This little story caught my eye: a non-denominational Christian pastor was expelled from his Masonic lodge for promoting same-sex marriage. Once a Southern Baptist missionary, “Brother” Tag Thompson was running his own “non-creedal” church which… More
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 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?
“… 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.”
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.
And Baggio, too, for that matter.
And a couple of others who have not been identified. What a treasure this is: finally we know that evidence of Bugnini’s Masonic membership exists, albeit lying in a dusty vault somewhere under the Vatican.
A priest by the name of Fr Charles Murr has just released a book which documents an investigation into ecclesiastical Freemasonry begun under Pope Paul VI. That’s right, Paul who was by no means a model Pope, had the fortitude to at least start the investigation. But unfortunately, as the books relates, he did not have the stomach to carry through the report’s findings.
Pope John Paul I also read the report but mysteriously died before he could take any action. The report then passed to John Paul II, who simply ignored it. Not very saintly of him, was it?
One wonders about the implications of the hierarchy confronting the fact that the Novus Ordo was created by a Mason. What does that say about the new Mass? What does it say about Traditiones Custodes? (Not what we say – which barely passes muster in polite conversation – but could we one day see a ceremonious tossing of an official Church document into an elegant Italian garbage bin?)
Would we see a very hasty evaporation of the ghastly Spirit of Vatican II as prelate after prelate tries to distance himself from the novelties imposed upon the Church by a Freemason?
No wonder the report has never been released. It would simply create a huge headache for the Church the intensity of which would make the abuse scandals pale into insignificance.
So until the report is opened by some unfortunate prelate, it will gather dust along with the so-called Red Dossier, Benedict XVI’s report into the sexual, moral and financial scandals in the Vatican. Both documents are no doubt mouldering in the archives somewhere near the real Third Secret of Fatima and the first drafts of the McCarrick Report.
But do read Fr Murr’s book, if you have the chance. If nothing else, it is a reminder that there has always been and will always be good men in Rome.
By now, most Catholics who care about such things will have seen that an Italian news outlet has reported yet another explanation for the terminus of some mysterious money transfers from the Vatican to Australia. Around $2 million was moved from Rome during 2016 and 2017 but for some reason, our betters have kept the transactions shrouded in secrecy.
Now, the Italian news outlet, La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana (aka The Compass) claims that it has seen documentation proving that the payments were made in response to a request from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, specifically from the former Secretary, Fr Brian Lucas. It seems that Fr Lucas wanted to secure the internet domain “.catholic” and asked the Vatican department of Communications to pay for it.
So who is this Fr Brian Lucas and why has he not come clean on the reason for the payments? He has been an official spin-doctor for the Australian Church for years, so is no stranger to making statements to the media (or to helping preserve that teflon-finish on unworthy bishops’ mitres.)
Well, a little digging shows that Fr Lucas has had a chequered past when it comes to transparency. In fact, he has a history of failing to keep records on some pretty serious matters and has gone so far as to destroy vital documents. He has also rubbed shoulders with some fairly unsavoury characters on the Australian ecclesiastical scene.
From 1990 to 1996, Fr Lucas was head of the Special Issues Resource Group, which was the first body set up by the Church to handle sexual abuse committed by priests. As a civil lawyer, Lucas interviewed suspected abusers and decided on what course of action the Church should take. Unfortunately, that action was generally limited to suggesting that guilty priests left their ministry of their own accord – despite it being a crime to withhold knowledge of abuse since the early 90’s.
In 1992, Fr Lucas interviewed a priest suspected of abuse, Fr John Joseph Farrell. Although he claims that the predator made no admission of guilt, another priest who was present at the meeting, said that this was not true and that Lucas pressured him not to report Farrell’s misconduct. Farrell was eventually defrocked more than 10 years later.
Lucas’s response when asked why he had not been forthcoming? “We were trying to find a formula of words.”
You know, kind of like a sorcerer.
In 1996, Lucas presented a paper to the Canon Law Society which was subtitled, “To Shred or not to Shred.” While the title was no doubt hilariously appealing to like-minded academics, (Lucas called it “whimsical”) the effect of eliminating evidence in cases of criminal abuse has had very tragic consequences for victims -while administrators such as Fr Lucas appear to have lost little sleep over the matter.
In 2012, Lucas was one of the subjects of an investigation into the failure of the Newcastle-Maitland diocese to protect children from the predator priest, Fr McAlindon. Fr Lucas admitted to the inquiry that although he knew in 1993 that McAlindon had abused children, he did not go to the police. The case is particularly shameful as there had been complaints against McAlindon going back to the 1970’s.
Lucas said that he was not obliged to turn over offenders to the police but that his policy was to “… to entice him out of ministry with a view that in due course the criminal justice system will kick in.” In fact, Fr Lucas made it a practice to never keep written records of interviews with suspected abuser-priests. Lucas even claims not to remember some of his meetings with serial offenders, including McAlindon.
From 2003 to 2015, Fr Lucas sat on the board of Catholic Church Insurance Ltd – the organisation responsible for providing insurance to the Church: the last four years of that time coincided with the beginning of the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. Just prior to Fr Lucas’ resignation, the Royal Commission specifically requested 2000 secret files on pedophile priests from the 90’s in order to assess at what point the Church knew that its predatory employees were offending.
The files were given to the Royal Commission, albeit later than the RC demanded, but were not made available to victims’ lawyers. So while CCI had been making compensation payouts, it was settling them out of court, ostensibly to avoid embarrassment to the Church. From one article:
The insurer’s inquiries aimed to determine exactly when church authorities were first alerted to a paedophile behaviour by clergy. The dates were vital as the insurer did not have to provide coverage for crimes committed after the date church authorities had official “knowledge” an individual was an abuser.
Such information is also of extraordinary value to victims seeking to find out what the church knew about their alleged abuse and subsequent liability, as well as for criminal investigations into the concealment of crimes.Sydney Morning Herald
So, by concealing the files, the Church potentially saved a lot of money: if victims were unaware of the date that complaints were first made about an abuser, then their payout would be lower. There was less evidence for police to work with as well, not to mention that police would be none the wiser about the Church’s coverup.
It is true that in the past, there was generally not a great understanding of the harm caused by child sexual abuse, but that doesn’t excuse the consistent pattern of inaction exhibited by the Church. It also doesn’t excuse the failure of those in authority to take responsibility for treatment that multiplied the trauma of victims. (eg take a look here if you want to read Fr Lucas’ non-apology for his failings.)
An ABC special report from 2016 noted that although there was plenty of evidence that Fr Lucas had covered up several cases of abuse, the police had never taken any action against him. Does this mean that Fr Lucas has friends in very high places? From the report:
Barrister Dr Andrew Morison says authorities could charge Lucas for concealing a crime, but they have already, in the past, refused to do so.
“Father Lucas was criticised in respect of his conduct at Wollongong, in respect of his conduct at Newcastle, in respect of his conduct in regard to Father Farrell from Moree. I would have thought that he is in serious difficulty if this matter is appropriately referred to the DPP.”
One more thing – and this is, well, rather odd: in 1990, Fr Lucas co-wrote a book with a Fr Robert Borg and a Fr Gerard Kelly. Although it was once available on the St Paul’s bookshop website, it has now been scrubbed. Fr Borg was mentioned in a book about Australia’s priestly gay-cabal called Unholy Silence, by whistleblower and ex-priest, Kevin Lee. (Like some other anti-sodomite-priest whistleblowers, Lee met a tragic end some years ago.) Robert Borg was Lee’s contemporary at Manly seminary, and according to Lee, was one of a handful known to frequent gay bars. That didn’t stop his being ordained, however, and Fr Borg went on to become the Dean of the Broken Bay Cathedral. Claims of rampant sodomy and partying at the seminary were presented as testimony to the Royal Commission by the abuser-priest, John Farrell, who said he used the seminary’s gay culture as a reason for requesting laicisation in 2005. (Note the anomaly here: Farrell claims he requested to be laicised; other reports suggest that it was the Church that threw him out for being an abuser.)
However, Fr Lucas, who also attended Manly seminary, disagreed that there was a rampant gay subculture. So, it’s all just a bit …. odd. By the way, the name of the book was, ahem, Celebrating with Children.
taken from Iota Unum, Chapter VI
#58. Sanctity of the Church. An Apologetical Principal.
That the Church is holy is a dogma of the Faith, included in the creed, but the theological definition of that holiness is a difficult business. We are not here concerned with canonized holiness, which has indeed varied in style with the centuries: the holiness of Emperor Henry II is markedly different to that of St. John Bosco, as is that of St. Joan of Arc from that of St. Therese of Lisieux. There is furthermore a gap between the heroic virtue of the canonized saint, and the holiness inherent in anybody who is merely in state of grace.
In the Summa Theologica, III,q.8,a.3 ad secundum, and in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the section on the creed, it is explained how the sins of the baptized do not prejudice the holiness of the Church, but this remains, nonetheless a complex notion which only a rigorous distinction can render clear. A definite distinction must be drawn between the natural element, and the supernatural element which produces the new creature, between the subjective and the objective element; between the historical element and the suprahistorical element which operates within it.
Firstly, the Church is holy because it is the body which has the God-Man as its head. In union with that head it becomes itself theandric (Relating to, or existing by, the union of divine and human operation in Christ): no profane body can be conceived as living in union with a holy head. Secondly, it is objectively holy because it possesses the Eucharist which is in its very essence the Sacred and the Sanctifier: all the Sacraments derive from the Eucharist. Thirdly, it is holy because it contains revealed truth in an indefectible and infallible way. The fundamental principle of Catholic apologetics must be located here: the Church cannot display, throughout its history, an uninterrupted sequence of activity in perfect conformity with the requirements of the Gospel, but it can point to an uninterrupted teaching of the truth: the holiness of the Church is to be located in the latter not the former.
It follows from this that those who belong to the Church will find themselves preaching a doctrine that is better than their own deeds. No man can preach himself, beset by weakness and failure; he can only re-preach the doctrine taught by the God-Man, or better, preach the person of the God-Man Himself. Thus, truth too is a constituent element in the holiness of the Church, and is forever attached to the Word and forever at odds with corruption, including one’s own.
The holiness of the Church is revealed in what could be called a subjective way in the holiness of its members, that is, in all those that live in grace as vital members of the mystical body. It appears in an obvious and outstanding way in its canonised members, whom grace and their own activity have pushed onwards to the highest levels of virtue. This holiness did not fail, be it noted once again, even in the periods of the greatest corruption of society and among the clergy; an age when the papacy was depraved by pagan influences saw the flourishing of Catherine of Bologna (+1464), Bernadino of Feltre (+1494), Catherine dei Fieschi (+1503), Francis of Paola (+1507), Jeanne de Valois (+1503) as well as many reformers such as Girolamo Savonarola (+1498).
Considerations and facts of this sort, however, do not clear the field of all objections. Paul VI conceded to the Church’s critics the fact that “the history of the Church has many long pages that are not all edifying” but he did not distinguish clearly enough between the objective holiness of the Church and the subjective holiness of its members. In another address, he put it in these terms: “The Church ought to be holy and good, it ought to be as Christ intended and designed it to be and we sometimes see that it is not worthy of the title.”
It would seem that the Pope is turning an objective note of the Church into a subjective one. It is indeed true that Christians ought to be holy, and they are inasmuch as they live in a state of grace, but the Church is holy. It is not Christians that make the Church holy, but the Church that makes them holy. It is also true that the biblical affirmation of the irreproachable holiness of the Church non habentem maculam aut rugam (Having neither spot nor wrinkle: Ephesians 5:27) is applicable to the Church in time only in an initial and partial way, despite the fact that it is indeed holy. All the Fathers take that flawlessness as connected with the final eschatological purification rather than with the Church’s pilgrim state in time.
Frustrated Catholics of the Syro-Malabar rite have taken their Vatican II-endorsed rights as laypersons to new heights by setting alight effigies of their prelates. Their actions are the latest attempt to hold on to their favoured orientation of priests during the Sacred Liturgy, with some resorting to hunger-strikes in order to have their voices heard.
The Syro-Malabar rite is based in Kerala, in India and is one of the churches that sprang from the evangelisation of the apostle St Thomas. Today it includes millions of Catholics all over the world. The Church is in full communion with Rome, although burning effigies may not be the most effective way of demonstrating that.
The Syro-Malabar liturgy, like the Latin rite, had always been celebrated ad orientem – priest facing east, away from the people – but after Vatican II, some Syro-Malabar priests began to offer the Holy Qurbana, the Syro-Malabar title for the Mass, facing the people (versus populum).
In 1986, Pope John Paul II visited Kerala and attempted to reestablish the traditional orientation of the priest during the Holy Qurbana, but individual priests continued to offer the liturgy according to their own preference. This led to years of discussions until a compromise was finally reached in 1999: the Liturgy of the Word would be offered versus populum, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist was to be offered ad orientem.
The strangest fact in all of this is that priests and laity who want the Mass offered versus populum believe that this is an historic part of the Latin church – it is regarded by many as “Latinization”. In other words, they don’t realise that the “tradition” of Mass facing the people is only sixty years old!
By contrast, those who accept that at least part of the liturgy should be celebrated ad orientem see this as uniquely Oriental.
Last year, the Pope was asked to intervene, after which he wrote to the entire Church asking for the compromise solution to be implemented by Easter Sunday 2022. One wonders why the Pope is so indulgent with the Eastern Church when he is so rigid with the traditional Western Mass? Could it have something to do with the poor catechetical standards of the majority of Syro-Malabar Catholics and the relatively high standards of catechesis of traditional Catholics?
The situation flared up in March when some members of the laity set fire to effigies of the prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, and the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church, Cardinal George Alencherry.
Cardinal Sandri took the opportunity to push the “synodality”, the Vatican’s flavour of the month, saying: “The Apostolic See understands that some have difficulty in following the synodal decisions, but exhorts all to avoid activism and protests using non-ecclesial and non-Christian methods such as hunger strike usque ad mortem [until death].”
So take a leaf from the Kerala Catholics’ book, if you are sick of sending petitions and emails to your bishop without getting a response. Although he has most likely been playing Nero while his diocese figuratively burns, seeing his own effigy go up in smoke just might catch his attention.
by Fr. Gerald E. Murray – TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022
On March 12, Pope Francis went to the Jesuit Church of the Gesú in Rome for a Mass on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the canonizations of St. Ignatius Loyola and St. Francis Xavier. The pope preached at the Mass and concelebrated. He had earlier been scheduled to be the principal celebrant, but Fr. Arturo Sosa, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus, for some reason, was the principal celebrant instead.
Liturgical theology and law do not countenance that a bishop, let alone the diocesan bishop in his own diocese, concelebrate Mass with a priest as the principal celebrant (apart from a grave necessity, such as infirmity). This flows from the nature of the episcopal office: the bishop is the high priest in his diocese. He offers the sacrifice of the Mass for his people, while his priests, co-workers who serve the local Church under his authority, concelebrate with him.
The Mass began with the usual entrance procession. Pope Francis was already seated in a chair near the altar. He wore no liturgical vestments, and thus gave no indication that he was either concelebrating or presiding. He preached without wearing the liturgical garments (mozetta, rochet, and stole) that are prescribed to be worn when the preacher is not the one celebrating the Mass.
He concelebrated, extending his hand and saying the words of consecration, without wearing Mass vestments (alb, stole, and chasuble). This practice is strictly forbidden. In its 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship stated: “The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments.”
Is the pope subject to liturgical law? Yes. Can he dispense himself from liturgical laws? Yes, but canon 90 states that there must be “a just and reasonable cause” for a dispensation. Did Pope Francis canonically dispense himself from the requirement to wear liturgical vestments when preaching at and concelebrating Mass? He may have, but the Holy See has given no indication that he in fact did so.
Was there a just and reasonable cause for the pope not to wear the prescribed liturgical vestments? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to assert that such a cause existed in this case.
We are confronted here with a reality that Catholics are all too familiar with in the life of the Church during the past half-century and more – the flagrant flouting of liturgical laws for no apparent reason beyond the preference of the priest celebrant.
Is this an important matter? For some, undoubtedly, such liturgical abuses are insignificant and do not merit any comment. Some will say that the pope can do whatever he wants, and we should not be upset over this or that choice of his: “He must have a good reason, and it is impertinent to question his judgment, because, after all, he is the pope.”
But it is precisely because he is the pope that we should be concerned about his decision to disregard the rules governing the celebration of Mass. The pope is the supreme authority in the Church and as such is called upon to uphold the Church’s laws, lest he scandalize the faithful by giving a bad example. The scandal would consist in giving the impression that, following the example of the pope, any priest is perfectly free to do whatever he wants when it comes to following liturgical law.
It’s no secret that many Catholics have flocked to the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass because they are tired of the widespread liturgical abuses they encounter in the celebration of the New Mass. Pope Francis himself is aware of this.
He brought up this problem in his July 16, 2021 letter to the bishops of the world accompanying Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio restricting the celebration of the Old Mass: “I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that ‘in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.’”
He counseled the bishops: “I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses.”
Pope Francis’ own words serve as a rebuke of his decision to concelebrate Mass without liturgical vestments. The sacred character of our acts of worship is fostered and protected when priests and bishops willingly and carefully follow the requirements of liturgical law. The Christian faithful have the right to participate in liturgical prayer without being compelled to experience “unbearable distortions” of good liturgical order. That right depends upon the willingness of priests and bishops to obey what is set down in liturgical law.
There is no clerical privilege that allows priests and bishops to rewrite the rules to suit their own tastes. Yet that is precisely what some priests and bishops will sadly take away from this regrettable instance of papal liturgical abuse.
The worship of God is the sacred duty of the Church’s pastors. The form of that worship is given to them by the Church. It is their responsibility to see to it that every act of liturgical worship is carried out in loving fidelity to what is set forth by the Church in her liturgical laws. Disobedience teaches the wrongful lesson that Church law is unimportant.
This is a recipe for more chaos in the life of the Church. It needs to stop.
The following is taken from the book, Trial, Tribulation and Triumph, by Desmond A. Birch, and draws only on Scripture, the saints and the early Church Fathers for its conclusions. In other words, the author doesn’t rely on any contemporary ‘private revelations’ in his book.
Many of you would have come across – or have been sent links by avid grandmothers with lots of time and little discernment – alternate timelines from modern day ‘prophets.’ (This might sound a bit harsh, but really, ladies! You are the matriarchs of your families and need to set a better example. You can’t believe everything you find on the ‘net, you know!) As far as these hypothetical timelines coincide with traditional ones, they can be cautiously accepted. But if they don’t line up with traditional concepts, then they should be rejected.
Note than when the book was written in 1996, the ‘Minor Chastisement’ was seen by the author as a conditional event of the future. Now, 26 years later, there is little doubt that we are on the threshold of that chastisement, and there is practically no doubt that it can be avoided.
A Hypothetical Chronological Table of events prophesied to preceed the Parousia
…they come from various sources. Some are official teachings of the Church, things which one must absolutely believe as a Catholic. Others are those which are part of the traditional teaching of the Church – but which are not absolutely binding in Faith. Next come those which comprise the majority opinion of the Fathers, Doctors and theologians of the Church, but about which there are some Fathers who disagree. Finally there are items which come strictly from private Catholic prophecy from Church-approved sources.
- Those which are binding in Faith as presented in bold, italicized print.
- Those which are part of the traditional teachings of the Church – but which are not absolutely binding in faith are presented in bold print.
- Those about which there is a heavy preponderance of teaching among the Fathers and Doctors are presented in simple italicized print.
- Those which present private prophecy from Church-approved sources are presented in plain type.
The Minor Chastisement
At some time in the future, the corrupt faithless age we live in now will come to an end either through repentance (immediately followed by an age of peace) – or there will be a chastisement.
- …the Latin Church will be terribly afflicted by heresy and schism. This is prophesied to be primarily caused by a false intellectualism, which intellectualism presents itself in the form of ‘senseless questions and elaborate arguments’ attacking the traditional teachings of the Church.
- The chastising elements will come in two forms (a) Man-made and (b) Heaven sent.
- Civil wars break out in France and Italy at almost the same time.
- This will spread to general wars, and famine and pestilence (the usual by-products of war)
- Earthquakes, tidal waves, floods and all other sorts of ‘natural’ disasters will occur.
- Somewhere in all of those, an army composed of Russian troops invades Western Europe just when everyone thinks this impossible.
- England will suffer a terrible civil war which starts after the French and Italians have gone into theirs.
- The Pope will flee Rome in the company of several other cardinals and go into hiding, be found, and cruelly murdered.
- A man who will subsequently by known as a great saint will ultimately be elected pope near the end of the Chastisement. He will be heavily responsible for the French acceptance of a king to be their military and civil leader.
- The Great King will lead his forces (against terrible odds) and finally defeat these Russian and Prussian forces.
- Somewhere near the end of the Chastisement, God sends the Three Days Darkness.
- the Three Days Darkness probably occur sometime after the final and total victory over the Russians and Moslems.
The Age of Peace
- According to the prophecies, through a historically unique series of events there will be a complete restoration of Christian Culture in the West.
- The Great King will be crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the reigning Pope.
- The Great King will establish peace and justice in divil matters on almost a worldwide basis. The former disciplines of the Church are fully restored and order is re-established.
- The Pope calls an Ecumenical Council which will be viewed as the greatest in the history of the Church. the world is spiritually and materially prosperous as never before and many Jews, Mohammedans, heathens and heretics will enter the Church.
- Extended prosperity causes people to begin to grow lax in the practice of their Faith.
- Wars and bad economic times break out again after some period of time during which the faithful fall into laxity.
- Ten kings divide up the boundaries of a Roman Empire which had been established.
The Major Chastisement – the Tribulation of Antichrist
- The Gospel must be preached in the whole world (Matt. 24, 14; Mark 13, 10), even though many will not accept its message (Luke 18, 8)
- Before Christ’s Second Coming there will be a great apostasy or religious defection (Matt 24, 10-12; Luke 18, 8; Thess 2, 3; 2 Tim 3, 1-9) and the Antichrist will appear (2 Thess 2, 3-12; 1 John 2, 18, 22; 2 John 7)
- The last (Roman) Empire, which has been divided up into ten ‘kingdoms’ is dismantled by a great (and evil) military and political leader. Three of the ten kingdoms will not go along with this. they are crushed. See – Rev 13, Dan 7, 8. [See also St Jerome’s commentary on Book of Daniel that Antichrist will kill the three kings that ‘do not bow to him.’]
- The ‘False Prophet’ arrives – the Precursor of the Antichrist. He will ‘ape’ the role that St John the Baptist played in preparing the people for the arrival of the Messiah.
- All of this prepares the way for the coming of the Antichrist. He begins his rise to power at about the age of 30. After he seizes total power he begins his three and one half year bestial persecution of the Church.
- During this time, the two witnesses (Enoch and Elias) who have never died but have been maintained in Paradise return to the presence of men to preach to the people against Antichrist. Elias preaches primarily to the Jews and Enoch primarily to the Gentiles. It is the arrival of these two witnesses which foreshadows the foretold conversion of the Jews to Christianity.
- Antichrist finally kills them by his own hand in Jerusalem and their bodies lie in the street by his command for 3 1/2 days, at the end of which a voice from heaven is heard by everyone present which commands the two witnesses to arise, and to the surprise and stark terror of the onlookers, they do.
- The Jews as a nation will convert after the full number of the Gentiles enter the Church (Rom 11)
- Antichrist, stung again by this latest heavenly miracle, tries to restore his prestige with the Jews by simulating Christ’s ascension from Mt Olivet, and St Michael casts him down screaming to his death. (St Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors teach this.)
The Four Last Things
- After the death of Antichrist, a short period of time of unknown duration is given to the remaining inhabitants of the earth to repent and accept Our Lord and the message of His Gospel.
- There will be a physical transformation of the universe (Matt 24:29; Mark 13: 24; Luke 21:25) and the world will be purified by fire in the first general conflagration (1 Pet 3: 5-7; 1 Cor 3:13) Then only will the Son of Man appear in heaven (Matt 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 13:27)
- Then comes the end of the world and the Four Last Things: Death, the Last Judgement, Heaven, Hell.
- MINOR CHASTISEMENT: natural disasters; Russia invades Western Europe; civil wars in Britain, Italy and France; a holy Pope; a Great Monarch; 3 Days Darkness.
- ERA OF PEACE: a new Holy Roman Empire with Emperor; restoration of Christian culture (Social reign of Christ); an Ecumenical Council
- MAJOR CHASTISEMENT: Gospel preached to the whole world; Great Apostasy; False Prophet; Antichrist; unprecedented persecution; Enoch and Elias; death of Antichrist
- FINAL JUDGEMENT: Second Coming; transformation of the universe.
Since my article of last week, which explained how Melbourne’s Archbishop Peter Comensoli hired an ex-Marie Stopes employee for his Professional Standards Unit, the woman in question, Loretta Hoban, has mysteriously updated her LinkedIn profile.
Now, only a few days ago, Ms Hoban was proud to advertise her time with the prestigious Marie Stopes. And why not? MSI slaughters 5.6 million unborn babies worldwide per annum so is no second-rate baby-killing outfit. MSI is obviously very professional about it, too: why else would the Archbishop choose a pro-abortion feminist over the hundreds of faithful Catholics who were qualified for the job – and who have never come within an inch of being complicit with abortion?
Anyway, in the last few days, it would appear that Ms Hoban has had second thoughts and no longer wants the world to know of her ties to Marie Stopes.
Strange that she left details of her work with the equally anti-life CARE International, Red Cross, Oxfam and Asia Foundation. (Hint: anyone trying to cover their tracks when it comes to involvement with abortion might want to replace the term “sexual and reproductive health” with something a little more, well…. prolife?)
Here’s a comparison of Ms Hoban’s CV of last week with the current one:
Far be it from me to suggest that Ms Hoban’s editing spree is due to the article that appeared on this site – but it really is quite the coincidence.
It would be nice to think that in this case, the pen was mightier than the sword, but unfortunately, when it comes to dismembered babies, that just isn’t so. Their blood still cries to heaven, and responsibility for that can’t be simply wiped away with the stroke of a computer key.
Archbishop Comensoli just doesn’t seem to get it. When he’s not disrupting parishes, hand-wringing over government crackdowns or otherwise fiddling in a Masonic key while Rome burns, then he’s adding another feminist ideologue to his cohort of anti-Catholic employees.
This time, he really has outdone himself: he has hired a former top-level Marie Stopes employee to coordinate the Archdiocese’s National Redress Scheme for survivors of priestly sex abuse. That’s right, a woman who has facilitated the deaths of perhaps tens of thousands of tiny children in utero has been hired to advise a Catholic Archdiocese on how to protect children.
The unfortunate woman’s name is Loretta Hoban: she was hired last year and the description of her role comes straight from her LinkedIn profile:
“To provide high level strategic policy advice to create a culture of safety for children in the organisation. This includes policy oversight and advice relating to child safety and the safety of vulnerable people. In addition, the role oversees the operation of the National Redress Scheme for survivors of abuse in the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.“
So His Grace hired a pro-abortion fembot to ‘create a culture of safety for children.’ Great. Why doesn’t he get Vladimir Putin in to advise on conflict resolution while he’s at it.
Just think – only two years previously, Hoban was teaching Cambodian teenagers how to get on in life by contracepting and aborting their babies. Now she’s ‘safeguarding children.’
This is almost as bad as that former Archbishop of Hobart getting the Family Planning director into his schools to teach little children about ‘relationships’. That woman eventually went on to greater things, too – she joined Tasmanian politics and had abortion legalised through all nine months of pregnancy.
Sometimes, all those aspirations pay off.
Used for performing first trimester abortions.
The cultural imperialists just LOVE handing these out in developing nations.
The appointment of Ms Hoban to the Archdiocesan position took place in April 2021, and made her second-in-charge of the Professional Standards Unit. This means that she is part of the team set up to ‘audit’ parishes for compliance with a plethora of ‘woke’ guidelines. These are ostensibly to protect children from abuse in the parish setting, but are really just a way of monitoring and controlling priests. The Boomers love it.
Of course, as anyone with half a brain knows, most child abuse occurs within the home, but that is no obstacle for the intrepid ideologues who know that there are lucrative opportunities waiting for those who want to infiltrate dioceses and further their immoral agendas under the guise of safeguarding children.
Let’s take a closer look at just how Ms Hoban spent her time before landing her prestigious job with CAM.
Well, for starters, she spent some time with the pro-aborts par excellence, Marie Stopes International, (recently rebranded as Ms Stopes’ penchant for eugenics is now known to the mainstream).
Hoban was employed there in 2015 to kick off a project targeting factory workers in Phnom Penh. Seems that those underprivileged third-world women were not sophisticated enough to understand Western ideas of motherhood so they needed Ms Hoban and her US$4 million to show them how to kill their own offspring. Sounds pretty racist to me.
Then there was that research paper she co-authored in 2016, which investigated what Cambodian career-women thought about contraception. Turns out, they were just as wedded to the idea of traditional motherhood as were the factory workers. Not surprising for a family-oriented Buddhist country like Cambodia. Buddhists hate abortion – or they did until Ms Hoban turned up.
After that, from 2016-17 she was empowering women at the UN-loving Asia Foundation and you can bet she wasn’t there to promote NFP.
Then in 2019, Hoban helped develop that cute little app for CARE, the one which lured Cambodian factory-workers into using more efficient – that is, better at baby-killing – forms of contraception. Here’s what she told pro-abort news outlet, Buzzfeed, about the app:
“Mobile games are increasingly popular in Cambodia, and the app provides a fun and interactive way to learn about a topic that people are often shy to speak about…. [The] stories engage viewers emotionally while providing accurate and easy-to-understand information about contraception.”
How thoughtful of her.
Nihilistic cultural imperialism with your hard-earned tax-dollars (CARE is funded by DFAT – the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.)
Now …. refresh my mind …. what is that mission statement plastered all over the Archdiocesan website? Is it that they have a
“Commitment to the safety of children and young people”
“Safeguarding children and young people is central to our mission”??
Well, excuse my French, but how the hell can someone who thinks it’s good to kill children be trusted to protect them?
And why is this pro-abort feminist being given the authority to lecture priests about preventing abuse? No form of child abuse is more extreme than killing them!
And why – O why? – is this woman being handsomely paid by a Catholic Archdiocese when she obviously has no regard for Catholic teaching?
Remember: thousands of Catholics are out of work because they won’t take the abortion-tainted jab. But this anti-Catholic pro-abort has been brought in to ride the abuse-scandal gravy train.
Comensoli really has gone too far this time. I suggest that if you don’t want your collection money funding a pro-abortion feminist like Loretta Hoban – and she’s not the only one roaming the halls in Melbourne – then let Archbishop Comensoli know your thoughts here: email@example.com
PS. My Twitter account is no longer operating, so if you want others to hear about this, please share it, using the buttons below. And don’t forget that donations offset the costs of running this site and are always gratefully accepted. Thanks!
In January, the liberal Vatican news outlet, La Croix International, ran an article with the startling title, “The First Gay Pope”. The story was written by Robert Mickens and carried the subtitle, “The real reasons why Pope Francis is pushing Catholics to become more welcoming and less judgmental of gays and lesbians”.
Mickens justified his title by reminding readers that former US President, Bill Clinton, has been called, “the first black president”, despite the obvious fact that he is not black. Mickens goes onto explain that the title had been applied to Clinton, not because of his many initiatives aimed at helping African-Americans, but because he had been pre-judged – like a Black person would have been – over the immoral incident with Monica Lewinsky.
Thus, according to Mickens, Pope Francis could be called the ‘first gay pope’, not because he has changed the Church’s teaching on homosexuality but, rather, because of his “style” in dealing with homosexuals. As Mickens says, ” … he has — in a real sense — changed everything in terms of attitude and ethos, just by his own personal approach to gay people.” (Emphasis added)
The author then goes on to remind readers that when Bergoglio made the rhetorical question, “Who am I to judge?”, he was speaking of the case of a gay cleric, contrasting the example of the ordained sodomite with that of a “gay lobby” which is said to be one of the factions present within the Vatican. That cleric, Monsignor Battista Ricca is a good example of Bergoglio’s policy of loving the sinner and, well, kind of tolerating the sin.
Mickens ends with the veiled suggestion that this gay-friendly pope may one day be succeeded by an openly gay one, while also referencing the alleged behaviour of at least a couple of twentieth-century popes:
The United States’ “first Black president” was eventually succeeded in the White House by a real African-American. The Church, on the other hand, has been led at times — even in relatively recent history — by popes who would surely be considered homosexuals by today’s understanding of the term. But none of them ever dared to say the things the “first gay pope” has been saying these past several years. He still has a way’s to go, but many LGBTQ+ Catholics are ready to accompany him on the journey.Robert Mickens
Now, I don’t know about you, but I would feel uncomfortable calling the pope “gay” – and I don’t even particularly like this pope. (Mickens is something of a fan – if not of Francis personally, then at least of his liberalism). Remember the fuss Paul VI made when he was accused of being a sodomite by a gay Freemason? He asked the entire Church of Italy for a day of prayer and reparation.
But there has been no such response from Bergoglio. Makes one wonder. Recall that he also didn’t personally refute claims that he doesn’t believe in hell or said that unrepentant atheists can go to heaven.
By the way, the kind of thing Mickens retweets and shares on his Twitter feed is shown below.
If I were Pope and were also a Catholic, I would be most offended if a liberal from La Croix wrote an article calling me gay. But that’s probably just the abundance of my heart speaking: ” … and a rigid man out of the rigid treasure bringeth forth that which is rigid….” (with apologies to St Luke)