Bergoglio was “too radical” to be elected in 2005

from the website of Marco Tosatti: english translation

Dear Tosatti, I am an Anglican prelate converted to the Catholic faith. When I read something in the newspaper headlines that refers to our Church and Pontiff, I hurry to read the content immediately, before reading other important news. Why? Because what, in my opinion, explains almost everything that has happened in the world for ten years is linked to the history in the same period of our dear Church which I also joined (Pope was Saint John Paul II), in the footsteps of Saint John Henry Newman ( in 1845. But what have I ever done!) .

Never more than in these last ten years have we felt (at least I am a new convert) the lack of a Moral Authority, an authority of the Catholic Church that speaks to the world about the Truth, inviting it to pursue it. And yet we had a very strong and very clear “warning” thanks to the courageous Cardinals who proposed DUBIA I and II. (the first, 2017, without an answer, the second, 2023, with “disturbing” answer). DUBED, ignored, even mocked and despised. Intolerable! But what have I ever done?

In a recent interview, Pope Francis (I apologize, I don’t remember who he gave it to) explains that it was he who appointed Card. Ratzinger in the 2005 Conclave). Exhilarating! and above all not true. I was an involuntary and indirect witness to it.

In 2005 a group of Eminent Cardinals wanted to support Bergoglio’s nomination. It was the great Jesuit cardinal Carlo M. Martini who dissuaded them and instead proposed the card. Ratzinger. The reasons, in short, that were confided to me, were that the former Archbishop of Milan would have considered this appointment a disaster for the Jesuits (it even seems that he had said something like: <if they elect him Pope, we Jesuits will, in fact, come , “suppressed” as in 1773, this time not for 40 years, but at least for 200 years…>).

Who the current Pontiff was and what he had done in his previous roles in Argentina is well known, with testimonies. Who wanted it and why, it is difficult to prove and testify, but in the very days of his appointment to the Papal Throne, therefore well before he began to govern the Church, it was explained from many quarters what his task would be. 100% done. There was even a book published by a French intellectual who joked about the consequences of the choice. Benedict had to renounce so that Francis could be Pope. Francis had to be Pope because Benedict would never have allowed the Church to support the choices of destruction of Christian Civilization that were subsequently made.

Perhaps many Catholics still have not understood that what needed to be destroyed (beyond faith, of course) is Christian Civilization. Well, I really fear that many of you Catholics haven’t understood this yet, you look at the finger but you don’t understand what it indicates.

I would also like to make a critical observation on the behavior of some prelates who are preparing for the (supposed) change of pontificate, expressing negative assessments of the pontificate, all of a sudden and with suspicious delay. “Maramaldesque” assessments, dear Tosatti, and not at all acceptable. I explain the expression “maramaldesca”, which means “vile”. On his arrival in Italy in 1527, Charles V, Catholic emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, eager to punish Pope Clement VII (Giulio de Medici for having joined the Cognac League (pro-French and anti-Habsburg), had hired the Landsknecht (Protestant) mercenaries who they carried out the famous “sack of Rome” and brought the plague throughout Italy. During the siege of Florence in 1530 the famous Maramaldo (Neapolitan mercenary) attacked the commander Francesco Ferrucci, already wounded and half dead on the ground, skewering him (“vile! you kill a dead man”, Ferrucci told him). Here, dear Tosatti, until yesterday everyone (except for a very few) were sock lickers and allowed everything that appeared to happen. Now they are all courageously critical, with interviews and even with books (not credible ) referring to the previous Pope, post-mortem, of course.

It is curious that apart from the famous Cardinals of the DUBIA and a few others, only in this moment of progressive weakening of Francis, some “neo-courageous” ones, suffering from the “Maramaldesque” contagion, are slowly beginning to emerge. This is not exemplary and leaves us fearing even worse times ahead.. Thank you for this hospitality.

His Hugo AGW

The Church of (Anti) Christ

From Emily Mangiaracina at LifeSiteNews

A high-ranking freemason, occultist, and co-founder of the Lucifer Publishing Company 50 years ago predicted key features of a coming one-world government, including a “cashless society” and worldwide socialism. But his blueprint for a new world order is unique in its specific predictions about a one-world religion that is to be led by a “Christ” to come — or rather, the Antichrist.

In the book “Things to Come,” (issued by what is now called the Lucis Publishing Company) Foster Bailey, author of “The Spirit of Masonry” and husband of Alice Bailey, a “godmother” of the new-age movement, gives hints as to what the coming one-world religion will look like and helps the reader to imagine the unthinkable: that a one-world government will indeed promote a new religion, and even be wedded to that religion.

In fact, the one-world religion will be the very heart of the new world order, because the most important conquest of the inner circle of globalists is not your body, but your soul. This is largely why the coming religious deception is generally shrouded in obscurity, unlike the political and economic facets of the NWO.

If anyone were to grasp the plans for the one-world religion, it would be someone like Foster Bailey. As a 33rd degree freemason, he was evidently privy to the secret society’s designs to subvert the Catholic Church and help usher in this one-world religion, which his writings hint at.

His wife, Alice, suggests that freemasonry will help prepare the way for the “Great One” to come, also known as “the Christ,” who Foster describes as a “great spiritual leader” and a “living man today” who “does not come to save us but to help us save ourselves,” and “not from a hell of physical suffering.”

Alice predicted that “mysteries will be restored to outer expression through the medium of the Church and the masonic fraternity,” calling the “Masonic Movement” the “home of the Mysteries and the seat of initiation.” The “Great One,” (read: Antichrist) she says, is working toward the same end as freemasonry: “When the Great One comes with his disciples and initiates we shall have … the restoration of the Mysteries,” Bailey wrote in “The Externalization of the Hierarchy.”

She admitted that freemasonry is, at its core, an occult group, writing that the “masonic movement” “is a far more occult organization than can be realized, and is intended to be the training school for the coming advanced occultists.”

A Luciferian endeavor 

The occult involvement of Alice and Foster give credence to the claim of ex-freemasons that the fraternity is satanic at its highest levels — that the “Great Architect of the Universe” is Satan. As hardcore occultists, the couple openly praised Lucifer, and were literally “plugged in” to demons, through what they describe as “New Age” practices. 

For example, in “Things to Come,” Bailey described a “process of overshadowing” by which “the Christ” (not Jesus Christ as Christians understand Him) or an “ascended Master” renders a “disciple” “much more usable. This suggests that he deliberately opened himself to possession or at least influence by “spirits,” which as many former New Agers can testify, are often demons in disguise.

And Alice claimed to “telepathically” receive messages from a “Master of Wisdom” she labeled “the Tibetan” or “Djwal Khul (D.K.), which she said comprised the majority of her writings. These messages are likewise probably of demonic origin, all the more so because of her esteem for Lucifer/Satan.

We can, therefore, while taking the Baileys’ predictions regarding the “Christ” to come with a grain of salt, understand them as a likely foreshadowing of how the Antichrist will deceptively sugarcoat himself and his evil religion. 

Regarding the “Christ” who will lead the one-world religion, Foster Bailey gives a couple of hints as to what he will be like (expanded on by Alice, as detailed below):

“The word Christ is a name in the Hierarchy for the holder of an all embracing world-wide divine leadership and as so used, transcends orthodox limitations. Christ to the modern mind is an active, intelligent world executive, and a living man today. His vision and his action are for all men. He is not at all limited to Christianity.”

Thus, the Antichrist will deny one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, which is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

Foster, by contrast, insists that the idea that Christianity is “the only true religion” makes Christians guilty of the “special sin” of “separatism.” However, such a belief not only conforms to the words of Jesus Christ Himself but to the logical principle of noncontradiction: Two contradictory things cannot simultaneously be true.

Foster signals that this “Christ” to come will not consider necessary the belief in Heaven or Hell, since he wrote, “It is not the function of any religion or any church organization to … try to scare people into a mythical heaven.” 

We can glean more about the nature of the Antichrist and his one-world religion through Foster’s remarks about the major religions. It is telling that Foster’s disdain for Christianity contrasts with his esteem for Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, which are spared criticism entirely (“liberal Jews” get a very brief positive mention, while other Jews, like Catholics, are mentioned to be “excessively separative”).

Catholicism: The supreme enemy of Bailey — and freemasonry

Even more revealing is the fact that Catholicism is the religion most repugnant to Foster, an attitude inherent to freemasonry, which is diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith above all. 

This is because Catholicism is more opposed than any other religion to Foster’s/freemasonry’s idea that we should “be obedient to our own inner spiritual selves.” In other words, Catholicism is most opposed to the “supreme injunction” promoted by the occultist and “magician” Aleister Crowley: “Do what thou wilt.” (It is noteworthy that Crowley, who, it is publicly acknowledged, deliberately summoned demons, said he wrote his seminal work according to the dictations of a disembodied voice, like Alice Bailey.)

It is why freemasons, when they reach the 30th degree, crush under foot a papal tiara, swearing to free mankind from “the thraldom of spiritual tyranny,” according to Father Alex Zenthoefer.

Dr. Taylor Marshall explains in his book Infiltration that a major goal of freemasonry (echoed in Things to Come) is in fact to replace Catholicism: “The strategy of … Freemasonry is to arrange secret societies to subvert the current (Catholic) order and replace it with an enlightened order in which all religions are approximations of the truth — all religions become allegorical and equal. The Catholic Church is the Vetus Ordo Saeculorum — the Old Order of the World. Freemasonry is the Novus Ordo Saeculorum — the New Order of the World.”

Second Vatican Council is evidence of “New Age” influence 

In keeping with his masonic and occult beliefs, while Foster Bailey makes clear that Catholicism is too “dogmatic,” he sees a spark of hope in the Second Vatican Council, which he considers a watershed moment largely because the clergy are distancing themselves from “useless dogmas”:

Increasing numbers of religious leaders are recognizing that the church must abandon useless dogmas and that it is out of step with the development of human intelligence today. There is a ferment arising in the religious field which is forcing reformation of churchianity. Amazing things are taking place in the Roman Catholic Church, for example.

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church has been dominated and controlled by the Curia, a body of ultra-conservative doctrinaires who wielded undisputed power over all cardinals and bishops. Until this control was broken there was little hope for any spiritual change. Pope John XXIII broke it in the first session of the Second Ecumenical Council. 

Today the present Pope is largely free from this shackling influence and a new Collegia is gaining power and great influence as to all Church affairs. This is a far-reaching change in the organization itself, the fruits of which will be startling indeed. 

Foster is not talking about a difference of mere degrees in what the Catholic Church teaches or how, but about a fundamental “break,” a disconnect with its past. He goes on to explain how:

“The Second Session of the Ecumenical Council witnessed the promulgation of the doctrine that every man is free to worship God as he chooses without condemnation of the Church,” Foster wrote, predicting that “This new religious freedom in the Catholic Church, when implemented, will completely change the system by which the Church has controlled its followers for ages.”

The idea of religious freedom is so revered today, even by devout Christians, that it is difficult for people to consider why the Catholic Church long taught that “error has no rights.” This does not mean the Church ever taught that people should be legally coerced into practicing Catholicism. But to teach that a human being has a right to publicly practice a false religion is contrary to the Church’s desire that all men find the truth and be saved.

It is easiest to understand this when considering whether a satanist has a right to erect a Baphomet statue at a state capitol or run a satanic children’s club at a school. Most Christians today will passionately insist that satanists do not have this right. Why? Because it is harmful both to a just society and to souls. But we make exceptions for other religions because they aren’t explicitly or obviously opposed to God, forgetting that other religions harm souls as well and put them at risk, because they reject what Jesus taught — that He is the only way to the Father — and the fullness of the moral law.

We forget that it is because we have embraced this very principle of religious liberty in the U.S., for example, that satanists are able to erect statues and displays before state capitols and start “after school satan clubs.

Many have forgotten that religious indifferentism — the idea that it really does not matter to which religion one belongs — is a masonic idea, something also noted by the traditional Catholic priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. 

While they are much criticized and considered “irregular” by the Vatican for refusing to embrace the entirety of the Second Vatican Council, the SSPX correctly points out that Vatican II’s teaching that no one is “to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly,” stems from freemasonry, breaks with the Church’s perennial teaching, and undermines the conversion of souls to the Catholic faith.

Vatican II did in fact greatly weaken Catholic belief and practice, as seen in the dramatic decline in religious vocations and even Church attendance after the Council. The climate of religious indifferentism that it encouraged led to a newfound religious apathy among Catholics, which Foster Bailey noted when he wrote, “Youth no longer fears to disobey the Church.” He predicted that from their “freedom” would emerge a “new attitude toward religion based on reasonableness and cooperation.”

Keeping in mind that the new-age movement was (wittingly or not) demonically inspired, and that freemasonry is inseparable from the occultism at the core of new age practice, we can grasp why Foster Bailey would say that Vatican II showed the influence of “new age spiritual energy”:

“It is significant that the Council has issued no anathemas, condemned no movements, not even communism, and avoided dogmatic declarations, as has been wisely pointed out. Here again we have evidence of the presence of new age spiritual energy affecting religious thought.The whole edifice of law, custom and religious practice that had supported Catholic stability since the Council of Trent was threatened.”

“Satan will rule in the Vatican”

Foster goes so far as to predict: “It may eventuate that the most crystallized, materialistic and dogmatic Church in the Christian world will become the leader in a Christian religious revival.” 

That should seem like a strange remark. What would make Foster think that the religion most opposed to the supremacy of one’s own “inner guidance” would eventually become its biggest champion?

As Dr. Marshall has well documented in his book on the subject, Infiltration, freemasonry has indeed long planned to infiltrate the Catholic Church, even to the point of making one of its own the pope.

This is revealed in the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” which Dr. Marshall notes was reproduced in the English translation in the lecture by Right Rev. Msgr. George Dillon D.D., in Edinburgh in October 1884. Its author, who writes under the pseudonym Piccolo Tigre or “Little Tiger,” explains the long-term goal of freemasons:

Our final end is that of Voltaire and the Revolution, the destruction forever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea which, if left standing on the ruins of Rome, would be the resuscitation of Christianity later.

The Pope, whoever he will be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come first to the Church, with the aim of winning them both. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies, and the fight continues.

Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope according to our own heart, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and if possible, even to the children.

The ultimate goal of freemasonry is the public reign of Satan in the world. St. Maximilian Kolbe testified in his Militia of the Immaculata magazine that in 1917 he had seen freemasons march in St. Peter’s Square flying a banner that read, “Satan will rule in the Vatican.”

In a Japanese November 1935 issue of the magazine, St. Kolbe wrote, “Years later, the Freemasons in Rome began to demonstrate openly and belligerently against the Church. They placed the black standard of the “Giordano Brunisti” under the windows of the Vatican. On this standard the archangel, St. Michael, was depicted lying under the feet of the triumphant Lucifer … Right then I conceived the idea of organizing an active society to counteract Freemasonry and other slaves of Lucifer.”

He elaborated in 1939, “A reckless hand felt no repugnance in writing: Satan will rule in the Vatican and the Pope will serve him … This mortal hatred for the Church of Jesus Christ and for His Vicar was not just a prank on the part of deranged individuals but a systematic action proceeding from the principle of Freemasonry: Destroy all religion, whatever it may be, especially the Catholic religion.”

However outrageous this may seem to some Catholics, this scenario was also predicted by the Blessed Mother in a message to the children of La Salette in 1846. In 1879, the secret of La Salette was published as written by one of the visionaries, Mélanie Calvat, lamenting the corruption of so many priests, and foretelling that “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist.” [1] 

Now, in 2024, 10 years into the pontificate of Pope Francis, we can finally make sense of Foster Bailey’s prediction that the Church may become a “leader in a Christian religious revival,” as well as the freemasons’ prediction that the pope would serve Satan. Over the past decade, Francis has given sign after sign after sign that he is not really interested in upholding Catholic doctrine and practice, but rather in undermining it in favor of a less “rigid,” more “inclusive,” faith.

He has done this by:

  • Reinforcing religious indifferentism (ex: he has said even atheists can be redeemed, that he is “not interested in converting evangelicals to Catholicism”; Releasing a video promoting his prayer intentions featuring Muslim prayer beads, a Buddha statue, and a Menorah, along with a Baby Jesus (but no cross); saying ‘It’s not right to convince someone of your faith’;) 
  • Promoting impiety and even blasphemy (ex: he has said “God was unjust with His Son” and joked that “Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors”)
  • He has also appointed a slew of prelates to the Synod on Synodality who brazenly defy Church teaching.
  • Most egregious of all, attacking the very foundation of Catholic moral teaching by, for example claiming that one can receive Holy Communion in mortal sin, and that same-sex civil unions are permissible. These claims have been denounced as heretical. 

He has also plainly aligned with the masonic view of religions in his statement that “the most important role of religions is that of promoting the culture of encounter, along with the promotion of true education in responsible behavior in caring for creation.” No mention of God, of Christ, or salvation.

If any doubt remains as to whether Francis has a masonic bent, consider that his election was immediately praised by Grand Master Gustavo Raffi of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Italy, who said, “Fraternity and dialogue are his first concrete words: perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before.” 

Is he the long-awaited pope “according to the heart” of the freemasons? 

He checks all the boxes.

Features of the antichrist and his ‘New Age’ deception

Just as naturalism and religious indifferentism are merely means to the end of Lucifer worship for those initiated into freemasonry, so are they in the freemasons’ plan for a one-world religion. 

The Baileys help show that this religion will be packaged in new-age practices and beliefs, which will be embraced by the Antichrist who will lead this religion.

Under Pope Francis, the Vatican has already signaled that it is on board with such new-age religion, as anti-Catholic as it is. In 2018, a Vatican conference on “How Science, Technology and the 21st Century Will Impact Culture and Society” featured a talk by pop star Katy Perry on transcendental meditation as well as a talk by New Age guru Deepak Chopra. Perry is a particularly disturbing choice as a guest speaker because she has included themes of lesbianism and cannibalism in her music.

Alice Bailey, in her 1948 book “The Reappearance of the Christ,” explains some of the features of the “Christ” to come and the one-world religion she says will emerge after his appearance. It is noteworthy that, just as the antichrist is traditionally understood, Bailey describes him as the “second coming” of Jesus Christ who became incarnate 2,000 years ago. However, he will have notable differences, she says.

Alice Bailey claims that “undue emphasis” was laid upon “Jesus Christ’s” divinity, and also that man himself is “divine,” essentially undermining the very meaning and uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. She states that today, “There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus.” This is a first huge red flag.

She also explains that, in keeping with religious indifferentism, he will (at least initially) put all religions on the same plane, writing, “The Christ has no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith a man may call himself.” She even calls “the Buddha the spiritual leader of the East, and the Christ, the spiritual leader of the West.”

What will his proclaimed mission be? According to Bailey, it will be essentially world peace and “international cooperation”: “His major task is surely the establishing of right human relations in every department of human living,” going on to state that “when the United Nations has emerged into factual and actual power, the welfare of the world will then be assured.”

“What is that welfare but love in action? What are right human relations but love among men, groups and nations? What is international cooperation but love on a world scale? Those are the things which the love of God in Christ expressed … ”

Thus, the Antichrist’s conception of “love” will emphasize world peace — which is of course a good in and of itself — but this drive for “peace” will be used as a pretext for a one-world government, which both Baileys discussed directly.

Alice Bailey says that unlike Jesus Christ, this man will “not be a ‘man of sorrows’” and “will not be a silent, pensive figure.” Also, “this time, He will play His part, not in obscurity as He previously did, but before the eyes of the entire world … because of the prevalence of the radio, television and the rapidity of communication, His part will be watched by all … ”

But didn’t Jesus say that in his real Second Coming, he would come “in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty?” Alice Bailey attempts to dismiss this Scripture as meaningless in an age of airplanes, writing, “He will come indeed ‘in the clouds of the air’ as the Christian Scriptures say, but of what great interest is that when millions come and go in the clouds each hour of the day and of the night?” It’s a rather weak refutation of Scripture’s real meaning, but it will unfortunately still dupe people ready to embrace the Antichrist.

Finally, Alice Bailey offers a disturbing prediction that suggests that the Antichrist may possess the minds of his followers. She claims that the “Hierarchy” will “impres(s) the minds of enlightened men everywhere by spiritual ideas embodying the new truths” and “by the overshadowing of all world disciples and the New Group of World Servers by the Christ Himself.”

Could this perhaps be through a chip implant without which people will be unable to buy or sell (the “mark of the beast”), as foretold in the Book of the Apocalypse?

Let us remember the words of Christ regarding these times:

“Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.” (Matthew 24: 4-5)

“ … Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. 

 If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west: so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24: 23-27)

REFERENCES

[1] Johannes Maria Höcht, Die Große Botschaft von La Salette [The Great Message of La Salette], Stein am Rhein 2004 (8th ed.), p. 161.

The Clown-World Papacy

While faithful Catholics around the world are pre-occupied with a multitude of concerns such as how to pay their next utility bill, avoiding a random nuclear attack or wondering is their beloved TLM will be around next week, the Vatican continues to astonish with its commitment to pursuing worldly concerns and superfluity. Case in point, this article from VATICAN NEWS:

Pope invites 2,000 homeless, refugees and prisoners to the circus

Over 2,000 people are expected to attend a special circus show in Rome on 11 February as part of an initiative organized by the Dicastery for the Service of Charity, among whom will be refugee families from Ukraine, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan.

Pope Francis, through the Dicastery for the Service of Charity, has invited over 2,000 people to attend a special circus performance on Saturday, 11 February. The show will be performed by the Rony Roller circus company.

(Amove: an image included with the Vatican News report. Note the Luciferian ‘M’ hand sign, indicating membership in Freemasonry.)

According to a statement by the Dicastery (also known as the Apostolic Alms Office), the people invited include refugees, homeless, prisoners, and refugee families with children from Ukraine, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

There will also be some families living in squattered buildings in Rome, and more than 150 homeless people living in the streets of the Roman suburb of Torvaianica and in various dormitories. They will be accompanied by volunteers, including the Sisters of Charity of Mother Teresa.

“Allowing these people to attend the show is a way of giving a few hours of serenity to those who face hardships and need help to sustain hope”,  the Papal Almoner Cardinal Konrad Krajewski explains in the statement. “As the Pope said when meeting artists, the Circus puts us in touch with the beauty that always cheers us up and makes us go beyond difficulties, it is a way to reach the Lord.”

The show also reminds of the countless hours of training and sacrifices behind this art and this beauty: “The artists of the circus confirm to us that persevering can make the impossible possible”, Cardinal Krajewski said.

There is art and beauty in a circus? Who knew? Why not show them through the Sistine Chapel instead, or have the St Peter’s choir sing some Palestrina?

Regarding the subtle yet distinctive Masonic gesture – hidden in plain sight – here are some more samples: to the left, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons. To the right is, I believe, Christopher Columbus.

Here are a couple of circus members with the magician who sometimes appears with them. Make what you will of that hand gesture.

The Curia should remember that only Cardinals have voting rights at the next conclave – hypnotising or bribing the disadvantaged will be of no help on that fateful day.

Sandro Magister’s take on the Jesuit-9

Republished from L’Espresso, written by Sandro Magister.

Incredible but true. Just now now when in a few decades it has lost a good half of its forces, the Society of Jesus has surged to the heights of command of the Catholic Church as never before.

Francis’s story is well known. He is the first Jesuit pope in history: he who notwithstanding had more adversaries than friends in the Society and took care not to set foot in its general curia whenever he came to Rome as a cardinal.But the innovation is that in this last phase of his pontificate – declining in age but not in ambitions – Francis has equipped himself with a veteran attack team, all his own and made up entirely of Jesuits.The top man of this team is without a doubt Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich (pictured), archbishop of Luxembourg. Top man, in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s plans, both for today and for tomorrow.For today, the task assigned to him by Francis is to steer, as relator general, the world synod that got underway in 2021 and will last at least until 2024, but in the pope’s mind even beyond, with the task of remodeling the Church under the banner of none other than a permanent “synodality.”While for tomorrow it is no mystery that Hollerich is also Francis’s candidate “in pectore” for his succession, on which the current synod will have decisive influence, effectively obliging the future pope – whoever he may be – to take delivery on and continue the “process,” a bit as happened to Paul VI with the Vatican Council II inherited from John XXIII.The general rehearsal of this world synod is the one underway in Germany, which is already infecting other national Churches without Francis’s opposing any effective restraint, with the inevitable litany of fashionable reforms, ranging from married priests to women priests, from new sexual and homosexual morality to the democratization of Church governance.It is impossible not to recall that some of these were the reforms that another great Jesuit, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (1927-2012), had included in the agenda of the future Church in a memorable 1999 speech. Martini is known to have had a negative view of Bergoglio, but the supporters of the current pontificate are having a field day making him the “prophet” of the reforms for which Francis is supposedly paving the way at last and of which Hollerich has already repeatedly said he is in favor.“L’Osservatore Romano” published last October 24 a comprehensive agenda-setting interview with this cultured Jesuit cardinal with twenty-seven years of mission in Japan behind him. And in it he once again expressed the hope for “a paradigm change” in the pastoral care and doctrine of the Church on homosexuality, because homosexuals too “are the fruit of creation” and therefore are not “rotten apples” but “something good.” Of course, there is no room – the cardinal added – for a sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex, because the procreative purpose that characterizes a marriage is lacking, “but this does not mean that their affective union has no value.”And to the editor of “L’Osservatore Romano” who brought up the fact that the bishops of Belgium have spoken out in favor of the blessing of homosexual unions, Hollerich replied: “Frankly, the question does not seem decisive to me. If we keep to the etymology of ‘bene-dire’ [bless, literally ‘well-speak,’ Tr.], do you think that God could ever ‘dire-male’ [‘speak ill,’ Tr.] of two persons who care about each other?”These words of Hollerich’s spontaneously bring up the question: but wasn’t it another high-ranking Jesuit at the Vatican, Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, in his capacity as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, who prohibited the blessing of homosexual unions in a “Responsum” made public on March 15 2021?And was it not Francis himself who had “given his consent” to the publication of this “Responsum,” after having been “informed” of it, as written at the bottom of the document?Just so. Except, however, to take note that the following Sunday, at the Angelus, the pope had made it clear that he had no liking at all for “theoretical condemnations” or “claims of legalism or clerical moralism” where what are needed instead are “gestures of love.” And “authoritative Vatican sources” had anonymously made it known that with this he was criticizing none other than the “Responsum” that prohibited the blessing of homosexual unions, which he had approved in words.In short, humiliated by his confrere the pope, the hapless Cardinal Ladaria is the exception that confirms the rule. He is the old school Jesuit whom Bergoglio keeps on the bench while waiting to send him into retirement, off his team. Requiring him in the meantime to answer “no” to those cardinals – and there have been some – who have asked him to call Hollerich back to respect for correct doctrine.But in addition to Hollerich, there are two other Jesuits whom Francis has recently made cardinals and has put on the team in important roles.The first is the Canadian Michael Czerny, for many years more a competitor than a coworker of the Ghanaian cardinal Peter K. A. Turkson, first at the pontifical council for justice and peace and then at the dicastery for promoting integral human development, of which he has now become prefect. Czerny was also the special secretary of the synod for the Amazon. From the defense of nature to migrants, to the “popular movements,” he is the man Bergoglio avails himself of in these fields he favors.The second is the Italian Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and a seasoned expert in canon law. Among his tasks is that of translating into juridical provisions the imperious acts that Francis carries out with the air of an absolute monarch. From Ghirlanda, for example, came the perfunctory conclusion of the longstanding theological dispute between powers of orders, those derived from episcopal ordination, and powers of jurisdiction, those conferred by a higher authority, opting for the latter in order to place some lay people as well, men or women, at the head of the Vatican curia, with the simple mandate of the pope. Again from Ghirlanda, in his role of juridical “factotum” at the service of Francis, came the dismantling and refounding imposed by the pope on the Order of Malta.But that’s not all. Also among Jesuits who are not cardinals there are some whom the pope has placed in key roles, at his service.In the general secretariat of the synod of bishops there is a consultant who is in fact the associate closest to Cardinal Hollerich. It is Fr. Giacomo Costa, former editor of the magazine “Aggiornamenti Sociali” of the Milan Jesuits and vice-president of the Fondazione Carlo Maria Martini.Not to mention Fr. Antonio Spadaro, editor of “La Civiltà Cattolica” and very close to Francis since his election as pope, he too very active and urgent in promoting the world synod on synodality and in particular in involving in the adventure – with important help from his predecessor at “La Civiltà Cattolica,” Bartolomeo Sorge (1929-2020) – the Italian episcopal conference, initially very distrustful.And then there is the chapter of the Vatican finances, where Francis has appointed the Spanish Jesuit Juan Antonio Guerrero Alves as prefect of the secretariat for the economy, the office that oversees the entire sector.Moreover, for a couple of years there has also been a Jesuit at St. Peter’s Basilica, alongside the cardinal archpriest Mauro Gambetti, the pope’s vicar general for Vatican City. It is Francesco Occhetta, secretary general of the “Fratelli tutti” foundation and until 2020 political columnist for “La Civiltà Cattolica.”And there is also a Jesuit among the auxiliary bishops of the diocese of Rome of which the pope is bishop: Daniele Libanori, who is entrusted with the pastoral care of the city center.With the pope the names listed make nine. And with Sorge and the “prophet” Martini eleven, naturally without counting Cardinal Ladaria. Such a team, entirely of Jesuits, had never been seen in command of the Church.

Pelosi receives Communion at the Vatican

Fresh from encouraging the irate members of her pro-abortion coven to commit acts of violence and vandalism, Nancy Pelosi arrived in Rome a few days ago. A significant appointment on her agenda was celebrating the feast of Sts Peter and Paul by committing yet another egregious act of sacrilege at St Peter’s.

Although reports say that it was not the Pope who distributed the Eucharist to Pelosi, Bergoglio himself was in attendance at the Mass.

Previously, Pelosi had spoken at an event at the US Embassy in Rome, calling to mind one of her favourite rhetorical devices: invoking demonic spirituality (cloaked in Catholic imagery) to insult the Trinity.

Before the Mass, Pelosi had a talk with Bergoglio, at which she apparently received a blessing from him. After that, Pelosi went to a Francis-fave, the Sant’Egidio Community, and later handed over $25,000 in US-taxpayer money to the charity.

Perhaps the pontiff had run his new encyclical by Pelosi during their meeting. Part of it could have been written just for her:

” … everyone is invited to the supper of the wedding of the Lamb (Rev 19: 9). To be admitted to the feast all that is required is the wedding garment of faith which comes from the hearing of his Word (cf. Rom 10:17).” {Emphasis added.}

This novel take on admittance to the Holy Eucharist, seemed to have appealed to Pelosi. After all, during her address at the US Embassy, she remarked:

“Faith is an important gift, not everyone has it but it is the path to so many other things.”

A path to other things? Like that wide ol’ road to hell, Nancy?

Poisoning the young at the Vatican

The Vatican played host to a youth festival on Easter Monday, inviting a bizarre rock star to entertain thousands of confused young Catholics prior to a prayer meeting led by the Pope. It was organised by the Italian Bishops Conference (you know, that outfit who thought this design was appropriate for a church) and Italy’s National Youth Pastoral Service.

The theme of the day was “#Follow Me”: the hashtag attests to its hipness, no doubt, and although it was meant to inspire young Catholics to “find their way and vocation in life”, it’s hard to see an event like this leading them anywhere other than to hell.

One presenter for the concert was an Italian media star renowned for her “heart-attack necklines” and pornographic Instagram feed. But the main event was Riccardo Fabbriconi, aka Blanco, a crossdressing rapper and pop singer.

Blanco at the Vatican. Nero is more like it.
One news outlet lauded his ‘courage’ for exposing his tattoos

Blanco sang his current hit, Blu Celeste, supposedly written to honour a dead friend of his. The music video is somewhat alarming, as Blanco appears in his underwear, in the centre of a circle of flames. It is reminiscent of a magic circle, the symbol beloved of witches and occultists who perform their rituals inside, believing themselves to be protected from ‘negative forces’. What else could you expect from a guy whose first words as a baby were allegedly to curse his parents?

“This will impress the kidz!”

While Fr Michelle Falabretti, spokesman for the Bishops Conference, called the singer “a gift” to the young people, some of the bishops weren’t so sure. But Falabretti tried to reassure them:

“… the context is very important. Woe to underestimate it! You risk not being on the same wavelength. (Oh, the horror.) The singer who at this moment attracts the very young most of all, means creating the conditions for mutual dialogue and listening. (Yep, he said that.) You need to know who they are, try to understand that inner world whose features the artists interpret and make explicit. And Blanco, with his lyrics that tell of hardships, hopes and wounds, gives voice to the anxieties and moods of the boys, (?) perhaps not of all, but certainly of many.”

At least he remembered to cover his chest this time.
On their way to the after-party at Coccopalmerio’s?

And what did Bergoglio have to say about all this? Not much. He just rambled on about the war, the flames of which his WEF buddies are busily fanning. But hey, who really cares? The kids were there for the concert, and not there for the Pope uttering some half-truths about Catholicism.

Actually, maybe Bergoglio could take some tips from Blanco when it comes to sharing the Faith: after all, the singer doesn’t hold back when it comes to showing the god to which he gives his allegiance.