Bergoglio's Child Porn, Sodomite Infested Church is not Christ's - How many times has this Bergoglio refused to clean out the excrement from the stables?

In yet another sex scandal in the Church of Bergoglio, a prelate of the Roman Rota, under suspicion of sexual harassment since 1991 and again in 2004, has been convicted of possession of child pornography. Pervert Monsignor Pietro Amenta was given a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence.

It is just one more example of the homosexual filth present in the Vatican, a putrid swamp of sodomites, perverts, child pornography aficionados that Jorge Bergoglio has refused to deal with. From "Who am I to judge" to the refusal to extradite to Canada, Msgr. Carlo Capella, to the cocaine snorting sodomite Msgr. Luigi Capozzi, to the Barros scandal in Chile, the insults by Bergoglio to the victims and then the "pope's outright lie about the facts of knowledge of the event when the evidence was put in his hand by Cardinal O'Malley of Boston, Bergoglio has refused yet again to confront the evil infiltration of homosexuals in the structure of the Catholic Church.

Just think of it, sorry for the image that will be burned into your brain. Here is Monsignor Amenta sitting in front of his computer, masturbating to the images of young children or more likely, teenage boys, being raped, sodomised and abused for his pleasure and then, the next morning, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Imagine a concelebration by these three perverts, Amenta, Capella and Copozzi. What filthy swine. 

Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope, commisioned an investigation by three retired Cardinals into the corruption in the Vatican and handed it over to Bergoglio. He has done nothing to expose and eliminate this putrid evil and in fact, has emboldened it by refusing to act against such heretical homosexualists as James Martin, S.J., Daniel Horan, OFM and Blaise Cupich,, whom he has made Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago.

Catholics, wake up. Bishops, Cardinals where are you? You sit by and say nothing whilst this filthy rot continues. Yet again, we awake to another story of evil, of sexual perversion in the leadership of the Catholic Church. Yet, these prelates wonder why the pews are empty and people are leaving the faith. It takes a great deal of faith and grace to withstand this assault on a daily basis. Do we stop reporting it, lest we create scandal and cause people to leave? No? It was St. Gregory the Great who said, "It is better for scandals to arise than truth to be suppressed." 

The truth is, the Holy Catholic Church has been infiltrated in every diocese by homosexual men who are there for self-gain, lust and to destroy the faith. Every bishop, every cardinal who refuses to act against these filthy perverts, this scum, is guilty before God and man and will burn in Hell for their lack of faith and zeal. They are hirelings and wolves. 

Catholics, where are you? When will you rise up and fight for the Jesus Christ and the Truth?

Beroglio says he does not read blogs for his mental health and that he knows who we are who call him a "heretic."

I will go further than calling "Pope" Francis a heretic. I will call him a derelict. A sodomite protecting enabler. A homosexualist and a liar.

Did you read that George?

A homosexual judge of the Roman Rota is convicted for possession of images pornography

Nicolas Senèze, in Rome (with Il Messaggero), 

16/02/2018 at 5:34 pm

Bishop Pietro Amenta pleaded guilty after the discovery of 80 child pornography photos on his computer and was sentenced on Thursday, February 15, to 14 months of the suspended sentence. 

A prelate auditor of the Court of the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Church in matrimonial matters, was sentenced on Thursday, February 15 by a judge in Rome for possession of images of child pornography, reports the daily Il Messaggero.

Having chosen to plead guilty, Msgr. Pietro Amenta, 55, priest of the Diocese of Matera (southern Italy), received a suspended sentence of 14 months in prison.

According to the Roman daily, the affair broke out one evening in March after an altercation, when an 18-year-old Romanian boy accused a man of touch in a market.

Known to the police

To explain his ambiguous gestures, the man, who turned out to be a priest, first argued that there was not much room between the stalls before he fled, pursued by the young man.

Both were then caught by an off-duty municipal officer, before the arrival of a carabineros car where the young man complained that he had twice been touched by the priest.

During the carabineros' inquiries, it became clear that the young Romanian was not known to the Italian police, while the priest, prelate auditor at La Rote since 2012, had already been the subject of a complaint for obscene acts in 1991 and, in 2004, for sexual harassment. In 2013, he also filed a complaint after being robbed by two transsexuals.

Investigations at the Vatican

During a search of his home, the carabinieri then found on his computer 80 pornographic photos with minors in the foreground. If he denied having downloaded them, the priest then chose to make a deal with Italian justice.

The case concerned the Italian justice, the promoter of justice of the State of the Vatican City had revealed in early February at the time of the Vatican judicial return, that his services were currently investigating two cases of pedophilia from people working for the Vatican.

So far, only one case was known: that of a priest of the nunciature in Washington targeted by an investigation for possession of child pornography.

"The investigations initiated are at the preliminary stage and are carried out conscientiously, with the most absolute reserve, out of respect for all the persons concerned", assured the prosecutor Gian Piero Milano, expressing the "determination" of the Vatican justice in the material.

Nicolas Senèze, in Rome (with Il Messaggero)

Bergoglio and Parolin Despise the "Genuine Faith" of Those Who Defend the Church!

From the blog of Cardinal Zen translated by LifeSiteNews:

I still can’t understand understand what they are dialoguing with China over

by Cardinal Joseph Zen

Response to “Why we are in dialogue with China,” the interview His Eminence Cardinal Parolin granted to Gianni Valente (that is, the interview they cooked up together).

I have read the interview several times, and now I am reading it again (even though doing so disgusts me).

I am grateful to His Eminence for having acknowledged that “it is legitimate to have differing opinions.”

(1)

First of all, one notes the insistence with which His Eminence says that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting are only politically driven.

What we see instead is that he adores the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his teacher, [Agostino] Casaroli, and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church, founded by Jesus on the Apostles, from any interference of secular power.

I cannot forget my astonishment in reading one of his addresses a few years ago in the Osservatore Romano, where he described the heroes of the faith in Central-European countries under the communist regime (Cardinal Wyszynsky, Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran, though without naming them) ) as “gladiators,” and “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage.”

(2)

One also notes the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he doesn’t respect this at all (they are “gladiators”!)

He also speaks of wounds that are still open, and his intention to heal them with “the balm of mercy.” But what wounds is he talking about?

Towards the end of the interview, at a certain point he says: “With frankness, ... I will say: I am also convinced that some of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is due not so much to the will of individuals, as it is to the objective complexity of the situation.”

Therefore, he knows very well that, in the Church in China, it’s not (or rarely) a matter of personal offenses or resentments, but that they are all victims of persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? But there are no personal offenses to forgive. It is a slavery from which they need to be liberated.

Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Reward traitors? Castigate the faithful? Force a legitimate bishop to surrender his post to an excommunicated one? Is this not rather rubbing salt in the wounds.

Let’s go back to the “objective situation.” The painful state wasn’t created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this slavery, there are those who submit to it. Unfortunately, there are also those who embrace it.

Faced with this reality how is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, clash, compromise, failure, surrender, and betrayal”?

Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are there conditions? Where do we unite? How do we collaborate? Let us analyze two fundamental matters that need to be clarified.

(3)

What is the nature of the unity we want to achieve?

    a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and says that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China.” If I am not mistaken, I was the first one to say this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, given that, in both communities, the faithful are loyal to the Pope in their hearts (today with the increase of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply the statement to the whole Church in China).

But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter, on which Jesus established his Church, while the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church that is subject to its power.

    b) Eliminating this division and reestablishing unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with a clean slate, let alone by manipulating the Pope Benedict’s Letter [to Chinese Catholics].

In the Pope Emeritus’s letter there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some [bishops], not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church’s life.” Father Jeroom Heyndricks, quoting out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life,” took as his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “There is no longer any need for clandestine communities. Everyone must come out into the open, i.e. become part of the community subject to the Government.

In the Commission for the Church in China we noted this great error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples have ignored this warning, obviously supporting the idea of ​​Father Heyndricks.

Only after two years, when this error had already done immense damage, did we manage insert into the “Compendium” booklet several notes that aim to distinguish a reconciliation of hearts from unity in the structures.

    c) Parolin says that one should not “maintain a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures.” But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under the power of the Government, which certainly already controls it and gives no sign of giving it up.

Pope Benedict says that the journey toward unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).

But our diplomats want to perform a miracle immediately and accuse others of “clinging to the spirit of opposition in order to condemn their brother,” of “using the past as a pretext to forge new resentments and closures,” and of “not being ready to forgive, which means that there are other interests to defend.”

How cruel are these reproaches addressed to faithful members of the Church, who for many long years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!

When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and, on our side, they want to achieve unification at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “cage.”

    d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will we walk together? Will it be a new path? With serenity? With confidence?

They say it will be a gradual process, but suppose the planners already have in mind what the next step after the legitimizing of the illegitimate will be.

What will become of the legitimate Bishops according to the law of the Church but not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, also admitted to the cage? Will there finally be “one” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)

Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. Once can endure and suffer an evil (harm), but you can never do wrong (sin), however great or small it might be.

Suffering as others create a schismatic Church may be inevitable, but we cannot help in its creation.

Furthermore, there is no reason to fear a schismatic church created by the party. It will fade with the collapse of the regime. But a schismatic church with the Pope’s blessing will be horrible!

(4)

Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?

Through reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).

    a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but it is possible, because it depends only on our goodwill. Dialogue with the Government is more difficult.

    b) Pope Francis had said in Seoul: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one’s own identity.”

It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and make known where we want to arrive, that is, according to our conscience what a good outcome of the dialogue will be. In our case, it is obviously: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but fosters the true good of the nation.”

Will we succeed in this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there even a minimum foundation in the present situation, when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and dominating than ever? When both his actions and pronouncements are directed toward a more rigorous control over every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.

The Communists no longer even feel the need to keep up appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (It is a government official who presides over the [always] joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference”). The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” out of compassion for those who find themselves there not of their own volition but under severe pressure.

From what we see, the Holy See is accepting this unacceptable reality. (Is it sure it is doing good to the Church?)

For dialogue to be true, it must start with a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our side seems to begin from a position of weakness. Reliable sources say that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop Giacomo Su Zhi Min, who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because they refused to discuss it. It seems to me that our side should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling from the start.

After all, we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That in various places they have churches and cathedrals? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they have Masses said in private houses and are undisturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018, we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that it now has the Holy See’s consent.

(c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely ill-mannered gesture, and without a word, it liquidated the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China established Pope Benedict. They got rid of the only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican, Archbishop Savio, by sending him as nuncio to Greece. “Finding syntheses of truth” indeed!“Discovering God’s plan together” indeed! They are sure they “have considered everything adequately.”

(5)

The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of phrases in the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear that he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back to the right path.

At the beginning and end of the interview he cites two quotations, respectively.

    a) In Chapter 4, paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.”

    b) In Paragraph 6, he had said: (Citing Deus caritas est) “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”

In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, thus losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.

(6)

Given the recent controversies, I cannot fail to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.

It is true that my revelations of private conversations may have caused him embarrassment. I am sorry for this. But I am still convinced that there is a divide between His Holiness’ way of thinking and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who have a field day taking advantage of the Pope’s optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise, I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from responsibility for the erroneous things coming from his collaborators, and of having communicated his encouragement to my brothers and sisters in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep waters.”

If one day it should happen that a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to a “monastic life.” Certainly as a son, even though unworthy, of Don Bosco, I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord may preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”

Translation by Diane Montagna

The pressure on Bergoglio is mounting - he cannot run from this

There are two items that are important to read in order to understand fully the situation regarding the Bishop of Rome, his slanderous comments to the victims of sexual perverts in the priesthood, his appointment of Barros, the firing of CDF staff and his playing with the truth.

The first is from the Catholic Herald where the four possibilities are described. 

The second is the detailed and powerful special report by Hilary White at The Remnant.

The depth of the lies and deceit is covering Bergoglio. 

Chilean Abuse Crisis & the Scandal of Bergoglio

I can't print here what I said out loud watching his whiney, lying, hypocritical comments on the aeroplane.

His own CDF advised against Barros!

Is that why the three priests were fired?

Filthy. Stinking. Pervert protector! George Bergoglio lacks more than honesty and dignity. He lacks the grace of office.

And there is a reason for that, isn't there, friends?

Humour and satire speed up before the end

Why are you discouraged?

It's been a rough start of the year, eh? And it's only February 8.

I won't restate here what has been going on, you all know and if you don't just go over the last twenty or so posts.

It is clear from the comments over the last few weeks that many of you are becoming discouraged and almost in despair over the situation. It is not easy for any of us. I know that, but we were warned, right? Our Lord told us in Scripture. Our Lady told us numerous times, at Quita, La Salette, Fatima and Akita. Saints told us these days were coming. Pope Pius X did and even Benedict XVI.

What none of us can do is to despair. Our Lord Jesus Christ has already won the war. Our job is to remain faithful to Him and His Church in spite of the putrid and vile hirelings who have taken Her over. We don't need to name them, we know who they are.

Now, say a prayer for this blogger and one for yourself and pick up your sword and do battle.

Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo - Stinking Communist agitator. Christ-hating anti Catholic

It is difficult to know where to begin and to hold ones rage, righteous rage, righteous anger at a man so vile, so corrupt, so profoundly evil that to think that he is even a priest, let alone an Archbishop, leaves one to almost sink into despair that such a deceitful man could ever be ordained.

It is men such as Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, another Argentine devil; a filthy, stinking old communist who has the ear of Bergoglio and with others, is about to sell out to the Communist government of China, the faithful Catholics, their priests and their bishops.

In a profounding disturbing report in the Catholic Herald, Sorondo praises China as the "best implementer of Catholic social doctrine." It is nearly too much to bear. He has said that the Pope could bind under penalty of sin, the denial of man-caused, global warming or climate change.

We were warned.

In a May 2015 published by C-Fam, he dismissed the primary issue of abortion as a "drama" when there were others of equal "drama," at least in his putrid mind. He praised Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki-moon, condemned, "climate change skeptics" and insulted American "tea party" activists. 

Whether rumour or not, through The Eponymous Flower, InfoVatican reported the following:

(Rome) Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, officially the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, is the "political arm" of Pope Francis. He is responsible for a new ambiguity and accommodation in matters of life, culture of death and sterilization as a solution to environmental problems and climate change. The policy had already been laid before the pope's political adviser. He comes from the Argentine upper class. His grandfather was Argentine Interior Minister and his father a well-known political journalist. Even now accusations have been voiced that the pope's political adviser does not live like a priest, since he "never celebrates Holy Mass, and neither does he pray the breviary," says InfoVaticana .

Interesting. When one puts in a search "Archbishop Sorondo celebrates Mass", not one photo comes up with him offering the Holy Sacrifice. His satanic comments and clear globalist and communist leanings reveal that it is quite likely that indeed, "never celebrates Holy Mass, and neither does he pray the breviary.

Sorondo is a devil. 

There was a time, that the Pope would have called in such malefactors as Sorondo, or Marx and demand that they explain themselves and then would promptly strip them of their office.

Sadly, we have a Bishop of Rome who is in league with them.

For more on Sorondo:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vatican-bishop-who-advises-francis-just-provided-the-key-to-understanding-w

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/one-man-close-to-the-pope-responsible-for-so-much-evil-in-the-vatican

Despite denial, Pope got abuse victim's letter - liar, liar cassock on fire

Charity demands that we believe that the Bishop of Rome, "forgot."

Sure he did.

Gotcha!

Pope Francis stands in his private library at the Vatican, Monday, Feb. 5, 2018. (Alessandro Di Meo / Pool photo via AP)

AP Exclusive: Despite denial, Pope got abuse victim's letter

Nicole Winfield and Eva Vergara, The Associated Press

Published Monday, February 5, 2018, 7:55AM EST

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis received a victim's letter in 2015 that graphically detailed how a priest sexually abused him and how other Chilean clergy ignored it, contradicting the pope's recent insistence that no victims had come forward to denounce the coverup, the letter's author and members of Francis' own sex- abuse commission have told The Associated Press.

The fact that Francis received the eight-page letter, obtained by the AP, challenges his insistence that he has "zero tolerance" for sex abuse and coverups. It also calls into question his stated empathy with abuse survivors, compounding the most serious crisis of his five-year papacy.

The scandal exploded last month when Francis' trip to South America was marred by protests over his vigorous defence of Bishop Juan Barros, who is accused by victims of covering up the abuse by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. During the trip, Francis callously dismissed accusations against Barros as "slander," seemingly unaware that victims had placed him at the scene of Karadima's crimes.

On the plane home, confronted by an AP reporter, the pope said: "You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven't seen any, because they haven't come forward."

But members of the pope's Commission for the Protection of Minors say that in April 2015, they sent a delegation to Rome specifically to hand-deliver a letter to the pope about Barros. The letter from Juan Carlos Cruz detailed the abuse, kissing and fondling he says he suffered at Karadima's hands, which he said Barros and others witnessed and ignored.

Four members of the commission met with Francis' top abuse adviser, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, explained their objections to Francis' recent appointment of Barros as a bishop in southern Chile, and gave him the letter to deliver to Francis.

"When we gave him (O'Malley) the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns," then-commission member Marie Collins told the AP. "And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done."

Cruz, who now lives and works in Philadelphia, heard the same later that year.

"Cardinal O'Malley called me after the pope's visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope -- in his hands," he said in an interview at his home Sunday.

Neither the Vatican nor O'Malley responded to multiple requests for comment.

While the 2015 summit of Francis' commission was known and publicized at the time, the contents of Cruz's letter -- and a photograph of Collins handing it to O'Malley -- were not disclosed by members. Cruz provided the letter, and Collins provided the photo, after reading an AP story that reported Francis had claimed to have never heard from any Karadima victims about Barros' behaviour.

The Barros affair first caused shockwaves in January 2015 when Francis appointed him bishop of Osorno, Chile, over the objections of the leadership of Chile's bishops' conference and many local priests and laity. They accepted as credible the testimony against Karadima, a prominent Chilean cleric who was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2011 for abusing minors. Barros was a Karadima protege, and according to Cruz and other victims, he witnessed the abuse and did nothing.

"Holy Father, I write you this letter because I'm tired of fighting, of crying and suffering," Cruz wrote in Francis' native Spanish. "Our story is well known and there's no need to repeat it, except to tell you of the horror of having lived this abuse and how I wanted to kill myself."

Cruz and other survivors had for years denounced the coverup of Karadima's crimes, but were dismissed as liars by the Chilean church hierarchy and the Vatican's own ambassador in Santiago, who refused their repeated requests to meet before and after Barros was appointed.

After Francis' comments backing the Chilean hierarchy caused such an outcry in Chile, he was forced last week to do an about-face: The Vatican announced it was sending in its most respected sex-crimes investigator to take testimony from Cruz and others about Barros.

In the letter to the pope, Cruz begs for Francis to listen to him and make good on his pledge of "zero tolerance."

"Holy Father, it's bad enough that we suffered such tremendous pain and anguish from the sexual and psychological abuse, but the terrible mistreatment we received from our pastors is almost worse," he wrote.

Cruz goes on to detail in explicit terms the homo-eroticized nature of the circle of priests and young boys around Karadima, the charismatic preacher whose El Bosque community in the well-to-do Santiago neighbourhood of Providencia produced dozens of priestly vocations and five bishops, including Barros.

He described how Karadima would kiss Barros and fondle his genitals, and do the same with younger priests and teens, and how young priests and seminarians would fight to sit next to Karadima at the table to receive his affections.

"More difficult and tough was when we were in Karadima's room and Juan Barros -- if he wasn't kissing Karadima -- would watch when Karadima would touch us -- the minors -- and make us kiss him, saying: 'Put your mouth near mine and stick out your tongue.' He would stick his out and kiss us with his tongue," Cruz told the pope. "Juan Barros was a witness to all this innumerable times, not just with me but with others as well."

"Juan Barros covered up everything that I have told you," he added.

Barros has repeatedly denied witnessing any abuse or covering it up. "I never knew anything about, nor ever imagined, the serious abuses which that priest committed against the victims," he told the AP recently. "I have never approved of nor participated in such serious, dishonest acts, and I have never been convicted by any tribunal of such things."

For the Osorno faithful who have opposed Barros as their bishop, the issue isn't so much a legal matter requiring proof or evidence, as Barros was a young priest at the time and not in a position of authority over Karadima. It's more that if Barros didn't "see" what was happening around him and doesn't find it problematic for a priest to kiss and fondle young boys, he shouldn't be in charge of a diocese where he is responsible for detecting inappropriate sexual behaviour, reporting it to police and protecting children from pedophiles like his mentor.

Cruz had arrived at Karadima's community in 1980 as a vulnerable teenager, distraught after the recent death of his father. He has said Karadima told him he would be like a spiritual father to him, but instead sexually abused him.

Based on testimony from Cruz and other former members of the parish, the Vatican in 2011 removed Karadima from ministry and sentenced him to a lifetime of "penance and prayer" for his crimes. Now 87, he lives in a home for elderly priests in Santiago; he hasn't commented on the scandal and the home has declined to accept calls or visits from the news media.

The victims also testified to Chilean prosecutors, who opened an investigation into Karadima after they went public with their accusations in 2010. Chilean prosecutors had to drop charges because too much time had passed, but the judge running the case stressed that it wasn't for lack of proof.

While the victims' testimony was deemed credible by both Vatican and Chilean prosecutors, the local church hierarchy clearly didn't believe them, which might have influenced Francis' view. Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz has acknowledged he didn't believe the victims initially and shelved an investigation. He was forced to reopen it after the victims went public.

He is now one of the Argentine pope's key cardinal advisers.

By the time he finally got his letter into the pope's hands in 2015, Cruz had already sent versions to many other people, and had tried for months to get an appointment with the Vatican ambassador. The embassy's Dec. 15, 2014, email to Cruz -- a month before Barros was appointed -- was short and to the point:

"The apostolic nunciature has received the message you emailed Dec. 7 to the apostolic nuncio," it read, "and at the same time communicates that your request has been met with an unfavourable response."

One could argue that Francis didn't pay attention to Cruz's letter, since he receives thousands of letters every day from faithful around the world. He can't possibly read them all, much less remember the contents years later. He might have been tired and confused after a weeklong trip to South America when he told an airborne press conference that victims never came forward to accuse Barros of coverup.

But this was not an ordinary letter, nor were the circumstances under which it arrived in the Vatican.

Francis had named O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston, to head his Commission for the Protection of Minors based on his credibility in having helped clean up the mess in Boston after the U.S. sex abuse scandal exploded there in 2002. The commission gathered outside experts to advise the church on protecting children from pedophiles and educating church personnel about preventing abuse and coverups.

The four commission members who were on a special subcommittee dedicated to survivors had flown to Rome specifically to speak with O'Malley about the Barros appointment and to deliver Cruz's letter. A press release issued after the April 12, 2015, meeting read: "Cardinal O'Malley agreed to present the concerns of the subcommittee to the Holy Father."

Commission member Catherine Bonnet, a French child psychiatrist who took the photo of Collins handing the letter to O'Malley, said the commission members had decided to descend on Rome specifically when O'Malley and other members of the pope's group of nine cardinal advisers were meeting, so that O'Malley could put it directly into the pope's hands.

"Cardinal O'Malley promised us when Marie gave to him the letter of Juan Carlos that he will give to Pope Francis," she said.

O'Malley's spokesman in Boston referred requests for comment to the Vatican. Neither the Vatican press office, nor officials at the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, responded to calls and emails seeking comment.

But O'Malley's remarkable response to Francis' defence of Barros and to his dismissal of the victims while he was in Chile, is perhaps now better understood.

In a rare rebuke of a pope by a cardinal, O'Malley issued a statement Jan. 20 in which he said the pope's words were "a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse," and that such expressions had the effect of abandoning victims and relegating them to "discredited exile."

A day later, Francis apologized for having demanded "proof" of wrongdoing by Barros, saying he meant merely that he wanted to see "evidence." But he continued to describe the accusations against Barros as "calumny" and insisted he had never heard from any victims.

Even when told in his airborne press conference Jan. 21 that Karadima's victims had indeed placed Barros at the scene of Karadima's abuse, Francis said: "No one has come forward. They haven't provided any evidence for a judgment. This is all a bit vague. It's something that can't be accepted."

He stood by Barros, saying: "I'm certain he's innocent," even while saying that he considered the testimony of victims to be "evidence" in a coverup investigation.

"If anyone can give me evidence, I'll be the first to listen," he said.

Cruz said he felt like he had been slapped when he heard those words.

"I was upset," he said, "and at the same time I couldn't believe that someone so high up like the pope himself could lie about this."

Vergara reported from Santiago, Chile. Yvonne Lee in Philadelphia and Jeffrey Schaeffer in Paris contributed.

Is the Vatican Tinkering With the Online Catechism to Remove Catholic Teaching

UPDATED by OnePeterFive: 

PLEASE NOTE: This post has been updated (see below). After further digging, it looks like the language we found was from the 1994 Catechism. We’ve updated our story. But why is a 24-year-old version of the Catechism that needed to be updated for theological clarity still on the Vatican servers and publicly accessible?

Justin Trudeau compares Canada's Italian and Greek immigrants to the heathen and barbaric ISIS terrorists!

As a change of pace from the insanity of the Church, we take you to the insanity of Canad where our Dear Leader who admires "China's basic dictatorship" and that those who do not subscribe to the mass killings of babies in the womb are "out of step" has now compared the millions of Italian and Greek immigrants to Canada with the murderous ISIS terrorists whom this man is allowing back in to roam free on our streets.

Here we have Dear Leader congratulating the head of Planned Parenthood, who has blocked me on Twitter because she could not stand the truth of looking at the product of her work.

Our good Dear Leader has apostasised to Islam and the shahada.

Here is the apostate receiving the very Body of Christ from the Archbishop of Montreal. My sources tell me his advance staff were told ahead of time to tell him not to approach but he did anyway and the Archbishop did not want to "make a scene." Sorry, Your Grace, not good enough!

May he reflect well on The Last Judgement.

GERMAN CARDINAL MARX TO BLESS CEREMONIES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES - WHERE IS THE POPE?

In a stunning announcement that is heretical and schismatic, Germany's Cardinal Marx has today called upon priests or pastoral workers to bless homosexual unions.

There is no clearer case for the Bishop of Rome to call in a bishop or cardinal and ask him to account for his actions and remove him from his Office.

If he does not, then logic reveals that he must agree.

Cardinal Marx endorses blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples

By Anian Christoph Wimmer

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-marx-endorses-blessing-ceremonies-for-same-sex-couples-40772

Munich, Germany, Feb 3, 2018 / 09:31 am (CNA).- The president of the German Bishops’ Conference has declared that, in his view, Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx told the Bavarian State Broadcasting’s radio service that “there can be no rules” about this question. Rather, the decision of whether a homosexual union should receive the Church’s blessing should be up to “a priest or pastoral worker” and made in each individual case, the German prelate stated.

Speaking on Feb. 3, on the occasion of his 10th anniversary as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Cardinal Marx was asked why "the Church does not always move forward when it comes to demands from some Catholics about, for instance, the ordination of female deacons, the blessing of homosexual couples, or the abolition of compulsory [priestly] celibacy."

Marx said that, for him, the important question to be asked regards how “the Church can meet the challenges posed by the new circumstances of life today - but also by new insights, of course," particularly concerning pastoral care.

Describing this as a “fundamental orientation” emphasized by Pope Francis, Marx called for the Church to take “the situation of the individual, ... their life-story, their biography, ... their relationships” more seriously and accompany them, as individuals accordingly.

Marx has recently called for an individualized approach to pastoral care, which, he has said, is neither subject to general regulations nor is it relativism.

Such “closer pastoral care” must also apply to homosexuals, Cardinal Marx told the Bavarian State Broadcaster: "And one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people in concrete situations encouragement. I do not really see any problems there."

The specific liturgical form such blessings – or other forms of “encouragement” – should take is a quite different question, the Munich archbishop continued, and one that requires further careful consideration.

Asked whether he really was saying that he “could imagine a way to bless homosexual couples in the Catholic Church," Marx answered, "yes" – adding however, that there could be "no general solutions."

"It’s about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies in other areas as well, which we can not regulate, where we have no sets of rules."

The decision should be made by "the pastor on the ground, and the individual under pastoral care" said Marx, reiterating that, in his view, "there are things that can not be regulated."

Spadaro favours Moaosts over faithful Catholics

I invite you to read this Tweet from Antonio Spadaro, S.J., confidant and advisor to Jorge Bergoglio, the Bishop of Rome:

The Chinese Communist \party is only interested in complete control over all religion in China and Catholicism in particular.

In 1989 as communism fell in Europe a Chinese official referring to Christianity said, "we've got to strangle that baby in the manger.

Spadaro, Parolin, Martin, Fagioli and the rest of the Bergoglian minions are on the attack now to discredit Cardinal Zen.

Neo-Arian Chapsody

Cardinal Zen: ":Do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely."

Cardinal Zen has issued another statement; 

So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.

If I were asked, whom do I believe, Cardinal Zen or the Pope and his Vatican apparatchiks, the answer is quite easy.

From Cardinal Zen:

http://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=967

Some explanations may still be in order.

1. Please, notice that the problem is not the resignation of the legitimate Bishops, but the request to make place for the illegitimate and even excommunicated ones. Many old underground Bishops, though the retirement age law has never been enforced in China, have insistently asked for a successor, but have never received any answer from the Holy See. Some others, who have a successor already named, may be even already in possession of the Bulla signed by the Holy Father, were ordered not to proceed with the ordination for fear of offending the Government.

2. I have talked mainly of the two cases of Shantou and Mindong. I do not have any other information except the copy of a letter written by an outstanding Catholic lady, a retired University professor well-acquainted with affairs of the Church in China, in which she warns Msgr. Celli against pushing for the legitimization of “bishop” Lei Shi Ying in Sichuan.

3. I acknowledge myself as a pessimist regarding the present situation of the Church in China, but my pessimism has a foundation in my long direct experience of the Church in China. From 1989 to 1996 I used to spend six months a year teaching in the various Seminaries of the official Catholic community. I had direct experience of the slavery and humiliation to which those our brother Bishops are subjected.

And from the recent information, there is no reason to change that pessimistic view. The Communist Government is making new harsher regulations limiting religious freedom. They are now strictly enforcing regulations which up to now were practically only on paper (from the 1st of February 2018 attendance to Mass in the underground will no longer be tolerated).

4. Some say that all the efforts to reach an agreement is to avoid the ecclesial schism. How ridiculous! The schism is there, in the Independent Church! The Popes avoided using the word “schism” because they knew that many in the official Catholic community were there not by their own free will, but under heavy pressure. The proposed “unification” would force everybody into that community. The Vatican would be giving the blessing on the new strengthened schismatic Church, taking away the bad conscience from all those who are already willing renegades and those others who would readily join them.

5. Is it not good to try to find mutual ground to bridge the decades-long divide between the Vatican and China? But can there be anything really “mutual” with a totalitarian regime? Either you surrender or you accept persecution, but remaining faithful to yourself (can you imagine an agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod?)

6. So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.

7. Some expert on the Catholic Church in China is saying that it is not logical to suppose a harsher religious policy from Xi Jinping. However, we are not talking about logical thinking, but the obvious and crude reality.

8. Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.

Cardinal Parolin was interviewed on the China matter.

Cardinal Parolin was interviewed on the China matter.

He states:

"There is no longer reason to prevent Chinese Catholics from living in communion together."

It cannot be accepted anywhere that the State has a veto over the Church's selections of its bishops. The official Catholic Patriotic Association, a schsimatic excommunicated "church" with apostolic succession and under the appearance of being Catholic is a communist entity. It must support the government's policy including its policy on abortion and the restriction of family size. For 70 years the real Catholics of China have been persecuted and martyred.

This is a betrayal of them. 

There can be no deal with the communist dragon, the devil. 

Make no mistake - the Vatican apparatchiks and Peronists are running scared because they have been exposed.

http://www.lastampa.it/2018/01/31/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/parolin-why-we-are-in-dialogue-with-china-C8mlJsD0PDNsmsx7db6ZIJ/pagina.html

Parolin, “Why we are in dialogue with China”

Interview with the Secretary of State who responds to the accusations made against the Holy See regarding the ongoing contacts, “We trust that the Chinese faithful, thanks to their spirit of faith, will know how to recognize that our action is animated by trust in the Lord and does not answer to worldly logic” 

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State

VATICAN CITY --  Several signals (including opaque operations, actual political manipulations, and even sabotage) indicate that important developments may occur in contacts between the Holy See and the Government of the People's Republic of China. The time is right to listen to an authoritative word, which will help to grasp what the Pope and the Holy See really have at heart. And with our Chinese brothers and sisters in mind, help to dispel suspicions and artificial fumes, to look at the ecclesial heart of the whole question, outside politicized narratives. For this reason, Vatican Insider interviewed Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness. 

 

Eminence, what can you tell us about the dialogue between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China?

"As it is well known, with the advent of "New China", there were, for the life of the Church in that great country, moments of serious contrasts and severe suffering. Since the eighties, however, contacts have been established between representatives of the Holy See and of People's China, who have known different seasons and alternating events. The Holy See has always maintained a pastoral approach, trying to overcome the contrasts and making itself available for a respectful and constructive dialogue with the civil authorities. Pope Benedict XVI well represented the spirit of this dialogue in his 2007 Letter to Chinese Catholics, "the solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities " (n. 4). In Pope Francis’ pontificate, the ongoing negotiations move exactly along these lines: constructive openness to dialogue and fidelity to the genuine Tradition of the Church".

What are the concrete expectations of the Holy See from this dialogue?

"First of all, I would like to make a premise: in China, perhaps more than elsewhere, Catholics have been able to preserve, despite the many difficulties and sufferings, the authentic deposit of faith, keeping firmly the bond of hierarchical communion between the Bishops and the Successor of Peter, as a visible guarantee of faith itself. In fact, communion between the Bishop of Rome and all Catholic Bishops touches the heart of the Church's unity: it is not a private matter between the Pope and the Chinese Bishops or between the Apostolic See and civil authorities. Having said that, the main purpose of the Holy See in the ongoing dialogue is precisely that of safeguarding communion within the Church, in the wake of genuine Tradition and constant ecclesiastical discipline. You see, in China there are not two Churches, but two communities of faithful called to follow a gradual path of reconciliation towards unity. It is not, therefore, a matter of maintaining a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures, but of finding realistic pastoral solutions that allow Catholics to live their faith and to continue together the work of evangelization in the specific Chinese context".

The communion of which you have spoken calls into question the delicate issue of the episcopal appointments, which are stirring up much controversy. Will a potential agreement on this issue succeed in resolving the problems of the Church in China in a fair manner? 

"The Holy See knows and shares the serious sufferings endured by many Catholics in China and their generous witness to the Gospel. She knows that there are many problems for the life of the Church and that they cannot all be solved together. But, in this context, the question of the appointment of Bishops is crucial. On the other hand, we cannot forget that the freedom of the Church and the appointment of Bishops have always been recurring themes in the relations between the Holy See and the States. Certainly, the path started with China through the current contacts is gradual and still exposed to many unforeseen events, as well as new possible emergencies. No one can say in conscience that they have perfect solutions for all problems. Time and patience are needed to heal the many personal wounds inflicted on each other within the communities. Unfortunately, it is certain that there will still be misunderstandings, fatigue and suffering to be faced. But we all have confidence that, once the issue of the Episcopal appointments has been adequately considered, the remaining difficulties should no longer be such as to prevent Chinese Catholics from living in communion with each other and with the Pope. This is the important thing, so long-awaited and desired already by Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI and today pursued with far-sightedness by Pope Francis".

What is then the true attitude of the Holy See towards Chinese authorities?

"It is important to reiterate this: in dialogue with China, the Holy See pursues a spiritual aim: to be and feel fully Catholic and, at the same time, authentically Chinese. With honesty and realism, the Church asks nothing but to profess her faith with more serenity, definitively ending a long period of contrasts, in order to give more room for greater trust and offer the positive contribution of Catholics to the good of Chinese society as a whole. 

Of course, many wounds are still open today. To treat them, we need to use the balm of mercy. And if someone is asked to make a sacrifice, small or great, it must be clear to everyone that this is not the price of a political exchange, but falls within the evangelical perspective of a greater good, the good of the Church of Christ. The hope is that, when God wills it, we won’t have to speak of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" Bishops, "clandestine" and "official" Bishops in the Church in China, but about meeting among brothers and sisters, learning the language of collaboration and communion again. Without this experience, how could the Church in China re-launch the journey of evangelization and bring to others the consolation of the Lord? If you are not ready to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective". 

If this is the attitude, is there not the risk of erasing the past and present suffering by wiping the slate clean?

"Quite the contrary. Many Chinese Christians, when they celebrate their martyrs who have suffered unjust trials and persecutions, remember that they have been able to rely on God, even in their fragile humanity. Now, the best way to honor this testimony and make it fruitful in the present, is to entrust the present life of Catholic communities in China to the Lord Jesus. But this cannot be done in a spiritualistic and disembodied way. This is done by choosing fidelity to the Successor of Peter, with a spirit of filial obedience, even when not everything appears immediately clear and understandable. About your question, it is not a matter of wiping the slate clean, ignoring or, almost magically erasing the painful path of so many faithful and pastors, but of investing the human and spiritual capital of so many trials to build a more serene and fraternal future, with the help of God. The Spirit who has so far guarded the faith of Chinese Catholics is the same Spirit who supports them today on the new path they have embarked upon". 

 Is there a council, a particular request that the Apostolic See can address to the Chinese faithful at this moment? To those who are happy before potential new developments, but also to those who are confused or  have objections? 

"I would like to say with great simplicity and clarity that the Church will never forget the past and present trials and sufferings of Chinese Catholics. All this is a great treasure for the universal Church. Therefore, to the Chinese Catholics I say with great fraternity: we are close to you, not only through prayer, but also through our daily commitment to accompany and support you on the path of full communion. We ask you, therefore, that no one should cling to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures. On the contrary, we hope that each one will look with confidence at the future of the Church, beyond any human limit". 

Your Eminence, do you really believe that this is possible? What is your trust based on? 

"I am convinced of one thing. Trust is not the result of the strength of diplomacy or negotiations. Trust is based on the Lord who guides history. We trust that the Chinese faithful, thanks to their sense of faith, will know how to recognize that the action of the Holy See is animated by this trust, which does not respond to worldly logics. It is especially up to the pastors to help the faithful to recognize in the Pope's guidance the sure reference point for grasping God's plan in the present circumstances". 

Is the Pope informed of what his collaborators do in their contacts with the Chinese government? 

"Yes, the Holy Father personally follows current contacts with the authorities of the People's Republic of China. All his collaborators act in concert with him. No one takes private initiatives. Frankly, any other kind of reasoning seems to me to be out of place."

In recent times, critical expressions have emerged, also within the Church, about the approach adopted by the Holy See in dialogue with the Chinese Authorities, judged by some as a true "surrender" for political reasons. What do you think? 

"I think, first of all, that in the Church there is a full right to disagree and to tell one's own criticisms, and that the Holy See has a moral duty to listen to them and to evaluate them carefully. I am also convinced that, among Christians, criticism should be directed at building communion and not at stirring up divisions. To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation. Therefore, it is legitimate to have different views over the most appropriate responses to the problems of the past and present. That is entirely reasonable. Having said that, I think that no personal point of view can be considered as an exclusive interpreter of what is good for Chinese Catholics. Therefore, the Holy See works to find a synthesis of truth and a practicable way to respond to the legitimate expectations of the faithful, inside and outside China. It takes greater humility and spirit of faith to discover together God's plan for the Church in China. It takes greater caution and moderation on the part of everyone in order not to fall into sterile polemics that hurt communion and rob our hope for a better future". 

What do you mean? 

"I mean that we are all called to distinguish more appropriately the spiritual and pastoral dimension from that of politics. Let us start, for example, with the words we use every day. Expressions such as power, betrayal, resistance, surrender, confrontation, failure, compromise, should make room for others, such as service, dialogue, mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, collaboration, communion. If you are not prepared to change this approach, there is a serious problem: taht of thinking and acting only politically. In this regard, the Holy See hopes for everyone a sincere pastoral conversion inspired by the Gospel of mercy, in order to learn to welcome one another among brothers and sisters, as Pope Francis has often called for". 

What would you say to the Chinese leaders today?  

"Look, on this point I would like to refer again to Benedict XVI's words in his Letter to the Chinese Catholics. He teaches that the mission proper to the Church is not to change the structures or administration of the State, but to proclaim to mankind Christ, the Savior of the world, relying on the power of God. The Church in China does not want to replace the state, but wants to make a positive and serene contribution for the good of all. Therefore, the Holy See's message is a message of goodwill, with the hope of continuing the dialogue undertaken in order to contribute to the life of the Catholic Church in China, to the good of the Chinese people and to World peace".