Raymond Arroyo interviews Carlo Maria Viganò

 

https://www.ewtn.com/tv/shows/world-over

Raymond Arroyo: Here to respond to the report, we’re pleased to be joined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who joins us via phone. Your Excellency, thank you for being here. The report claims you did not come forward. That’s the quote to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry. Were you asked to provide information for this McCarrick report? Did anyone reach out to you? 

Archbishop Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having presented myself to testify in this Vatican inquiry of Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of the canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process. 

Raymond Arroyo: So, Archbishop, they never reached out to you then to ask you to contribute to the report, to interview you? 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, it is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify, but even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. Let it not be said to me that I have made myself untouchable, because the secretary of state has my personal email address, which is still alive and never has been changed. 

Furthermore, it is also significant to me that James Grein — the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestation who had the courage to denounce him publicly — does not appear in the report and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would also have reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s. 

Raymond Arroyo: Hmm, interesting. 

Archbishop Viganò: From public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb — he was then a young, newly ordained priest — coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meeting of the conspirator of the so-called “Saint Gallen Mafia.” And according to the declaration deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio, both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI. 

Then Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the general congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few months earlier. 

I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that had such an obvious conflict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused. 

How can [Pope] Bergoglio, and the Secretariat of State that depends on him, pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican with an abnormal frequency? When, in June 2013, he was tasked with making that diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated attempts to cover up and denial of their responsibility, are the cause of the systematic effort to discredit me as a witness in order not to bring to light their complicity in circumstances that exist between them and the guys themselves?

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the Pope, according to the report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick's activities or restrictions on McCarrick in June of 2013. The Pope was certain that you as nuncio “never told him that McCarrick had committed crimes against any person, whether adult or minor, or described McCarrick as a serial predator.” Your response? 

Archbishop Viganò: This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testify in my 2018 memoir, I answer him with complete frankness: “Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops, there is a dossier this thick about him. The corrupt generation of seminarians and priest and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” 

The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time and he immediately change the subject. But then, what was the purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not, of course. It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience on the 23rd of June and that Bergoglio had authorized him to go to China. 

What was then the point of asking me for an opinion when Bergoglio already had McCarrick in the highest esteem? And in May 2014, I learned from The Washington Times of a tweet made by McCarrick to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State. 

Beginning in 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events. For this reason, I asked, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin, if the sanction against McCarrick was still to be considered valid? That I had received no response whatsoever.

Raymond Arroyo: And Your Excellency, you saw the report says there’s no documentation of this. They don’t have documentation, so therefore they dispute it. You would say what to that? 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I didn’t… I was not able to go all along the 400 pages in all the documents, but, you know, it’s interesting that they didn’t produce, in order to cover up also Cardinal Parolin, who didn’t answer to me. And from the report, I learned that McCarrick’s continued assignment and travels abroad were considered — this is stated in the report — they were considered by Archbishop Wuerl (Cardinal Wuerl) and even by Nuncio Sambi “as a sufficient form of removal” between quotation. That amazes me. 

So the report continues, and I quote: “the indications were not ‘sanctions;’ they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick ‘the obligation’ of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio,” as they stated. So, it means that despite the cardinal’s reprehensible conduct the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measure against McCarrick, which confirms my demonstration of the corruption of the Curia. 

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report goes to great pains to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3 in 2012. Now the Vatican says you brought the concerns of this priest, who claimed he was abused by McCarrick, you brought those concerns to the Holy See, to Cardinal Ouellette, who instructed you to investigate them, but then he claims he never heard back from you. Did you avoid placing yourself, as the report says, “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3?” They said you never contacted the priest, the vicar general of Metuchen or the bishop as instructed. Your reaction?

Archbishop Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandal to light. And that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed nuncio to the United States. 

In the report I am accused, as you’ve said, of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusation made by Priest 3 — do not mention his name. This is absolutely false. It is the writers of the report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they had concocted in order to strike and discredit me. In fact, in another place of the same report, it says that on June 13, 2013, I wrote to Cardinal Ouellette, sending him both the letter that Bishop Bootkoski had written to me as well as the letters he sent to Priest 3. I informed him that the civil case of Priest 3 had been dismissed without the possibility of appeal. And Bishop Bootkoski, of Metuchen, characterized the accusations of Priest 3 as false and slanderous. 

I would like to emphasize one aspect in particular: Those who accuse me of not having sent a written communication to Bishop Bootkoski, the ordinary of the Priest 3 and bishop of Metuchen, know very well that this depends on the precise direction of the Secretariat of State. 

They know equally well, as the report confirms, that there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I in turn informed Cardinal Wuerl. 

It should not be forgotten that in those years there were lawyers who were not content to bring dioceses to judgment for crimes committed by priests, but who wanted to demonstrate that the Holy See itself — like the headquarters of a multinational company — held the ultimate responsibility for giving compensation to victims of molestation. The lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, who probably has worked very hard for this report.

Raymond Arroyo: This is fascinating and we’ll have to… I wish we had more time to explore this, but I do recall reading that reference that you make to the communication with Cardinal Wuerl, but I didn’t connect the two, and I imagine most people reading the report wouldn’t either. But that makes sense. There is a footnote, Your Excellency, that repeats your testimony, where you maintain in 2006 and 2008 you asked your superiors “to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal's hat and reducing McCarrick to the lay state” in the full memorandum that they published. They claim you added, “if the allegations are true and proven.” Now, the report attempts to use this to undermine your testimony as some are maintaining. Your response to that? Does this in any way undermine your testimony that you qualified the penalty by saying, “if the accusations are proven true?” 

Archbishop Viganò: Well, the accusation that were brought to my attention, and previously to my predecessors, they proved that there was a number of seminarians that were well known that had denounced the abuses of Cardinal McCarrick. So for that, when I wrote in my report for 2006 and 2008 to my superior, the secretary of state, I have no doubt, no doubt that there was the case to proceed immediately after, of course, a due procedure, that was a corresponding to the authority of the Pope himself to take very strong, exemplary measures against Cardinal McCarrick. In fact, what I suggested in 2006 and 2008 has been accomplished. Ten years later, or more, 11 years later. So that was proof that my judgment was absolutely correct on the situation.

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, before I let you go, I’d like your reflections on the report placing the lion’s share of the blame for McCarrick’s rise in the Church at the feet of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And when you read the report, as I did, it’s clear that there was a network of bishops here that remain unnamed who protected McCarrick, either through patronage or personal contacts — or perhaps they were fellow travelers, but this network seems to be firmly in place. 

Archbishop Viganò: Yes, I mean, the intentions of the ones who drafted the report are clear: to pass off responsibility for the promotion of McCarrick to his predecessors. One of whom is deceased and canonized (John Paul II) and the other is so old and weak (Benedict XVI). The former cannot defend himself from the grave. 

The disturbing thing is that, within the report itself, obviously put together by many hands, there are numerous contradictions. Enough to make the argument the report has little credibility. I wonder then who convinced John Paul II and then Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted so that they could gain an advantage in terms of power and money? Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated following the model of the skeleton operation that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who oppose the regime. 

In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was definitely Cardinal Sodano. He was secretary of state until September 2006. All information came to him. In November 2000, he already had received information from Nuncio Montalvo for this report of the accusation of grave abuse committed by McCarrick. Let us not forget that in this period, the scandal of Father Maciel broke out, which Sodano sought to cover up by falsifying a statement of Benedict XVI. 

I was present to that in which it was said that the pope considered the case closed. Benedict XVI called a plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Arinze, who was a member of that congregation at that time, succeeded in having Maciel condemned despite the opposition of the secretary of state. And after that, the name of Cardinal Sodano also appears in connection to a scandalous real estate speculation in the United States. 

With regard to Benedict XVI, they want to have very direct access to the Pope where the secretary of state, Bertone, and the substitute Sandri were able to control and filter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father. 

Regarding the situation of Pope Benedict, the report speaks for itself. The one — and it is stated in the report — the one who presented the question directly, of McCarrick, directly to Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Bertone. Who, contrary to what I have repeatedly proposed — namely, that the very grave and detailed accusations against McCarrick required an exemplary canonical process leading to his removal from the cardinal college and his reduction to the lay state — led Pope Benedict to decide that no canonical process should be undertaken, nor should any canonical sanctions be proscribed, but that instead, and I quote, “a simple appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit” would be made. 

And here yet another flagrant contradiction appears evident. How is it possible to reconcile a simple appeal to conscience with a form of instruction that was given both to the Nuncio Sambi and to me, according to which McCarrick could not reside in the seminary where he was living, could not participate in public activities, could not travel and had to lead a retired life of prayer and penance? 

Raymond Arroyo: Mm-hmm. 

Archbishop Viganò: The corruption at the highest level of the Vatican is so evident that it may want to consider the report as an unworthy attempt to make Bergoglio appear absolutely alien to the manipulation of the Curia — indeed, as a sort of implacable persecutor of the corrupt, while the evidence of the facts demonstrated the opposite. 

Yes, I would like to also to note that the fact of blaming John Paul II for the appointment of McCarrick, despite the negative opinion of the Congregation for Bishops and its Prefect Cardinal Re, could be applied also to Jorge Bergoglio himself. About whom the Superior General of the Jesuits expressed strong reservatiosn. If Wojtyla made a mistake with McCarrick, and for this reason is considered implicitly responsible for the scandals that occurred, what happened? What prevented this judgment from also being extended to the promotion of Bergoglio as Bishop of Buenos Aires and then as a cardinal?

Let us remember that in the consistory of 2001 — and this is something really very suspicious — in addition to McCarrick and Bergoglio, other leading members of the Saint Gallen Mafia received the red hat. 

Raymond Arroyo: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, we thank you for being here tonight and for your insights into this report, which are quite unique, and you had a front row seat to so much of what we’re seeing unfold. I thank you for being here. I hope you’ll come back again. 

Archbishop Viganò: Thank you very much, Raymond. I’m very pleased to be part of your program. Thank you.

Carlo Maria Viganò: Church of Bergoglio attempting to overthrow American President Donald Trump

 

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vigano-deep-state-has-now-teamed-up-with-deep-church-to-overthrow-trump-usher-in-new-world-order?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard

More corruption and malfeasance in the Church of Bergoglio

Bergoglian saint-maker, Angelo Becciu, has been removed from his curial role and his has lost his rights as a Cardinal.

Bergoglio appointed this scumbag and it is inexcusable that he could not have known of his doings. 

From the combox at Father Z's blog.

It now becomes clear why the Pope moved tonight to remove Cardinal Becciu, ahead of L'Espresso publishing an expose of the how Becciu diverted Peter's Pence money to speculative funds managed by his brother, and to a company where another brother is a majority shareholder https://t.co/dvkhdgZ6VV— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) September 24, 2020

 From a friend, who is a priest and shall remain nameless … ” This is huge. Cardinal Becciu was the man who rail-roaded Cardinal Pell’s financial reforms after Cdl Pell detected Becciu’s involvement in one of the biggest financial scandals ever to rock the Vatican. Seems no coincidence that Becciu has been so severely disciplined only months after Cardinal Pell was exonerated and freed. There were always concerns about possible Roman puppeteers inflaming Victoria Police’s persecution of Cdl Pell. Perhaps we have found one? The question is, who directed Becciu? They will be the puppet master.”

Don't worry. Bergoglio will replace him soon with more of his ilk.

He likes to appoint scumbags.

Bergoglio's Vatican China Sellout

Arrogant and pompouse, the Bargolian rat Sorondo proves he is one!

Oh my, this is just too good. Hats off to Diane Montagna at LifeSiteNews who no doubt used her charms (and I mean that in the most respectful and positive way) to bring out the worst in some Argentinean scumbag inappropriately ordained a priest who grew up to be a most corrupt ecclesiast and butt-kisses the global elite on behalf of a most disgraceful Argentinian bumpkin who usurped the Seat of Peter and remains on it - an un-lanced boil.

From the get-go, Montagna does not shy away from the tough questions and just does it with such humility and directness that the apostate Sorondo is flummoxed. So much so, he chooses instead to insult her - calling her "lady" and then that she is a "fanatic."

I think the best part was when Ms Montagna corrected the idiot Sorondo on Holy Scripture.  He continues on to insult Donald J. Trump for not being Catholic, Cardinal Raymond Burke for being one and then goes on to endorse sacrilege and unworthy reception of Holy Communion.

DM: I’m just thinking of the good of his soul – and for the good of her soul. St. Paul is very clear about how we can eat condemnation upon (cf 1 Cor. 1:29)…

BS: Yes, but St. Paul is very clear also to say, “my only judge is my conscience.” St. Paul said it.

DM: No, no he didn’t. He said that the Lord is his judge. He said: “Not even I can judge myself. The Lord is my judge” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4).

BS: The Lord is my judge, but the Lord is in my conscience.

DM: The Lord isn’t necessarily if we don’t have …

BS: He’s not in the conscience of the bishop or the cardinal…

DM: But if you don’t have a well-formed conscience where divine grace is actually active, then your conscience is probably lying to you. The darkness of the intellect…

BS: This is your interpretation. Sorry, I don’t want to continue to speak with you because you are completely… and you want only to make polemics. You need to be very happy and to say to your Cardinal Burke, “Look the president [of Argentina] goes to the Mass.” This is the important fact. And your president did not go to the Mass.

DM: What do you mean, my president?

BS: Say this.

DM: My president in terms of President Trump?

BS: Yes. He does not go to the Mass.

DM: But he’s not Catholic. He’s not Catholic.

BS: Exactly! This is a great difference.

DM: He’s not Catholic. But President Trump went in January... he was the first U.S. president ever to go to the March for Life with thousands and thousands of young people.

BS: Yeah, to have the votes of the Catholics. To have the votes of the Catholics. Say this to Cardinal Burke. And in fact, I heard that Cardinal Burke is against President Trump.

DM: Is against?

BS: Yes. Yes.

DM: Or he went to see him?

BS: He is against many things that [Trump] says.

DM: Well, you don’t have to agree with everything President Trump does. But he’s saving babies. He’s saving babies.

BS: Please, lady, understand the Catholic ideas and do not be fanatic, do not be fanatic.

DM: Okay…

BS: If you continue to speak with me, do not be fanatic. Try to use reason.

DM: I am. Okay. Thank you very much.

Bergoglio has succeeded in surrounding himself with the most corrupt and vile men. This Sorondo probably takes the cake and one wonders what else.

Read the whole article and the interview. It is just so bad and so good, all at the same time.

Oh my, the rats are so exposed. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-vatican-bishop-defends-giving-communion-to-pro-abortion-argentine-president-and-mistress

Hey Bergoglio - this is here to piss you off! Have a nice day.

https://www.ignatius.com/From-the-Depths-of-Our-Hearts-P3550.aspx

Breaking: Viganò accuses Gänswein of "isolating" Pope Benedict XVI

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-vigano-denounces-benedicts-secretary-for-abusive-and-systematic-control-of-pope-emeritus


Testimony by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

It is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Archbishop Georg Gänswein over the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI since the beginning of his Pontificate.

Gänswein habitually filtered information, arrogating to himself the right to judge how opportune or not it was to send it to the Holy Father.

I can testify that, when Pope Benedict summoned me in audience on April 4, 2011, a few days after I had sent him my first letter (that was later illegally published during Vatileaks), I said to the Pontiff: “I will not speak to you about the situation of corruption in the management of the Papal Villas, since I assume that you have already taken note of the memo on the matter, which I delivered to your secretary for you, in view of this audience.”

The Holy Father, in all simplicity and innocence, and without showing any surprise, said to me: “No, I didn’t see anything.”

I also testify to another event that shows how Monsignor Gänswein controlled information for the Holy Father and conditioned his freedom of action. On the occasion of the canonization of Marianne Cope and Kateri Tekakwitha, having requested in writing to the then-prefect of the papal household, Archbishop James M. Harvey, to be received in audience by the Pope, and having received no response, I went to the same Prefect on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, asking him why I had received no response to my request for an audience. 

I remember perfectly the circumstance, because Archbishop Harvey suggested that I attend the general audience the next day, so that I could at least greet the Holy Father personally, with the other bishops who were present. Archbishop Harvey answered me with the following words: “Gänswein said to me: ‘Archbishop Viganò is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!’” 

He then added that, at the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI, indicating Gänswein to him with his index finger, exclaimed: “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was revealed from the very beginning of his pontificate, also in the determination with which Gänswein managed to distance from the pope his precious assistant and secretary, Ingrid Stampa, whom then-cardinal Ratzinger had wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister Maria Ratzinger.

Furthermore, it is known that to escape this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to visit his previous special secretary, Bishop Josef Clemens, inviting Ingrid Stampa to these familial gatherings. 

I am issuing this statement following what Archbishop Gänswein asserted in recent days to the ANSA news agency, contradicting what Pope Benedict himself had written in his correspondence with Cardinal Sarah. This statement is a sensational and slanderous insinuation against the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, which he swiftly denied.


Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.

 

Are we to conclude then what many of us have believed for seven years now? That Georg Gänswein is really Pope Benedict's prison warden?

What a disgrace. What a circus. What fools are these idiot prelates. From Bergoglio on down.

They've been caught and found lacking in all things moral and ethical.

Benedict XVI wrote the essays with Cardinal Sarah, the letters prove it. 

When will the Swiss Guard do their duty and arrest Bergoglio and free Benedict from his prison?

This:

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2020/01/15/2-questions-that-ganswein-violently-does-not-want-to-answer/

Bergolian thugs in fake Catholic media accuse Cardinal Sarah of being a liar

Update at 06:30hrs. EST.

From Joshua McElwee, to James Martin, Massimo Faggioli to Austen Ivereigh and a so-called priest named Dan Horan - all these have come out like vultures condemning our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI that he is incompetent and that Cardinal Sarah is a liar. I won't reprint their comments here, there are two links below that summarise them.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/critics-of-pope-benedict-furious-over-news-of-new-book

https://wdtprs.com/2020/01/lib-reactions-to-the-new-book-from-card-sarah-and-benedict-xvi-order-soon/

Yet, Cardinal Sarah has said that it is wrong to interpret this book as being opposed to Francis. Meanwhile, Father Fessio of Ignatius Press has announced that he will be publishing the "fake" book from the incompetent Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah has issued a letter vehemently defending his honour against those who have called him a liar, including his correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI.

What this reveals to me is that the filthy rats listed above know that they are on the ropes. They are vicious and they have come to realise that the jig is up on them, and their filthy master, the Argentinian boil on the seat of Peter.

Pope Benedict XVI must speak. 

Someone raised a question yesterday, "Why is the Swiss Guard not staging a rescue."

Papa Ratzinger is in danger, he is a prisoner but something bigger is happening here and it may be divine.

The Pervert Protecting Pontiff

LA CAGE AUX FOLLES

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/11/22/jorge-bergoglios-other-gustavo-why-bergoglio-elevated-placed-and-now-protects-zanchetta/

https://marklambert.blogspot.com/2019/11/one-pervert-too-far.html

Bergoglio has his own hand in the Vatican's financial corruption

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2019/11/25/money-wars-at-the-vatican-with-the-pope-among-the-belligerents/

Zita Ballinger Fletcher has become a writer of toxic arrogance, lies and manipulation - What is her agenda?

No doubt, you've come across, if not read, a screed of hate, intolerance, distortion and satanic bile upon the Mass in its traditional form and language by a writer at the National "Catholic" Reporter. I've copied the articled below, the NCR can come and sue me for copyright violation. As I read it, I find actual physical reaction from doing so at the ignorance, the hypocrisy and the utter evil from the pen of this alleged "journalist and author." I had to stop and do nothing more than give it a scan. I had intended to do a parse of the whole thing. I simply cannot. The diatribe is filled with the same old shibboleths.

Rather than take the time, which I do not have, to give her screed and adequate response, I have instead decided to give you the response by the most qualified and erudite, Dr. Joseph Shaw.

http://www.lmschairman.org/2019/11/a-response-to-zita-ballinger-fletcher.html

As an adjunct to the above, there is always Eccles.

https://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-toxic-tradition-of-latin-mass.html

However, let me state this. Fletcher, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of this ilk are living in fear. They know that not only faithful Latin Mass attending Catholics, but those Catholics in the "Novus Ordo" world have woken up to the horror that is Bergoglio. Fletcher and her ilk know that the mainstream church is in collapse. There goal of a church to their own ends is collapsing. They and their rotten Bergoglio have overreached. It is delightful to watch. They fear what is coming. At the Latin Mass community where I chant and lead the choir each Sunday, we have doubled in size in three years. What parish has seen that happen? Last Sunday was rather difficult to chant, it was like a nursery school. (Parents, bring your little ones, but please, show respect to everyone else and attend the vestibule when they are disturbed.) But, this is one of those things that we put up with. Zita Ballinger Fletcher is a liar, an manipulator and a pompous trollop. She has an agenda. She has already lost.

* * *

Zita Ballinger Fletcher portends to be a journalist and the author of more than 10 fiction and nonfiction books including a fictional account of the Holy Mass in Latin and according to the Roman Missal of 1962. She writes on military history, genealogy and international affairs and has written articles for many publications including World War II History magazine, America's 1st Freedom magazine and the Gloucestershire Family History Society Journal (U.K.). She is fluent in German and has reported extensively on Germany's Catholic Church for Catholic News Service. Heretofore unknown, this ginger pagan and probable homosexualist and Wiccan sympathizer and Marxist has written for the National “Catholic” Reporter, a hit piece on the growing traditional Catholic Latin Mass movement.

In a previous era, the Latin Mass was merely a uniform and standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the United States. In the wake of much needed reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Mass has become a rallying point for change-resistant sects within the church. The ultra-conservatism practiced by these Latin Mass groups is radical and narrow-minded. They utilize the Latin Mass structure to wield control over believers — particularly women, who are reduced to a state of discriminatory subjugation in Latin rites. The stubbornly resistant, anti-modern practices of these Latin Mass adherents border on cultism.

The Latin Mass fosters clericalist structures in the church. The liturgy — spoken in an ancient language no longer in modern vernacular usage — places all power in the hands of the priest. The priest keeps his back turned to the people for most of the ceremony. Aside from making occasional responses, the congregation plays no active part in worship. All people inside the church are expected to kneel on cue at various points. The priest is at the center of the spectacle. He is separated from the people he is supposed to serve by an altar rail — a barrier that gives him privileges. To receive the Eucharist, people must kneel at his feet.  

Meanwhile, the Latin tradition oppresses women. Women are expected — indeed, in some cases commanded — to wear skirts instead of trousers, cover themselves with long clothing and wear veils over their heads. No such rules exist for the men. It is discrimination, and therefore the Latin Mass actively endorses sexism. Instead of a unifying form of worship, the Latin Mass has become an instrument of oppression and a gathering point for Catholic fundamentalists.

In most cases, it is useless to politely disagree with people in the Latin Mass sect. Their attitude creates blindness — not only to true faith, but to their own behavior. They treat others with pride and animosity, but their conscience fails to kick in because they are convinced their way is holy and other ways are not.

Anyone who may accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about — a favorite indictment of the Latin Mass ideologues — would be wrong. My opinion is based on facts and personal experiences.

I grew up in a household of challenged but growing faith, which grew stronger over time. My parents were divorced. My mother was a fallen-away Catholic who hadn't been to church in over 30 years. In the branches of my family tree were relatives who might best be described as atheists, and others of a more traditional Christian type. My mother decided to return to the Catholic Church when I was young. From an early age, I believed in Christ and considered myself a Catholic — other relatives tried in vain to convert me to atheism while I was still in elementary school.

Maybe this sounds like the beginning of a happy story of faith and discovery. It was not. My family's journey into the Catholic Church was a long, tumultuous and unpleasant road punctuated by a series of awful mistreatments by Catholic clergy, religious, schools and parishioners. (It's a miracle that I'm still Catholic and became a Catholic journalist.)

The Latin Mass rears its veiled head in this unholy history at several points. The last Masses my mother remembered attending took place before the Second Vatican Council, so naturally she started going to Latin Masses when she returned to the church because they were familiar. The church was going to welcome us, she thought. The treatment we got was slightly shy of the Spanish Inquisition.

Needless to say, anything in the church looking remotely female was completely veiled. The people had the humor of a gallows crowd and the pastor, arrayed in lavish vestments, was more like a Renaissance baron. After over an hour spent every Sunday drowning in incense smoke and getting sneered at, we did not feel any closer to God.

Rules, also, were a strange issue. For example, the color red was forbidden to be worn in the church. A confessor there hit one of my family members with a "permanent daily penance"— a rosary every day, forever, to atone for an alleged life of iniquity. After some while of this torture, my mother spoke with a different priest about the unbearable situation. He advised her that genuine Catholic faith did not forbid wearing certain colors or allow priests to inflict a "lifetime penance" for sins. Immediately we stopped going to Mass at that parish.

But it wasn't the last time I would run into Latin Masses — or the Latin Mass sectarians, present today in many Catholic organizations.

After almost leaving the church as a teenager, I chose to stay Catholic by practicing my faith as a free agent — belonging to no parish, attending different churches for Sunday Mass. On one instance, a priest noticed I was showing up semi-regularly and approached me with a persuasive speech to convert me to the Latin Mass faction — disguising discrimination as encouragement. "You should come to the Latin Mass instead and wear a veil. Women look the most beautiful in church when they are veiled," he tried to persuade. "The long veils are the best kind — the really long ones, past the shoulders. I recommend that for you — you have such pretty red hair, but it would even look nicer if you wore a veil over it. I think the long kind would be best for you."

Most disturbing about this conversation was his effort to make repression sound positive. Of course it made no sense that my hair would somehow look better if people couldn't see it. Indignant, I asked him to explain why he thought I should consider covering my head.

"Because it's respectful," he replied solemnly.

When asked why it was disrespectful to show the hair that God gave me — and why men in church did not have to cover their hair — he was not able to answer. He reacted badly because I challenged his authority. Anyway, I had no intention of listening. I knew I was free to take my belief in God elsewhere. I never returned to that church afterwards. 

The priest's attitude towards veiling women is typical of Latin Mass cultists. They seem to believe that women look better in church when people can't see them. They try to sell the veil to girls as a symbol of feminine piety. They hold that covering up and hiding yourself is beautiful although such a practice is the very opposite of natural beauty.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how pretty, lacy or colorful the veils may seem to potential wearers — the veils are meant to conceal female beauty and prevent people from noticing women. By promoting the veil, Latin Mass fundamentalists rob women of freedom, while trying to make it seem like a liberating choice. Their attitude is not much different from religious extremists in the Middle East and Asia.

Given such practices, it should come as no surprise that a contingent of men active within the sectarian Latin Mass environment have sexist worldviews. These types believe they are superior to women simply because they are male.

I cite two examples to support my view. One occasion that remains burned into my memory was when I attended Mass at a Catholic university. It was a busy Sunday and my schedule demanded I attend Mass at a particular time. I did not know it was a Latin Mass until I stumbled over the doorstep. The atmosphere was typically medieval. I was surprised to recognize some people there. One of them was a professor who was known to be a chauvinistic person. When I saw his wife, I was shocked — and suddenly realized the ugly extent of his prejudices. His wife was a mere ghost of a woman. She was covered from head to foot. Her dress was so long that it dragged on the floor. Even her entire neck and her hands were covered. She kept her head bowed and always walked behind her husband. She carried a rosary and looked physically weak — almost ill.

The professor, by contrast, looked swaggering and hearty. He strutted around and chatted with others in church as she followed him like a pale shadow. Seeing this, I believed I had witnessed a very dark side to the professor's spirituality. His religion was a mechanism of abusive control.

My second example concerns a younger Catholic age group — many of whom are apparently falling victim to the ultra-traditional Latin Mass ideology promoted in Catholic activity groups and on college campuses. A female acquaintance of mine, about my age, decided to brave the Catholic dating scene — a recipe for disaster, in my personal opinion. Among the stories I heard from her were of traditional Catholic males shopping for wives, asking her and other girls, "Are you willing to be veiled?" before agreeing to date them. These men did not want to associate with women whom they couldn't religiously dominate.

Men she met in this traditional Catholic peer group would interview girls about theology before deciding to spend time with them — they were arrogant and believed they were somehow morally superior to the women. Instead of standing up for her own dignity, she decided to cave into the pressure — go to traditional services and start wearing veils. I still don't understand why she wanted to associate with that group, or why she decided to give in to oppression.

It is very unfortunate that younger generations of Catholics seeking to deepen their faith are getting sucked into this vortex of toxic, traditional radicalism. I saw many young families at a Latin Mass recently when I was invited to attend a speaking engagement at a traditional church. I happened to arrive before Mass was quite over — having nowhere else to go before the event, and wishing to receive Communion, I decided to sit in on the Mass. Unsurprisingly I found myself surrounded by veiled women who entertained themselves in between kneeling bouts by casting disapproving glances at my leggings and earrings.

Looking around, I was astonished to see many college-aged men and women among the crowd. The priests seemed to be in their 30s. Clearly these people were too young to remember times before Vatican II. Yet something had drawn them here. Parental influence? Doubtful. It seemed to be a shared spirit of ultra-conservatism. I found it frightening to reflect on how the closed, Latin Mass mindset had managed to replicate itself over time and spread like a virus.

Unsurprisingly, while there I had another memorably bad experience. I asked to receive Communion in the hands. Most traditional-type priests I'd encountered in my lifetime would give me the Eucharist in the hands. Not this pastor. He literally made a scene at the altar and jerked the Eucharist away from me when I reached out to receive it — as if my hands would contaminate the very Jesus who, according to the Catholic faith, seeks Communion with my soul. I seriously considered walking out of the church at that point, but decided to receive the Eucharist instead since I wanted to pray. After Mass I gave the priests a piece of my mind.

Clericalism defined the response I received. When I informed an assisting priest that the pastor had been very rude to me at the altar and asked that my views be relayed, he replied: "I won't throw our pastor under the bus. He's the pastor. I refuse to tell him to correct his behavior," the priest said.

I reminded him that, as a priest, he was supposed to be of service and value my feedback as a believer. The priest took a step back and looked at me in astonishment, as if the notion of service had never occurred to him. "Very well. I'll tell the pastor what you said," he said condescendingly. "But I don't think he did anything wrong."

His attitude was a trademark example of the culture within the Catholic Church that encourages abuse. His first reaction was to default to absolute loyalty to his pastor, then dismiss my views. When pressed further, he flat-out denied all wrongdoing. To clericalists, complainers are always the problem — not those who belong to the herd, and certainly not clergy.

With feudalistic rigidity, the priest argued in defense of his pastor against the traditions of the "novus ordo"—a derogatory term used by Latin Mass cultists to denote regular English-language Masses. He said the Masses I regularly attended were invented "only 40 years ago" — as if that devalued them somehow —and insisted they were only "allowed to exist, but not standardly recommended." He claimed the church only allowed Communion in the hands "in extreme cases." Of course, I know this is not true. He capped his radical fundamentalist arguments by saying the Latin Mass is a solemn rite equal to Byzantine and Coptic rites and that rules cannot be changed for anyone. He accused me of being "rude" by expecting them "to change their rites."

I feel it necessary to point out — lest readers be confused by his illogicality — that the Byzantine and Coptic rites originate in the traditions of distinct Catholic churches in foreign countries. The Latin Mass, by contrast, is merely an extinct model of tradition practiced in the United States and other countries, and was never a separate church nor imported from a foreign country. Therefore the Latin Mass can be compared to Coptic and Byzantine churches as much as apples can be compared to oranges. No ancient Romans or native Latin speakers will be disenfranchised by changes made to the Latin Mass — just hardliners unable to let go of their particular ideology.

What I gained from this experience was a deeper recognition of how the Latin Mass foments the clericalist culture within the Catholic Church that Pope Francis is actively working to change.

In his homily earlier last month, Pope Francis warned Catholics against hypocrisy. He described hypocrisy as "appearing one way, but acting in another," and said that a hypocritical attitude "always kills."

Jesus did not tolerate hypocrisy, according to Pope Francis, but enjoyed unmasking it. "A Christian who does not know how to accuse himself is not a good Christian," the pope said.

The intolerant atmosphere of the Latin Mass stands in stark contrast to Pope Francis's description of what the Catholic Church is supposed to be. "The church is not a fortress, but a tent capable of expanding and offering access to everyone," said Pope Francis. "The church is 'going out' or it is not church, either it is walking, always widening its room so that all may enter or else it is not church."

Compassion defines true Catholicism. Radical traditionalists who cling to the pomp, ceremony and narrow-minded rituals of outdated Latin practices would do well to follow the advice of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9: "Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

Bergoglio's thugs slander Dr. Taylor Marshall and manipulate lies on his WikipediA

The imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI and the current state of affairs

There is an issue raised in this article by Laramie Hirsch at the Forge and Anvil and I have followed similar thinking.

Laramie discusses the "Bishop in white" statement in the Third Secret of Fatima by Sister Lucy. I have long had issues with the Vatican's 2000 interpretation that this referred to the a pope. How do people miss this. The statement is "we saw a bishop dressed in white, we had the impression that it was the Holy Father." If she was so certain that it was the "Holy Father," why did she not say, "we saw the Pope?" Because, she was confused, it was not the Pope! It was an impostor. Bergoglio even claimed for himself that title, "a bishop dressed in white."

On the night that Bergoglio emerged, I sat and watched and knowing nothing of the man, having never heard the name before, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I had a feeling of foreboding fall around me and I wanted to vomit. It was a warning to me no doubt fro my Guardian Angel at what had just happened. I have believed from that day that Joseph Ratzinger was a prisoner.

This is why the discussion on the validity of the resignation, the conclave and the election of Bergoglio is not going away. Too many people are now aware that something is wrong. Something is very, very wrong.   


From Rome has done exemplary work on the resignation of Benedict XVI and the canonical issues associated with it. In July, the published a chronology on "The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI." The only point of disagreement I have is that they threatened to murder him. Perhaps Joseph Ratzinger was a coward but it seems hard to believe that. Would he not have embraced a personal martyrdom for the Church? No, it was not this. Oh, they threatened him all right, but it was not that they would kill him, or at least not only him. It was something bigger, much bigger. But what?4

This is an important read to see clearly, the timeline.

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/the-imprisonment-of-pope-benedict-xvi/

Know this though. Since that time, two of the perpetrators of this are dead. Carlo Martini and Godfried Danneels. Both are dead and their foul corpses are rotting in the grave. They have been judged by God and their eternity is only known to Him. Thomas J. Rosica, a malefactor if ever one existed, lionised Martini as he wrote here in the Tablet. Well, we think he wrote it but we can't be sure. Where is Rosica? Gone, his fame, his influence, all gone to a psychiatric couch north of Toronto. Who else? McCarrick, a filthy sodomite who bragged about his influence and willingness to be lobbied in the election of Bergoglio which I revealed here back in 2016 and the revelation of his time in St. Gallen, Switzerland.

We are in some of the darkest days of the Church. In the past, persecution of the Church and faithful Catholics came from outside, this persecution is from infiltration within. 

Keep the faith, God has already won this.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo shows off his French Manicure, inquiring minds wish to know, did he get a pedi too?

Stika Sticks it to Sticky Catholics

Once again, Rick Stika a Bishop from Knoxville has attacked faithful Catholics on social media. He blocks with impunity after mocking and baiting. He is as far as charity as a Shepherd can be. He mocks those of us sticking to the faith and magisterium of the Church and who refuse to follow a pervert-protecting, Globalist Peronist on his path of destruction.

Now, he attacks those who follow Christ and His Church and have the temerity to hold the Vicar of Christ responsible for his heresies.

He even equates Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with heretics and schismatics.

Well, it takes one to know one, eh Rick?

The pot calls the kettle black. Serial Plagiarist, the Litigious Tom Rosica calls Viganò a liar and a "diabolical masterpiece."

LifeSiteNews is reporting that Rochester, New York born and raised Basilian priest Thomas J. Rosica, has called Carlo Maria Viganò, a liar. Dorothy Cummings McLean writes:

"At a February 8 lecture at Cambridge University,  Fr. Thomas Rosica, executive director of Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation, suggested Archbishop Viganò was a liar. Rosica, known for his pro-homosexual views, used the phrase “diabolical masterpiece” while describing the Vatican whistle-blower’s witness."

Mrs. Cummings McLean goes further, exposing Rosica as a plagiarizer.

This is not the first time that Rosica has plagiarised the work of others. This blog has repeatedly quoted Rosica:

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

Except, it wasn't his original thought. He uses it in this video without any attribution to the originator, Dr. Richard Gailladartz in an article that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter.

Rosica has a habit of plagiarizing others. He has done it again. 

Plagiarising is lying.

Rosica will no doubt be a spokesman at the already discredited Synod on abuse. 

Do you think Rosica's words can be trusted?

"Bad form." Heh, heh.

Greg Burke and Paloma Garcia Ovejero resign immediately from Vatican Communications

With immediate notice, Greg Burke and Paloma Garcia Overjero have resigned from the top of Vatican Communications.

Good.

Even they've had enough.

More to come on this, no doubt.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-press-office-director-and-deputy-resign-apparent-sign-tensions

Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna lays waste to St. Stephen's Cathedral in a ritual of blasphemy and sacrilege

Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna recently let St. Stephen's Cathedral for a "rock" music concert featuring a homosexualist Philipp Hochmair pictured above standing on the Communion Rail.

No cause can, not even the "sacred" rite of AIDS fundraising can justify this blasphemy and sacrilege.

What must the laity do to win back our faith and our churches from these rotten men, these wolves, these putrid, effeminate malefactors such as Christoph Schönborn? Are there any Catholics left in Vienna? Are you in Vienna all so corrupted that you cannot see the evil that Schönborn has done by this act? Yet, what can one expect when the Bishop or Rome allowed a light show to be flashed on St. Peter's Basilica on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception? The evil stench comes from Bergoglio to all these filthy monsters. Remember that the malefactor Schönborn, is a great theologian, just like Kasper and that Bergoglio said we should look to him for the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

This is just plain evil.

If nothing else, it is up to whatever few Catholics are left to publicize this and mock this filthy cleric Schönborn until he repents and does public reparation for this scandal.