Pope Francis, could I ask you a question?

Your Holiness:

Just  to ask....respectfully:  which do you like better at Mass?

This:





or this:





Just wondering.

While Christians flee or die....

From Eric Margolis:

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Syrian forces had surprised Israel and were fast approaching the edge of the steep Golan Heights, captured by Israel during the 1967 war. It seemed as if Syrian armor and infantry would retake Golan, then pour down into Israeli Galilee.

Soviet recon satellites observed Israel moving its nuclear-armed, 500km-range Jericho missiles out of protective caves and onto their launch pads. At the same time, Israel was seen loading nuclear bombs on their US-supplied F-4 fighter-bombers at Tel Nof airbase.

Believing Israel was about to use nuclear weapons against Syria and Egypt, Moscow put huge pressure on both to rein in their advancing forces. Damascus, already in range of Israeli artillery on Golan, ordered its armored forces on Golan to halt, allowing Israel to mount powerful counter-attacks and retake the strategic heights.

In 1981, Israel formally annexed the 580 sq. mile portion of Golan that it occupied. This illegal annexation was condemned by the United Nations, the United States and Europe’ powers. But Israel held on to Golan and implanted 50,000 there in some 41 subsidized settlements.

The world has pretty much forgotten how close it came to nuclear war in 1973 over Golan. The heights became a primary nuclear trigger point along with Kashmir, Germany’s Fulda Gap, and the DMZ, Korea’s inner border.

Golan recently resurfaced in the news when Israel’s rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, that his nation would never return Golan to Syria. In a speech soon after, Netanyahu vowed Israel would hold on to Golan for “all eternity.” He also admitted for the first time that Israel had made “dozens” of cross-border attacks on Syria.

and:

In fact, it’s pretty much clear that Israel has been quietly fueling the Syrian conflict by discreet arms and logistics support to so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels and lobbying for the war in Washington and with the US media.  Netanyahu has even said – with a straight face – that Israel cannot return Golan or even negotiate, until calm returns to Syria and Iraq.


Read the whole article here.

Comments Patrick Foy on Mr Margolis' article:

As a side issue I would note that it does not matter who is elected U.S. Prez in 2016 when it comes to war and peace in the Middle East. Hildebeest Clinton, The Donald or Uncle Bernie. The ridiculously long and often entertaining political campaign is, at bottom, irrelevant. The White House and Capitol Hill are already Israeli occupied territory and, like the Golan, will remain  so. 

Philip Chism: Poster Boy for all those people who want men to sneak into the Ladies Room

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/us/massachusetts-teacher-raped-killed-chism-trial/

To read some of the articles relating to this latest Luciferian madness, some of them somewhat defeatist and some very interesting, we come to the conclusion that this is only the beginning of a national derangement, a putsch fostered by government, media and the gigantic corporations who basically control both.  They are pushing the public right to the wall, waiting to see just how far they can push.  Make no mistake: there will be other, worse derangements foisted upon us by those who lord it over the earth.

I am curious myself to know just what it will take before the dam finally breaks.  We cannot rely on the media obviously.  They will tell any tale, push any lie and absurdity with a straight face, to please their corporate owners and the swine who rule.  So them we can forget, and it wold be all  to the good if we began forgetting them post haste.

Every sane man and woman knows exactly what is coming with this rest room nonsense.  Pederasty, rape and murder.  Just ask Mr Philip Chism.  He is the pioneer here.  He is the Obama look-a-like who liked to follow ladies into the ladies room.  He is the first Big Case.  He wont be the last.

Chism is said to be a little, well, "insane".  Maybe he is just a budding sex pervert.  Sane or not he has paved the way for other sex perverts.  Despite the crime of Chism the demand increases for more like him to waltz into the little girl's room.  And the more obvious the absurdity is the more forcefully the absurdity will be demanded by government and business (a collusion classically known as "fascism").

There will be rapes, murders, molestations.  There will be lawsuits.  Lawsuits will be justified but how does that soothe the pain of a mother and dad looking at their slashed little girl?

Clooney Tunes

The vapid ham known as Mr George Clooney, who pulled himself up from his bootstraps to become a Hollywood star (with a little bit of help from his father who was already in the business and his late aunt Rosemary who also was already in the business....but we're not supposed to notice such things) is at it again, this time raising big bucks for the campaign of the Wicked Witch:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/clooney-tunes-moolah-fantasies/

And to no one's surprise, the Wicked Witch has a fundraiser scheduled in a foreign country.  Well, why not?  There;s probably a special political airline that only makes four stops: Hollywood, New York, Washington and Tel Aviv.

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/clinton-will-hold-fundraiser-in-tel-aviv/

At least Mr Voris went to Confession and turned his life around. When will you, Cardinal Dolan?

You give kindly waves to homosexual perverts mincing around in a church - in your presence.

You lavish praise on some worthless sports queer, telling him "Bravo" for announcing and loving his sin.

You have done nothing - zero - to clean up the rat's nest of buggery in your diocese.

You lent your so-called prestige (what little there is) to the sex perverts who are now destroying the St Patrick's Day parade in New York.

You give Holy Communion to public sinners like Joe Biden, et al, scandalize the faithful, and allow Biden to eat and drink judgement on himself (and you too, mate).

You stunk up the archdiocese of Milwaukee by your do-nothing attitude and by leaving all of Rembert Weakland's chancery "buddies"in their positions instead of firing them and fumigating the place; now you are doing, or not doing, the same in New York.

For all the reasons listed above you are an embarrassment and a public disgrace to your cloth - and you have the utter gall to try to discredit a man who repented of past sins, turned his life around and started to do good in his own way?  And, in effect, break the seal of Confession in the bargain?

Perhaps it is not you personally who is engineering this smear job.  It could be one of the fuzzy-headed homosexuals that are rampant in your chancery who are behind this viciousness (a common tactic of the Poof Crowd). The same little mincing fellows, maybe, who were in the seminary Mr Voris once attended? Nevertheless, the buck stops with you and you alone, Cardinal Dolan.  Shall I hold my breath waiting for you to either apologize to Voris or fire the light-in-the-loafers chancery gnomes who facilitated this smear?  Perhaps I better not.

About that denial issued by the Archdiocese of New York.  That's a bit hard to believe, I'm afraid. I would believe that denial as much as I would believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy (though I believe in other kinds of fairies).

Mr Voris turned his life around. When are you going to turn your life around, Your non-eminent Eminence?

Meet the Psychopaths who want war with Russia

Apologies, wrong photo.

I meant this one:

Yes, I'm afraid these lunatics really, truly want the US to go to war with Russia.  They are diseased in their minds, among other things, and care not a whit for human life, ours or theirs.  Philip Giraldi explains:

That Russia, China and Iran are portrayed as serious threats to the United States because of what they are doing in Eastern Europe, the South China Sea and in the Persian Gulf region is ridiculous, but it unfortunately passes for foreign policy consensus in Washington both for neoconservatives and for democracy promoting interventionists like Carter. In reality Russia reacted to American interference in Ukraine, China is involved in regional disputes that have been playing out since the end of the Vietnam War and a non-nuclear Iran is surrounded by enemies. None of them threatens the U.S.


Read the article here

Guest Post: Thoughts for Jerome

THOUGHTS  FOR  JEROME

By William P. Fall

For years now, Jerome has prepared my tax returns.  This is because he’s very good, and I very bad, at that grisly business. 

I first needed him in times when complex property payments and incidental income necessitated his clear wisdom and professional, former IRS agent skills.

Life and taxes for me are simpler these days, now that I’ve retired and migrated to a tax-friendlier state.  Hence, I possibly could manage without Jerome – and spare myself a 200-mile round trip for his services.  But I’d miss him. Mainly because he’s Jewish, and has a fabulous wealth of knowledge not only on Jewish culture – we’re quite able to exchange our contrary religious views with mutual interest and common courtesy, you see – but on so many other topics, as well, that never before interested me much, yet that take on a riveting aura when presented out of the mind and mouth of Jerome the tax man.

Likewise, he’s a very good, very attentive listener to my own discourses, even on subjects over which he may disagree with me (such as politics), and even on subjects over which he decidedly disagrees with me (such as religion).  So, how could I not look forward to tax time and my sessions with Jerome?

Now, U.S. presidents particularly fascinate him – all of them, including those he wouldn’t vote for.  He retains an amazing amount of detailed knowledge about probably most of them.  In fact, he has visited the graves of all but one. 

So, he’s both keenly aware of, and fixedly interested in, the fact that I grew up on a side street just off a main one on which two presidents had resided nearby: John Adams and George H. W. Bush, the latter of whom I met a few years ago.   Not surprisingly, therefore, that senior Bush will invariably come up in our tax-preparation talks – as it did again this year.  And though I can’t remember how exactly his name first arose this time, it led to my narrating how this erstwhile neighbor/erstwhile president is a Freemason, who chose for the slogan of his administration the Masonic term, the “New World Order,” and who, I read fairly recently from a source I respect, was quoted as boldly prophesying something to the effect (my memory fails on the exact words) that a major event would occur at the turn of the new millennium – which, it was suggested, had meant 9/11 – that would prepare the way towards fully establishing that New World Order. 

This, I recognized, was probably a pretty strong dose of elixir even for Jerome to swallow.  But he respectfully said nothing – that is, until the next day, when I received a rather surprising e-mail from him containing this:

“Sorry; just researched [George H.W.’s father] Prescott Bush's supposed involvement with the Nazis.

“’[Prescott] Bush was a founding member and one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation (holding a single share out of 4,000 as a director), an investment bank that operated as a clearing house for many assets and enterprises held by German steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. In July 1942, the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II. Journalist Duncan Campbell pointed out documents showing that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.’”

I wrote to reply that "at the end of the historical note on Prescott Bush (and Averell Harriman) you shared with me, there was also a disclaimer, of sorts, stating: ‘According to journalist Joe Conason, Prescott Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and he was not a Nazi sympathizer.’  To whatever degree part of that may be true, if you'll allow me, I'd like to make some observations for you to consider.”

Those observations now follow.  

No, Cephas. We will not accept this

Paul rebukes Peter

'AMORIS LEATITIA', Heresy Unveiled

by James Larson 

[In order to add clarity as to the nature of the explicit heresy taught in Amoris Laetitia, I have added one paragraph approximately 2/3 of the way through the article below. It reads:

Herein resides the essence of this heresy. It lies specifically in teaching that there is a “gradualness” applicable to the possession of charity and sanctifying grace. It is Catholic dogma that possession of supernatural charity is an ontological state created by sanctifying grace added to the soul, that one cannot possess this charity unless living in this substantial state, and that it is this state of being which is absolutely necessary for receiving the Eucharist and other sacraments. It cannot be possessed by a person living in objective mortal sin, or by any person who is in some process of pastoral effort working towards the attainment of some “ideal”.  JL]

Since the public presentation of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia on Saturday, February 8, the traditional media has been flooded with negative evaluations. I made a list of some of the pejoratives: ambiguous, undermining, fundamental option, turning point in Catholic doctrine, uncertainty, coup, revolutionary, relativistic, plot to turn the Church upside down, demolish the foundations of two thousand years of Catholicism, constant teaching of the Church destroyed, strange, surreal, disquieting, dreadful, devastating for the Church, a praise to heretic joy, catastrophic. It has even been simply called the “Bergoglian heresy”.

In these evaluations, a number of passages have been quoted from the Exhortation, virtually all of the relevant ones to be found in Chapter 8, which is titled Accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness. Unquestionably, these passages and their respective evaluations offer evidence for the strong condemnations of these commentators. Possibly most succinct, and most often employed, is a passage from paragraph 305, and its footnote. The passage reads:

“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”

The relevant footnote (#351) reads:

“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039)”

All this is indeed an indication of an underlying heresy, but it does not, so to speak, “put the nail to the coffin”. As one commentator put it, it is “careful language”. Or, as Cardinal Schonborn stated in his Intervention at the Presentation of Amoris Laetitia, it is a “linguistic event”.

Possibly the most succinct, devastating, and poignant summary of this position – that Amoris Laetitia represents not explicit, but implicit, heresy – has come, not from a traditional Catholic, but from a man who describes himself as having been a secular Jew who converted to Catholicism, and now has rejected the Faith entirely. Damon Linker, in The Week magazine, writes the following:

“If there were any doubts that Pope Francis is a stealth reformer of the Roman Catholic Church, the apostolic exhortation he released last week (Amoris Laetitia, or the "Joy of Love") should settle the matter.

“A straightforward reformer of the church seeks to change its doctrines. A stealth reformer like Francis, on the other hand, keeps the doctrines intact but invokes such concepts as mercy, conscience, and pastoral discernment to show priests that it's perfectly acceptable to circumvent and disregard those doctrines in specific cases. A doctrine officially unenforced will soon lose its authority as a doctrine. Where once it was a commandment sanctioned by God, now it becomes an "ideal" from which we're expected to fall short. Before long it may be treated as a suggestion. Eventually, repealing it is no longer controversial — or perhaps even necessary.

“Stealth reform ultimately achieves the same reformist goal, but without inspiring the intense opposition that would follow from attempting to change the doctrine outright.”

However, Cardinal Schonborn, Damon Linker, and others who promote such views concerning the Pope’s Exhortation are wrong. It is not just a “linguistic event” or “stealth reform” or revolution, which is able to fly under the radar of a specific charge of heresy. There is a very explicit heresy, it is the foundation of all the other legitimate condemnations ofAmoris Laetitia, and it clearly reveals the agenda which germinates and nourishes all the rest of its errors. It is found in paragraphs 296 and 297:

Read the entire article here.

Eating and Drinking Judgement on themselves

"Perception is everything."

The following brief observations on Pope Francis' revolutionary exhortation have as their intention to put to rest hopefully once and for all the notion that because doctrine was supposedly "not changed" we can and must look at the Pope's words in the light of past Church teachings, and that if we do that we will find no need to be anxious over the whole thing.  Unfortunately such a notion is untenable, and we have five decades of recent experience to show that it is untenable.

Blaming the media for misinterpretations is also untenable.  The media was given precisely what it needed by the Vatican; Rome wanted its message to get out and it allows the media to convey to the world exactly what it wants conveyed.  If this were not so we would be hearing and.or reading thundering denunciations from St Peter's.  That there is a satisfied silence coming from the Holy See is sufficient to convince anyone that the Pope is pleased with how the media is treating his letter. Rome understands, even if many Catholics do not, that perception is everything, and that the perception everyone has of the document - a Church abandoning Her former protections of the Sacred Species - is the perception that was intended.  It is simply silly to try to look at this document as one of continuity with  scripture and tradition.  It isn't, and never can be.  Its divorce from scriptural reality is clear for all to see; one does not need to be a Biblical scholar to know that the words of Jesus Christ have been suppressed in order for a worldly Pope to be even more admired by the world. (That's the same world that would like nothing better than to see the Catholic Church exterminated in case anyone is interested.)

If the disastrous, unnecessary Vatican Council II has taught us anything at all it is that the Modernists now in complete control of the Vatican apparatus will use any lie, any subterfuge, any traditional-sounding phrase it can muster up to obliterate Christ's clear teachings and reduce the one, true Church into another mere Protestant sect.  The Pope's all-mercy-no-repentance approach is nothing if not pure Protestantism, which will lead untold millions of souls into the same final place in eternity that Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII  led their followers.

To put it simply, if you wish to go to Hell after death just do what Francis now recommends and go receive Holy Communion in your present state of mortal sin.  The perception now is that sodomites and adulterers can receive Communion without any troublesome "torture" in the Confessional.  What else does the Pope's exhortation say if not that?  He and his dicey theologians have been hinting about this for the last three years and now it is on official Vatican stationery.

How nice.

But doctrine hasn't changed! so say the papal defenders, like the perpetually clueless Ed Peters (who can always be counted on to miss the main point). Yes, it has.  Not de jure, of course, but de facto.  Perception is everything.  Those who keep telling themselves that doctrine hasn't been changed kid only themselves and a few gullible Catholics who read them uncritically.  If the practice changes - which in this case it most certainly will - the doctrine for all intents and purposes becomes a dead letter.

But, some insist, the priests wont allow this to happen.  A naive belief, and one only need recall the winks and nods priests gave Catholics at the time of Humanae Vitae.  That will be repeated a billionfold in the upcoming years.

The other day LifeSite News reported a story about an abortion butcher who discovered to his dismay that the aborted child lying on the table was still breathing.  While the nurses watched he strangled the child to death to finish the job.  In Poland  a few months ago an aborted child cried itself to death after being aborted.  But, you see, we "obsess" too much over abortion according to our Pope who didn't find too much need to mention such things in his "love" exhortation.  I bring this up because I believe it dovetails with the whole situation we are in these days.  Nations that allow such unspeakable horrors to go on unpunished, will be punished themselves.  That in fact nations are already being punished.  I will go out on a limb and add that it is my opinion that Pope Francis is one part of that punishment.  His love affair with the World is destroying the only institution on earth that could be an effective fighter against the evils brought about by the stooges of Satan.  His every word and action emasculates Catholicism.  He has blunted the Church's sword so much that it is virtually useless.  He is far from the only recent Pope to have done so but he is one of the worst in that regard.  He is leaving the Church defenseless against an onslaught that is growing and will become more severe with every passing hour. Author James Larson believes it will take an "extraordinary chastisement" to bring the Church back to her senses.  I agree.  That chastisement will be not only spiritual as in the case of bad Popes and Bishops but also, I fear, physical.  Countries like America and most European countries that allow what they are allowing will be severely punished, as will a Church that remains silent while murderers and sodomites gain the ascendancy.

The Pope's exhortation is nothing more that the latest manifestation of the Modernist heresy that has haunted Catholicism for at least two centuries.  It is the culmination of the process that began in earnest at Vatican II, whereby three generations of Catholics have been severed from their past, deliberately, by the destroyers who were in charge of that miserable Council.  By a deliberate act of the will the mandarins behind Vatican II cut off Catholics from their roots, and that fifty-year debacle has ended with a Pope like Bergoglio.  Chastisements come in many forms: physical, mental and spiritual.  Francis, whether he even realizes it or not, is a part of the spiritual chastisement we suffer.  God has permitted the Church to be inflicted with a long series of ineffective and now downright bizarre Popes who have done severe, near-irreparable damage to His Church.  This catastrophe can no longer be reversed by simple means.  It will take something else to cleanse the Church of the filth, the scum, which is now rising rapidly to the top.  Whatever it is, it will be awful.

So, please dear defenders of this latest papal atrocity, do not bother telling the world that doctrine has not changed.  As Rome well knows, and its defenders do not,  it isn't what you say that is important; it's what people think you say that is crucial.  Perception is everything.

God help those in high places who have scandalized Christ's little ones.  That includes those Bishops and Cardinals who should be confronting this insanity but are not.

With his ideas of "unmerited" mercy Pope Francis clearly wants us all to now be Lutherans.  I am sorry, Francis, but I will not accept your suggestion.

With this latest stink bomb from the Vatican there is only one thing left that I know of: to occupy our hearts and minds: Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

An honest Cardinal

A Pontiff in need of a history lesson

According to our current Pope, no married couple is capable of living up to the ideal of Sacramental Marriage.  He says that "no fallen human lives can live up to that ideal."

What an unconscionable thing to say about so many Catholic families, including this notable one, Emperor Karl and Princess Zita von Hapsburg.  Their marriage was an example to the entire world, Catholic and non-Catholic.  Even the lowliest Catholic living in a New York slum at the time could look to Karl and Zita for inspiration on what it means to live a Catholic marriage.  From high to low, most Catholics tried and suffered to live true marriages.  Now they are cavalierly dismissed by a man who has little to no idea what he is talking about, content to blurt out any thought that comes into his head no matter how much it contradicts reality or common sense.

Pope Francis' words were clumsy and stupid, not to say historically illiterate, and not becoming of a Vicar of Christ nor I dare say anyone who has ever bothered to glance through a history book..

Zita and Karl von Hapsburg and family.

The lowly will save the Faith

St Louis IX

I am too disgusted to comment now on the papal debacle, but I do want to mention so many fine Catholic internet writers and bloggers who have already entered the fray like the good, brave, Catholic warriors they are.  They are the sons and daughters of St Louis IX.

I link to many of these great men and great ladies on this blog.  They are fearless in their defense of the one, true Faith.  They write with force yet eloquence, directness yet serenity. My admiration for their defense of the Faith is without bounds.  And I'm honored and humbled and proud to be one of their colleagues.

God Bless 'em.

Helping out the Republicans

Since the leadership of the Republican Party is so anxious to lose (again) the election and see Hillary Clinton win the election this Fall I thought I'd offer them some help in that endeavor.

The Republicans aren't Conservatives. They're Jacobins.

So are the Democrats, of course, but the Republicans really need to put away the Conservative Label. They don't deserve it.  The following article by Bill Lind brings home the point.

From Washington a panicked Republican Establishment is denouncing Donald Trump as “not a conservative”. The Establishment claims custody of the word “conservative” and with it the right to pronounce who is one and who isn’t. But in fact, it is the Establishment’s definition of “conservatism” that is not conservative.

The Republican Establishment’s platform has three main elements: Jacobinism, globalism, and cultural Marxism. Not one of the three is conservative, in terms of what the word “conservatism” has traditionally meant. On the contrary, all three, seen historically, are anti-conservative. They represent forces conservatism has struggled against.

Jacobinism originated in the French Revolution, one of the two great catastrophes the West has suffered in modern times (the other is World War I, which saw Jacobinism re-emerge as Wilsonianism). The Jacobins were the most radical element in Revolutionary France, the origin of the Terror. They believed in democracy and equality, both to be forced down everyone’s throat at home and abroad. France murdered thousands of her own people and brought war to much of Europe in that quest. In the end, even Robespierre, perhaps the best-known Jacobin, admitted that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.

Read the whole article here.

The Other Poor

Confronted on a daily basis by the plight of the world's poor courtesy the new Vatican emphasis, those in power in their eagerness to help the poor have, I think, forgotten the other poor of the Church, the poor in spirit, the poor who are starved of doctrine, of beauty, of quiet, of certitude. It allows us to wonder: is there any pity left among Churchmen for these poor?

Who are these Poor?  There are at least two kinds of poor, material and spiritual.  We shall attempt to briefly discuss both.

Our hearts compel us to help poor people, those living at poverty level or slightly above, and our hearts have been so compelling us to do so since God placed the first human beings on the earth. Empathy comes naturally to most people, unless one is either a sociopath or one consumed by greed, so for centuries there have been poor people who have been helped by others.  In the Ages of Faith, aka the Middle Ages, the Church provided this help and was always helped by the rich who donated sums to the monks and the nuns so that the poor were provided with food, shelter and medical care.  These sacrifices of the more "well off" were looked upon as just that: sacrifices. And they knew that these works of charity would be remembered by God when the time came for their final judgment. [A good example of the near-perfect economy of the Middle Ages can be read at this link: http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2011/09/economics-and-cathedrals.html  Be sure to click on the linked pdf]

With the destruction of the monasteries during the Reformation much if not all of that was swept away and men started to think only of themselves, much more so than ever before.  The poor became poorer because they no longer had the monastic institutions to help them in their needs. Following that, the rich became richer, since they no longer had to bother giving alms to monasteries that were not there anymore. The poor were left to fend for themselves in many cases. Of course many monastic lands were confiscated and given to favored families by the King, so that even those few left who had been helping the poor were swept away by this grand theft.  It is past dispute that this was the origin of the great landed families of England, become rich on the stolen property of the Church and on the indifference to the poor whose life line was cut off by the Reformation. [One wonders if the Holy Father will mention this utter devastation of the poor in England and Germany brought about by the Reformation, the same Reformation he seems to be willing to celebrate come this Halloween.]

Since the Reformation the poor in some lands had a great struggle simply to stay alive.  This whole sad story has been well told by such writers as D.B. Wyndham-Lewis, Christopher Hollis and the great Hilaire Belloc among others.

In the present day it is no longer the Church but the government, the taxpayer, who most provides for the poor, and some - I say, some - of these poor are provided for very, very well, at least in America.  But of that, more later. [This is not to diminish the good efforts of some parishes who really help those in dire straits.  But the whole balance has shifted, away from the love of Mother Church which provides for the helpless, one of Her historical roles, to the rather cold, unloving arms of the government.]

In all the currently fashionable talk of "the poor" which the pontificate of Francis has brought about our perceptions about who is poor and how they are poor have been somewhat confused and disjointed.  True, there are many peoples in the world living in definite poverty, begging on the streets.  Not on the Church radar screens is another kind of penury.  How, for example, does one support a family in America with only a part time job, the only type of work now available for thousands upon thousands of Americans?  It is also true - and some readers may be uncomfortable with this - that much of this poverty has been brought about by Capitalism, the mirror image of Communism. Before the reader writes me off as a crank or a unredeemable liberal (or, God forbid, a Marxist) please be aware that the Church has taught neither Socialism nor Capitalism but instead the program centering upon the Social Kingship of Christ, a program that most present day free market exponents would find appalling since it posits an order of things in conformity with God's desires for mankind, which desires take precedence over those of, say, Monsanto.

But the discussion here is not about those living in abject economic poverty but of those living in spiritual poverty and it is those people the Church has been ignoring for many, many decades. When Popes like Paul, John Paul and Francis and others speak of "the poor" we are tempted to ask, "Which poor?" Further, "Which poverty?  Economic or spiritual?"

Those who are uncomfortable with hearing criticisms of Popes or who suffer from the malady known as "papolatry" may wish to stop reading here.  If this discussion is to continue, if it is even to make sense, it will be necessary to confront some of the more worrying remarks of some of the current pontificates.

There are many Catholics who are deeply disturbed about many of the remarks and actions of the current Pope.  This writer is one of them.  One day, Francis says something relatively Catholic; the next day he says something which is incoherent, or worse.  Some of his words have done great damage, untold damage which will haunt the Catholic Church for decades, maybe centuries. The words of his have been ably dissected by numerous sources and it is not my wish to rehash them here.  What I propose to do is to wonder aloud why he seems so deeply worried by those suffering economic poverty but has little to say about those who are destitute when it comes to their knowledge and practice of the Catholic Faith.  Must it be one or the other? Can we not care for them both?

Do you wish to know just how ignorant Catholics are of their faith?  Simply peruse the comments sections of many a blog or website.  Attend almost any typical New Mass. We have at least four generations of Catholics who have no idea whatsoever what the Catholic Church is, let alone what She teaches teaches.  And the blame for that must be laid squarely upon the place where the buck stops: the Papacy.  This does not absolve everyday Catholics from their duties of prayer and living their lives in accordance with that rather stern recent reminders given to us from Heaven. Some argue that our negligence brings on much of this grief. Some would say our behavior brings all of it upon us. Because of our own Catholic negligence we often get the kind of Popes we deserve. If the caliber of Popes who have occupied the throne since the late 1950s is anything to go by we must indeed be getting worse as Catholics.  All too true, unfortunately, but....

So we would appear to have a two-prong fight on our hands now.  The first prong involves our own selves; the second involves reminding our Popes and Bishops of their duties towards their flock.  It is because these Churchmen have neglected their duties that we are in the state we are in at the present time.

I will therefore respectfully remind the Holy Father, and those Bishops who cower before the corrupt of the world, that a greater emphasis must be placed upon those whose poverty is religious.

Why should our Bishops emphasize spiritual poverty over economic poverty?  Let us answer that by looking at the United States though I suspect similar scenarios can be found in all parts of the once-Christian world.

Let us be blunt: in America the poor are rather well cared for.  Where I live the following is typical: mother goes grocery shopping with the money she can scrape up from hers or her husband's part-time job. She chooses carefully what she can afford.  Meat is always at a premium so that means ground beef mostly, or chicken or a cheap pork cut, all on sale.  Or lots and lots of peanut butter. She goes to check out with the cashier and in front of her - again, forgive my bluntness - is often a massively overweight welfare "Drone" with hundreds of dollars worth of the choicest cuts of meat, along with mountains of junk food, which she blithely "pays" for with welfare funds taken from the taxpayers, the same taxpayers like the woman behind her with the sale-priced ground beef.  These same welfare folks have half their energy bills paid for, half their rent, all their medical/hospital expenses covered and, as often as not, drive away from the store in a late model car (or SUV, which seems to be the latest fad of the welfare class).  In their homes they have 60" TVs and all the latest cell phones [I know, my job took me into many such homes.]. That this is a charity gone mad and a grave injustice is obvious.  The poor woman with little money scrapes to get by while the "official poor" woman in front of her at the checkout lives like a Queen.  It is not my intention to be cruel to this well-supplied welfare class.  But it is what it is, and there are many reasons why it is what it is.  Our Churchmen need to recognize the fact that right now the poor in America at least are not like the poor in Afghanistan.  They need to make careful distinctions.  Of course the Church must help, as She always has, the deserving poor.  That is not at issue here. The Church does, has done it and there is no need to forget the other types of poverty when discussing the economic plight of the poor,.and that perhaps recognizing that their material welfare is not universally urgent could concentrate instead on their religious, dare I say dogmatic, nourishment.

Yes, the poor in America live rather well.  Far better than those who work nothing litle jobs as their sole source of income. If the Pope would distinguish between these "poor" of any major US city and the poor of, say, Honduras who eke out a living as best they can from whatever the tourists may offer, well and good. But I am fairly certain he would not in this age of hysterical hypersensitivity be inclined to separate these two kinds of poor people.  I will commend this Pope and other Popes who have rightly pointed out how gigantic multinational corporations have kept many of their fellow citizens in poverty and utter hopelessness.  I wish to Heaven he would name some of them, like Cargill, Monsanto, ADM, United Fruit (for whom the USA went to war once.*), etc.  But, again, political correctness would probably preclude him getting too specific.  At least he is pointing out these kinds of injustices.  Strangely, however, the injustice of not being taught the Faith properly rarely if ever emerges from his mouth.

Negligence like this is not the sole fault of only modernist Churchmen.  I hate to say this but it is a sad fact that even Mother Theresa rarely emphasized the necessity of the Faith in her dealings with the poor of India, allowing many of them to perish in their paganism. This writer once discussed this aspect of her with the late Malcom Muggeridge, who knew her well and admired her greatly, and he confirmed that that was indeed true.

When it comes to the moral and spiritual neglect of so many Bishops, Pope Francis offers either silence or, worse, praise. These who are killing the souls of men seem less important to some Popes than those who kill the body.  If the Popes keep up in this vein they will have the healthiest and best-fed Catholics on earth falling into Hell when they die.

As much as we do to help those less fortunate than us, an act of charity that is the very stuff of Catholicism, a greater emphasis could be placed in helping those who are starved for the Truth. I realize than men of good will debate which is more important now.  I submit that due to the crisis the Church is in the spiritual must be the priority. We internet scribblers can do our best here but that is no replacement for what Popes and Bishops can and simply must do.  This writer has been a bit hesitant to get too testy with his words about the Pope.  I have been far less hesitant when it comes to Episcopal footpads like the unspeakable Timothy Dolan, for example. Prelates Like Dolan are really quite beneath contempt and will remain so until they begin to realize what their job is. True, Popes John Paul II, Paul VI and others did great damage by their refusal to confront the world with the teachings of the Church but too many Bishops use that as a cover for doing nothing to protect their flocks.  Some of the statements of Pope Francis have been shocking and have also provided excellent cover for the likes of Schonborn, Cupich and others like them.  Many are worried that Francis will never begin to realize the gravity of the crisis and will die leaving the Church is an even worse state of chaos than it is now.  And they shudder to think who will follow him.

Mercy for the poor is essential; but it must be for both kinds of poor, or it is not mercy at all.

Holy Father, the soul is more important than the body.  Perhaps you could offer some of that mercy to those undernourished suffering in the soul.  I don''t know what more I can say to you.




* From Major General Smedley Buler, USMC:  "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."