As a result, I can only comment that Mark Thomas and others who have been heroically defending AL, which everyone claimed was against Church teaching, are shown now to have been defending the writing of a modernist who wrote much of AL 10 years ago. That to me is proof positive that they were speaking through a hole in their heads and didn't have the faintest idea of the import of what is in AL.

Anonymous said...

Not to rub more salt into poor Mark Thomas's wounds but Damian Thompson has a comment article about Fernandez' writing of AL:

"More damaging than the above, however, [referring to the quote from St Thomas] are the following comparisons, in which the words correspond less closely – but which imply that, on the question of whether Catholics in an irregular second marriage are living in a state of mortal sin, Francis borrowed his thinking from Fernández.


Archbishop Fernández enjoys no great reputation as a theologian; in conservative circles he is regarded as a joke figure. How come? Magister, clearly relishing the opportunity, offers us a clue:

The first book that revealed the genius of Fernández to the world, was: “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing,” published in 1995 in Argentina with this presentation to the reader, written by the author himself:

“Let me explain to you that I write this book not so much on the basis of my personal experience as on that of the life of people who kiss. In these pages I would like to summarize the popular sentiment, that which people feel when they think of a kiss, that which mortals feel when they kiss. ..."

He certainly knows how to make toes curl, does the Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina [Fernández].

• Aren’t Popes supposed to write their own major documents? Or, at least, be intimately familiar with their contents? When Francis was asked about the much-debated footnote 351, which – depending on how you read it – may allow some divorced and remarried people to receive Communion, he said:

I don’t remember the footnote, but for sure if it’s something general in a footnote it’s because I spoke about it, I think, in ‘Evangelii Gaudium.’

Can you imagine Benedict XVI saying that in any context? No, me neither. But I’d be surprised if Víctor Manuel Fernández couldn’t recite by heart all the most controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia, because on the basis of Magister’s analysis he took part in writing them.

Whether the Pope got round to reading them closely is another question."

Well, well, well ... Damian Thompson sums it up well ...

Rood Screen said...


How can you not like +Tucho? He's making Christianity so much nicer. Instead of "Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?", we now have Tucho's fabulous book "Heal Me with Your Kiss". It's the Christian Kamasutra! There's a famous picture of Tucho that so warms my heart that I've made it my profile picture for everyone to enjoy!

Rood Screen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I sure don't see the appeal of Donald Trump---bullying, xenophobic, obnoxious, thrice-married, economically illiterate. The choice of him or "Crooked Hillary" may to many of us boil down to "would you prefer Hitler or Stalin?" Or "Assad or ISIS" in Syria? George Wallace or Lester Maddox?

As for the popular "blaming the bishops" lines above, perhaps instead we should blame the voters that put in the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Biden. Like the old line about the turtle on the fencepost, they did not get their by themselves---they were chosen in free elections, often in landslides. Like the old saying, we have met the enemy, and he is us!

TJM said...

I call our bishops (although there are a few brave, faithful exceptions) the "steak and eggs bishops." As long as they are fed and comfortable, the world is fine and faithful Catholics should just shut up and pay and pray. Dolan's worst act was yucking it up with Obama, the abortion drooler.

rcg said...

Bishops are people. Some smart, some strong, some not so much. They are never, never, never a one man show. They need our strengths, skills, and intelligence to succeed. And to be very cold about it, they need our money. the quip about liberals being better at organising is true only insofar as what they elect to organise and their priorities. Rather than name call and wailing and rending we should be working to influence the bishops in a positive way. Sadly i think many sell out because of the funding needs thinking that is going help the Church.

John Nolan said...

LGBTQWERTYUIOP or whatever they call themselves - Generalissimo Francisco Franco would have given them short shrift.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."As a result, I can only comment that Mark Thomas and others who have been heroically defending AL, which everyone claimed was against Church teaching, are shown now to have been defending the writing of a modernist who wrote much of AL 10 years ago. That to me is proof positive that they were speaking through a hole in their heads and didn't have the faintest idea of the import of what is in AL. Not to rub more salt into poor Mark Thomas's wounds but Damian Thompson has a comment article about Fernandez' writing of AL:"

1. Jan, AL is not about yours truly. You haven't rubbed salt into my wounds. Perhaps, via your claim that AL is heretical, you have rubbed salt into somebody else's wounds.

2. Why does it matter that Archbishop Fernández contributed to portions of AL? All that matters is whether AL is in line with Church teaching. For example, the Church's Sacred Scriptures reference several non-canonical sources/pagans. The Church recognizes that such books as Enoch and Moses reflect rays of God's Truth.

Therefore, the inclusion in the Holy Bible of orthodox references derived from the Book of Enoch and the Book of Moses does not in any way hamper the Sacred Scriptures. The same thing applies to passages in AL that derive from Archbishop Fernández.

3. In regard to AL, I did not speak with a "hole in my head". I spoke (and speak) in line with His Holiness Pope Francis and my bishop (and one bishop after another). Pope Francis declared that we are certain to understand AL via Cardinal Schönborn's presentation of the Exhortation. He insisted that AL is in line with Church teachings on family and marriage.

My bishop has declared that AL is orthodox. Pastors in my diocese, in line with our bishop, have presented talks on AL. Our bishop and pastors have insisted that AL does not change Church teaching on family and marriage.

Jan, you see a "hole" in my head whenever I speak of AL. However, when I speak of AL, I do so in communion with my bishop who, in turn, is in communion with Pope Francis the Vicar of Christ.

Jan, when it comes to determining AL's orthodoxy, I must dismiss your claims as they are contrary to the Church's Teaching Authority.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, let us praise Francisco Franco, who employed concentration camps, forced labor, and summary execution of political opponents. Why not.....?

gob said...

Is there anybody here who is eligible to vote in the U. S. presidential election who will NOT vote for Donald Trump?

Anonymous said...

Dialogue, if not me, Fernández [your pin up boy] seems to have found favor with Mark Thomas - his book on kissing "Heal me with your kiss" may even be Mark's favorite.

Apparently Fernández also wrote Evangelii Gaudium!

It seems because of his articles quoted by Magister Fernández was out of favor with the Vatican but in favor with Cardinal Bergoglio:

"Magister described the articles [of Fernández] as “practically in defence of situational ethics”, of which Veritatis Splendor had been “decisively critical”.

“Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protégé,” Magister wrote.

“In 2013, just after he was elected Pope, Bergoglio even bestowed episcopal ordination upon Fernández, with the title of the extinct metropolitan see of Teurnia,” the Italian journalist continued.

Whereas “the chief culprit of the rejection, Dominican theologian Jean-Louis Bruguès” was consigned to the Vatican Apostolic Library, without being given the traditional title of cardinal, Magister added."

So, during St John Paul II's papacy Mark Thomas would have been condemning Fernández but now under Francis' papacy Mark finds him okay ...

Not that it will make any difference but Mark Thomas would do well to read the comments of Dr Christian Brugger where he says there are five serious problems with chapter 8 of AL which is not surprised now we are told the author of them ... and may explain why Francis did not remember the contentious footnote ...

Anonymous said...

Gob, I imagine only you ...

Daniel said...

gob, since this blog's audience consists largely of bitter old white men barking at the outside world, I'm sure Trump support here is high. In fact, we are pretty much his target demographic.

Father McDonald, I'd love to know what "truths" you think Trump is telling. I've been listening for a year, and I ain't heard one yet.

TJM said...

Jan are you voting for abortion queen Hildabeast?

Marc said...

I will not vote for Donald Trump.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton either.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."It seems because of his articles quoted by Magister Fernández was out of favor with the Vatican but in favor with Cardinal Bergoglio:"

"So, during St John Paul II's papacy Mark Thomas would have been condemning Fernández but now under Francis' papacy Mark finds him okay ..."

Jan, it is interesting that you referenced Pope Saint John Paul II. It was Pope Saint John Paul II who promoted Father Bergoglio to Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal. It was Pope Saint John Paul II who championed Father Bergoglio.

The person you condemn, Jorge Bergoglio, was championed by Pope Saint John Paul II.


Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Winston Churchill said that if he had been a Spaniard he would have supported Franco. Had I been a Catholic in the 1930s I would, like Evelyn Waugh, have supported the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. The fellow-travellers, useful idiots (to quote Lenin) and those Leftists who licked Stalin's boots joined the International Brigades. Sadly too many of them survived.

Rood Screen said...

Mark Thomas,

Any yet, according to his friends, Bergoglio disliked the papal leadership of JPII, especially concerning the application of universal moral norms. But in those days, just about every priest in Argentina was either a reactionary or a Communist, so Bergoglio seemed the moderate choice.

Mark Thomas said...

Dialogue, I don't have any knowledge in regard to hearsay about Pope Francis' supposed dislike of Pope Saint John Paul II's Papal leadership. All I know that in response to Jan, Pope Saint John Paul II championed Father, Bishop, and Cardinal Bergoglio's career.

In addition to the above, in 1998 A.D., Pope Saint John Paul II paid an important visit to Cuba. The Pope tapped then-coadjutor Bishop Jorge Bergoglio to accompany him to Cuba to serve in the important role as a Latin American church delegate.

Curia officials then asked Bishop Bergoglio, and nobody else, to author a book about Pope Saint John Paul II important trip to Cuba. The book is entitled "Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro".

Pope Saint John Paul II held Father/Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal Bergoglio in high regard.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark, I was referring to Fernandez which as always you don't answer the question but go off on a tangent. St John Paul The Great took recommendations from the papal nuncio, as popes do. People from Argentina state that the very liberal papal nuncio at that time was responsible for the many liberal appointments. Evidently this same former nuncio was one who collected the votes of one voting session at the conclave where Francis was elected and was/is now in charge of one large church in Rome. I suggest you read up what those people have to say about the Buonas Aires diocese. What they have said has largely occurred and of course Francis was surrounded by such people as Kasper, Fernandez and Daneels at the recent synod and criticised conservatives at such synod, so no one was surprised with the content of AL, written as it appears to be by Fernandez and now dismissed by Conservatives as not being part of the Magisterium. One day perhaps you will get your head out of the sand and come up for breath.

Anonymous said...

True, Dialogue, I just wonder how he got elected at the conclave. Of course, God has His ways and it may well be to sift the wheat from the chaff. We have certainly learnt a lot about Daneels and his ilk, Kasper and such, the woodworm eating away at the fabric of the church for years. They have all come out of the woodwork during this papacy.

Anonymous said...

TJM, Hillary would be a disaster but I can't see Americans voting her in. I hope Trump does what he promises.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."What they have said has largely occurred and of course Francis was surrounded by such people as Kasper, Fernandez and Daneels at the recent synod and criticised conservatives at such synod..."

Jan, do you mean that His Holiness Pope Francis criticized conservatives at the Synod? If that is what you mean, then I hope that you are aware that during the 2014 A.D. Synod, Pope Francis criticized liberals as well.


Mark Thomas

Unknown said...

gob, I will not. I will not vote for Hillary, either. I will, as usual, vote for the only person deserving of my vote; the only one I can trust not to betray me.

I'll leave you to wonder who that is.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, I am sure you will be able to link to the quote where Francis castigated the liberals at the synod.

In his book The Great Reformer, Dr Austin Ivereigh outlines the lobbying that went on to elect Francis, saying there were 19 Cardinals from Latin America and in addition:

“The Spanish cardinal Santos Abril y Castello, archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome and a former nuncio in Latin America, was vigorous in canvassing on Bergoglio’s behalf among the Iberian Iberian bloc.” (ibid.)— This allegation has never been denied by anyone, not even the Spanish Cardinal."

Cardinal Santos Abril y Castello is the friend of Francis which Antonio Lara from Argentina wrote:

"While it is correct to give Francis some time to act, please do not fool yourselves.

I am Argentine, I live in Buenos Aires since I was born. I am 40 years old, father to four kids. I helped and hosted priests from the FSSP and the Institute of the Good Sheperd when they visited Buenos Aires. None of them was granted a single minute with Bergolgio. We visited a dozen churches in the City, begging the priest in charge to allow the visitors to say the Mass. By direct order of Benedict, it was impossible. Only one priest allowed a Mass, and immediatley received a phone call from Bergoglio in person, who insulted in the most vulgar terms. I know this because that poor priest is a dear friend of mine.

Bergolio is a vulgar man, badly mannered, who shows a falsa attitude of dialogue and humility, but inside (when the doors are shut) he is tiranic and violent with everyone daring to secondguess him.

Bergoglio publicly defended Bishop Maccarone, after it was revealed that he had contranatura realtionships with a taxi driver (a video was available). Another extraordinary priest of Buenos Aires (Mons. Gustavo Podestá) dared to critize in his sermon "those who defend the indefensible" and within 24 hs was sacked by Bergoglio and sent home for ever (his flock in tears). Mons. Podestá even published in the parochial web page that "Mons. Bergoglio requested my resignation with great charity accepted it by telephone".

I could tell a lot more. Church in Argentina is a mock of the true Church, as regards liturgy, doctrine and public defense of pro-life agenda. And this is to thank to our new Pope.

I think that the cardinals were utterly unaware of the true nature and records of Bergoglio. A wwell devised trapp was set; it appears that Abril y Castelló collected the votes. This cardinal is also well known in Argentina since he was a Nuncio here, and was responsible for many horrendous nominations of modernist Bishops.

Believe it looks awfully bad. This has to be, nevertheless, contemplated in the Divine Plan. Perhaps a chastisemen for the world and the Church.

Kind regards,

Antonio Lara"

So Mark good luck in your continued championing of this papacy.

Anonymous said...

Flavius, as there will only be two candidates and you're not voting for Hillary then if you're voting you must be voting for ...

Unknown said...

Jan, that's not how elections here work. Write-in candidates exist. Third parties also exist.

Anonymous 2 said...


I just googled Antonio Lara Argentina and got no results that seem remotely relevant. Can you please identify who his person is and what source you are quoting from? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, it is a man from Argentina commenting on the election of Pope Francis to the following post:

There are comments about Antonio Lara on different Argentinian sites but difficult to translate. I found one comment in English:

"1. Miserere March 16, 2013 22:23
I read the comment by Antonio Lara. This lord, whose name is Gustavo Podesta, who had criticized Bergoglio, has rightly been pastor of the church Admirabilis Mater, one of the churches that I attended to go to Mass because this priest celebrated NO in a decent way. At that time I shot Buenos Aires in search of Mass without liturgical abuses. Then Podesta left the parish, but I did not know why."

Because these comments were made in 2013 it is hard to find them any longer. I did see reference to Antonio Lara being involved with Una Voce in Argentina.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, I found a couple more comments from Argentinians - one being Antonio Lara,

" The bergoglio of those years wasn't the same as the one of today. He was confined in Cordoba and in those times he was the spiritual father and confessor of a very conservative priest (father Roberto Yanuzzi) who later founded the Miles Christi group. Bergoglio changed in many aspects and left that priest. He was a completely diffenrent person when appointed auxiliar bishop of buenos aires. He never really explained this change, but made himself very clear that during his reign in the archdioceses nobody would dare to be labeled as "conservative" and live happily in a parish without consequences.
Argentinian Guy
07 April, 2013 21:55

Anonymous said...

Yes, Argentine guy. Moreover, Bergoglio prohibited (de facto) Miles Christi Institute to have presence in Buenos Aires. MC is a staunchly orthodox religious institute; its priests use black cassock (something unbearable for Bergoglio) and their NO Masses are chanted ad orientem.
MC has presence in a few dioceses in Argentina (La Plata, San Luis) and has settled quite well in USA, were. Cardinal Burke is very fond of them (there is an interview in You Tube were Burke praises MC). Burke praises them and they were welcome in St. Louis. While Bergoglio persecuted them out of Buenos Aires (like many other priests whose sin was to wear cassock and preach clearly the Traditional True Faith).Antonio Lara from Buenos Aires""

I have read that as a young man Francis was very conservative and orthodox but something happened and he changed overnight - that seems to be out the comments of Argentinian Guy

Anonymous said...

What Antonio Lara says about Miles Christi Institute being banned by Cardinal Bergolio is referred to in an online excerpt of the following publication:

Pope Francis: The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism: Revised and Updated ...
By Paul Vallely,+Buenos+Aires&source=bl&ots=3Auig0odIU&sig=8ZpMEfFyQ72NC-JjL8kOr5b4fJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ9MSxv47NAhUFopQKHWwpDqAQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Miles%20Christi%20Institute%2C%20Buenos%20Aires&f=false

Anonymous 2 said...


Thank you for the response and information. If possible, I would still like to see the original online source from which the quote comes. I googled some of the passage yesterday with no results.

I tried the link for the book and it did not work. However, I did google the book and found some very interesting and illuminating reviews on the Amazon site:

Some of the discussion on the site refers to Francis’s “conversion” experience. For example, the following comes from the Amazon “blurb” at the beginning:

“Vallely lays bare the intrigue and in-fighting surrounding Francis’s attempt to cleanse the scandal-ridden Vatican Bank. He unveils the ambition and arrogance of top bureaucrats resisting the Pope’s reform of the Roman Curia, as well as the hidden opposition at the highest levels that is preventing the Church from tackling the sex abuse crisis. He explains the ambivalence of Pope Francis towards the role of women in the Church, which has frustrated American Catholic women in particular. And Vallely charts the battle lines that are being drawn between Francis and conservatives and traditionalists talking of schism in this struggle for the soul of the Catholic Church. Consistently Francis has show [sic] a willingness to discuss issues previously considered taboo, such as the ban on those who divorce and remarry receiving Communion, his liberal instincts outraging traditionalists in the Vatican and especially in the Church hierarchy in the United States. At the same time, many of his statements have reassured conservative elements that he is not, in fact, as radical as he might appear.

Behind the icon of simplicity that Pope Francis projects is a steely and sophisticated politician who has learned from the many mistakes of his past. The Pope with the winning smile was previously a bitterly divisive figure. In his decade as leader of Argentina’s Jesuits left that religious order deeply split. His behavior during Argentina’s Dirty War, when military death squads snatched innocent people from the streets, raised serious questions. Yet after a period of exile and what he has revealed as ‘a time of great interior crisis’ he underwent an extraordinary transformation--on which Vallely sheds new and fascinating light. The man who had been a strict conservative authoritarian was radically converted into a listening participative leader who became Bishop of the Slums, making enemies among Argentina’s political classes in the process.”

I would now like to read the book. Has anyone here read it?