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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readers have no doubt heard about an incident that occurred recently in Perth, when a police officer interrupted Mass to check the parishioners’ mask compliance. One local newspaper described how, in response to a tipoff from a member of the public, police raided the church during Mass to check if there was anyone on the premises without a mask.
What is noteworthy about this incident from our perspective is the response by Archbishop Costelloe, a prelate who is no stranger to the pages of this site (see also here). His initial press release reads:
Now, apart from that bit about “collaborating with the government”, this almost sounds like what a bishop should be about: “condemning in the strongest possible terms this impingement upon the free practice of the Catholic faith” and likewise condemning the “disruption of the Celebration of the Eucharist for any reason”.
Of course, a priest must never interrupt a Mass once it has begun – unless he is a Cardinal with an incoming call from a cranky pontiff. Then disrupting the Mass is A-OK.
One could almost believe that a fragment of Costelloe’s spine survived the consecration process. (Catholic folklore suggests that a priest’s spine is removed on the day he is made Bishop.)
However – and you just knew there was going to be a ‘however’ – this rather strongly worded (and frankly, CATHOLIC) statement was quickly followed by a more politically-sensitive one. Thus:
As you can see, the condemnation “in the strongest possible terms” has been reframed as being something merely “regrettable.” That’s like a Category Five cyclone being downgraded to a low pressure system. Thus in Perth at least, a police raid on a Catholic church during Mass is …. barely an inconvenience.
Australia’s Catholic Bishops Conference must have decided that the patronising non-Catholic gibberish it inflicted on us for the Plenary Council wasn’t enough – still too many Catholics actually attending Mass, perhaps? No, apparently we need even more condescending advice, even more irrelevant talking points, all embellished with that infantile logo which has found its unfortunate way onto the promotional materials for Bergoglio’s “Synod on Synods.”
You all know what I think about that logo.
The more imaginative among you may see Van Gogh’s haystacks being blown around by the Holy Ghost as a disenfranchised crowd (from “the margins”, no doubt) turns its back on the Sun of Righteousness.
But I see a tiny, defenceless child being sucked from its mother’s womb, in order to make a toxic gene serum for the world’s fearful, clueless citizens who were encouraged by their fearful, clueless bishops.
Either way, the whole thing is a farce.
Who can actually repeat that title with a straight face? A “Synod on Synods”, indeed! It is like something straight from Lewis Carol.
We don’t see issuing from St Peter’s a (sorely-needed) “Catechism on Catechisms”, do we? Should the Holy Father compose a “Litany of Litanies”? Or should he offer a whole mass of Masses (Latin, of course!)?
Now, to be fair, John XXIII did effectively achieve an anathema on anathemas. And until recent times, the Church was known for Her tradition of tradition. But that was all in the dim, dark, unenlightened past. Now we have the Modern Methods.
We have scientific instructions that explain the way in which we should conduct our conversations, our dialogue. From the ACBC:
“Speakers work in a clockwise direction. The facilitator may nominate someone to start, then participants can share one after the other. • Everyone speaks for two to three minutes about what happened during their reflection time. • Begin with the phrase: “In my reflection today…”“
It is a brave participant who would dare to move in an anti-clockwise direction.
Survivors enter the Second Round, where a different phrase is used:
“This round will be shorter than the first. Speaking order is clockwise, as before. • Everyone speaks for one to two minutes. • This is an opportunity to answer questions like: • What consoled me or struck me as I listened to my companions? • What did I hear? What did I feel? What was the Spirit saying to me/us? • Was I especially touched by a particular sharing? • Begin with the phrase, “In the group I heard…and it left me feeling…” “
Dear Lord. What was the Spirit saying??
That the bishops need to be accountable to all those Catholics who are now out of work because they refused the vex? I could imagine the Holy Ghost saying that.
Or that He backed Pius V all the way when that good man announced the fate of anyone who tried to do away with the Traditional Mass?
Just ask Paul VI; he learned a bit about God’s wrath and it wasn’t very pleasant.
I know I’ve gotten off track but it is embarrassing to read what those highly-paid Catholic bureaucrats come up with when they’re working on their favourite mess: reimagining the Church.
“Discernment”, cringey prayers, cringey graphics and cringey sharing-groups from triple-jabbed ecumaniacs. Do they realise how irrelevant they are? We are over it.
Oh. There’s one more thing the Spirit might say if anyone concerned about their credibility was ever to listen to Him: if you must engage in a heterodox Modernist talkfest, then at least make the effort to get the name of your own country right.
A news article at Gloria TV about Masons involved at the highest levels of the Vatican caught my eye. The report was based on an Italian article which can be found here. I ran the whole thing through Google Translate so hopefully it will be coherent enough to read. The pictures with their captions come from the original article.
I’ll try have a professional translation made of “Gone with the Wind in the Vatican” – that book may provide the evidence needed to prove the claims made below
The publication of the book,Gone with the Wind in the Vatican, in 1999, by Edizioni Kaos, written by a group of personalities, probably ecclesiastical, who collectively signed Themselves The Millennials, unleashed, at the time, a real hornet’s nest in the upper floors of the Catholic Church, as well as in the world of public information. But it was, as we then saw, a storm in a glass of water: in practice, the strategy adopted by the leaders of the Church, with the connivance and complicity of all the major press organs and public and private television (confirming that there is no real competition between them, since they belong to the same owners and take orders from the same centers of occult power: exactly as we see in recent months) was that of or the rubber wall of silence to the terrible revelations contained in that book, and wait for public opinion, overwhelmed and dazed by new news from a hundred other directions, to forget about the scandal with the same speed with which it had been invested.
A strategy that has always worked, because, in the world of so-called information, the rule is that the mind of the public must always be “occupied” by a tumultuous succession of news, true or false, objective or exaggerated, and possibly minimized, without ever being able to form a clear and overall idea of the situation, precisely because it is always committed to “digest” new materials that are constantly pressing, in which truth and falsehood are wisely dosed in such a way that they can no longer distinguish them and lose the very taste for truth and the innate contempt for lies.
This is the strategy adopted today towards Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò: to ignore him completely, at first; then, subject it to the barrage of criticism and denigration, often in the form of “friendly fire”, that is, the subtle attacks launched by those who, until yesterday, seemed to share its objectives and the need for moral cleanliness; finally silence again, because the globalist power immediately realized that it had made a mistake in talking about him, even if to denigrate and ridicule him, because of the real enemies it must never speak, for any reason. It is the surest way to let the effect that their words and actions exert on the masses be praised: since, for the latter, there really is only what the newspapers and televisions talk about; while what they do not talk about, in practice it is as if it did not exist, even if it were a truck launched at insane speed that is running over the highway, arriving in the forbidden direction of travel.
Monsignor Marinelli was not the author, but one of the authors of the book-revelation, as he himself admitted during some interviews, calling himself simply “a spokesman” for the group. He had become aware of a series of scandals in the Vatican linked both to the widespread practice of homosexuality, to the careerism and profiteering of many high figures of the Roman Curia, and, finally, to the practice of occult rites linked to Freemasonry and even black masses, a direct expression of Satanism; and he was shocked.
For a long time he had wondered what his duty was, whether to speak or be silent, however for the love of the Church; he had also counseled with the well-known exorcist Don Gabriele Amorth, who had encouraged him in the second direction. And so the book Gone with the Wind in the Vatican was born, originated, whatever one may say, not by speculative intent, but, on the contrary, by the sincere desire to see a brake and a remedy put in place to a moral drift that for years had been proceeding without obstacles in the upper echelons of the Church. Hope that went frustrated: the book was promptly made to disappear from bookstores, because all the 100,000 copies sold, or most of them, were purchased by the Vatican, which eliminated them; and the press dealt with it very little, so that the resonance was modest, if at all.
The bulk of public opinion did not know about it; no debate was ignited; the scandalous careers of the prelates in the smell of perversion, business and Freemasonry, did not suffer substantial obstacles, at most some promotions were frozen, on a prudential basis. But in short, the lid of the nauseating pot was not lifted, and no one rolled up their sleeves to purify the miasmas that were hanging the atmosphere of the Bride of Christ.
Those who had to answer uncomfortable questions did not answer; and those who had reason to scratch their mange, as father Dante would say, were spared a similar, public humiliation. A great opportunity for reflection and rethinking was wasted; and the malpractice now consolidated, tolerated or perhaps even accepted by Paul VI and then by Giovani Paolo II, who cared more about carrying out his anti-communist plots directed against the Soviet Union than ascertaining the origin of the money destined for this (money anticipated by Masonic and mafia financiers such as Calvi, Sindona and Ortolani), continued as before and worse than before.
By now a real Masonic dome had been consolidated inside the Vatican (there are those who speak of four different lodges that dominate and even compete with each other), in which, scandal in scandal, flourished and still flourishes, so to speak, a real gay lobby, cemented and strengthened by the sad solidarity of the humorous type that binds, its members, united by the same vice and well determined to continue to practice it with impunity, even in the most brazen forms, but not to let anything leak outside, at the cost of passing over corpses, and not only in a figurative sense (those of Albino Luciani, Emanuela Orlandi and the Vatican gendarmes Estermann and Tornay, for example).
Against Monsignor Marinelli, who was the head of the office of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and therefore had known well, and from within, the “dome” of power of the Curia, a criminal proceeding had been opened, on charges of defamation and disclosure of state secrets, but the accused had decided not to appear at the hearings at the Vatican Chancellery building. Shortly afterwards he died, towards the end of October 2000, before the trial reached a formal conviction and just one year after the publication of the “incriminated” book: a rather timely death, which allowed the Vatican, for the umpteenth time, to sweep the dirt under the carpet and go on as if nothing had happened, deaf and insensitive to any moral call or warning.
In any case, the most scandalous, and most disturbing, aspect of the revelations contained in the book was the one that was least talked about, namely the massive and widespread infiltration of Masonic lodges within the Church and especially in the Roman Curia. And even in this case it was certainly no coincidence that the few articles that appeared in the press in relation to the Millennials have overlooked, or treated only in passing, this topic: in fact, if even a part of the revelations contained in it were true (and this was also the opinion of Father Amorth: not everything was true, but most of them did), this would have made indispensable a profound reflection on the direction that the post-conciliar Church had taken, in the sense of shortening the distances from the Masonic order and to build a bridge, more than suspicious, towards it (a bridge that would culminate in theDear Masonic Brothers of Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, which appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore in February 2016.
It would have been necessary to reflect on a whole series of “openings”, or ostrich policies, starting with the laws on divorce and abortion, which certainly had been promoted by the lodges, but which were not reconciled at all with the true Magisterium of the Church, and are not reconciled even today, in spite of what all the cardinals of the Curia and all the modernist theologians who today go crazy with the greatest ease can say, supported by a wicked pontificate that, for eight years now, speaks only of breaking down walls and building bridges, as if pervaded by a frantic spirit of self-destruction.
Shortly after the publication of the book Gone with the Wind in the Vatican, it was the journalist Luigi Baldo, who at the time collaborated with Giorgio Bongiovanni’s magazine, Terzo Millennio, who wanted to publish an interview with Monsignor Marinelli. The reader should forget, or put in brackets, the more than dubious figure of Bongiovanni, and not be blocked by a legitimate preconception towards him; but keep in mind that, sometimes, the truth shines through even where one would least expect to find it, precisely because, when the most forbidden conformism and systematic control of information apply, it happens that some flash of truth appears precisely in the newspapers or on television networks that, although questionable in many respects, nevertheless, at that particular moment, and perhaps for reasons all of them, they are determined to put a spanner in the works to the consolidated system of totalitarian consensus, so they offer some space for true information where all the others have been closed or duly tamed.
And here is the part of the interview that concerns the theme of Freemasonry within the Church (from: Lorenzo Baldo, Interview with Monsignor Marinelli, on Terzo Millennio, S. Elpidio a Mare (AP), n. 3 of Sept. 1999, pp. 74-75):
Q: Let’s get to the problem of Freemasonry…
A. Padre Pio, four years before the prophecy of Fatima, wrote to his spiritual father about a revelation that the Lord had made to him, namely that he saw many ecclesiastics, many prelates enrolled in Freemasonry.
Q. So what should be done to expel Freemasonry from the Church?
A. As you know Freemasonry continues to be a secret sect that reveals the first two or three degrees, no one knows for sure the other higher degrees, no one knows them. I think that in order to expel Freemasonry, the rooting of Freemasonry within the Church, it is necessary to have seminarians and students of pontifical Catholic universities study a subject on Freemasonry. Until now, seminarians were instructed on all questions of human knowledge, without knowing a word about how Freemasonry manages to infiltrate the Church. no one knows, yet a seminarian who tomorrow will become a priest, can meet with any Freemason in his parish, without knowing how to behave. It is evident that no one wants to “fight” something without knowing it first. If Freemasonry within the Church is to be fought, it must be known first and to know it must be studied. Freemasonry cares, in the same way as the devil, to make believe that “it does not exist”. In all the articles that appeared in the newspapers on the book of the Millennials, there is barely any mention of Freemasonry, one or at most two questions, when instead this is precisely the “purulent plague”…
Q. What is the practice for entry into Freemasonry?
A. In the books it is clearly written. In Freemasonry one does not enter by “question”, but by “invitation”; at the limit you can show yourself by those in charge, as a valid person, intelligent, at most… But it is the Superior Council of Freemasonry that judges the suitability or not for a “new entry” and when the response is positive one is “invited to enter the Masonic Order”.
“They” first study the characters to be inserted and when everyone agrees, with a secret vote, we proceed to the invitation of that person… to make a cleric “enter” they make him certain promises that are then in fact kept, such as that of becoming a bishop, nuncio, secretary of a cardinal, etc., then at a certain point he is reminded of the reason why he had this type of facilitation and if he does not intend to continue all negotiations are interrupted… and since “they” abound “careerist” people, greedy for success, it is very difficult for someone to back down, since he has now entered a “game” too big…
In the last century there were many priests who, at the end of their lives, dissociated themselves from Freemasonry by converting, but now they are not. Now we tend to do something else, the opposite, let’s take the example of the Jesuit Father Caprile and others, who said; that Freemasonry is not really against God and against the Church and that one can very well to be Catholics and Freemasons at the same time.
Since there is no longer “excommunication”, the Catholic-Mason can go to communion and approach the high sacraments… Here is the scam! Whereas before you were excommunicated, now the deception takes place without problems… and remember what Paul VI said: the smoke of Satan entered the temple of God… it has the key to understanding.
What “smoke” more dark, oppressive than that of Freemasonry? Here we speak of spiritual smoke. And if we take note that it is the pontiff himself of that time who makes such statements. the issue increases in importance.
A month ago the news came out, that in London the Masonic Order has established a chair in the faculty precisely on Freemasonry, so I wonder, if “they” do it because we can not do it too, telling the truth about how they were born and what they do?
When a professor has to teach a subject, obviously he must study it first, document himself, in this way he would delve into the most total fund of Freemasonry discovering new implications. All this is very worrying… While we are still anxious about how the new millennium will open, let us leave out this “piece” that is literally flooding humanity and the Church.
Q. How much more is not known about this link with Freemasonry?
A. The things you don’t know are 95%… Regarding this matter I read a book of 500 pages and it is something to make the skin cringe… the UN is a conclusion of the purpose of Freemasonry of 1717, NATO is a conclusion of what was proclaimed, the same dollar bears exposed the pyramid, which is the coat of arms of Freemasonry and many other things… such as for UNESCO and organizations that want to eliminate the power of States and “regionalize” them, as happened in the Balkans, they want to regionalize it in order to better dominate them.
It is time to move towards a universal government, a world government in which there are the most important religions, where it is accepted that the “universal architect” is this supreme being who can be called Christ, Allah, Jehovah. The important thing is to get to the global government of the world…
Q. The links between the Church and economic speculation…
A. It is enough to remember the scandals of the IOR linked to Freemasonry, also broadcast on television in front of millions of viewers.
Q. How is the scandal of pedophile priests possible, or of ecclesiastical homosexuality linked to “careerism”?
A. I do not give myself a reason, I was very impressed by the Pope’s forgiveness to the victims of these sexual abuses, in the book, the question is just raised, but it undoubtedly remains a terrible plague. The use of homosexuality as a form of careerism has been one of the most frequent practices and there are clear examples in the book.
Q. What about mafia infiltrations inside the Vatican?
A. I am not aware of it.
A. For what reasons, even within the Church, has there been a real persecution of Padre Pio?
A. Padre Pio has always been a “target”, as Simeon said to the Lord, a point of reference and contestation. even from the inside..
What about the words of Monsignor Marinelli? How to judge them, in the light of all that has happened in the last twenty-two years, and that he could not have imagined, as probably almost none of us? Once again, it is clear that the policy of opening up to all and of dialoguing with all, inaugurated by the self-styled “good pope” with the Second Vatican Council, has produced, and continues to produce, disastrous fruits, to say the least.
Since then it has been said, and made to believe by the faithful, that the Church no longer has enemies, and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, that she must disarm, lower her guard and place herself in an attitude of understanding, appreciation and dialogue also with those parts of society that have always opposed and strenuously fought her. At the heart of them is Freemasonry whose summit, whatever the low-ranking affiliates are told, is the destruction of Catholicism and the cancellation of Christ’s redemptive work, to establish a New World Order, dominated by some powerful men who want to be worshiped as gods, or almost.
And already now they have reached a good point in their program: in the meantime, in fact, they have managed, for the second Christmas in a row, to pass on the idea that man is not saved by the Incarnation of Christ, but by the inoculation of the “sacred” vaccine (which is not a vaccine at all, but an experimental gene serum). Their general programme, therefore, has already come a long way on the road to realization.
There is still little left, and then they will throw off the mask altogether: and they will show themselves for what they are and have always been: sworn enemies of Christ and his holy Name, and therefore satanic and implacable enemies of the good, of the true and of the beautiful.
Archbishop Timothy Costelloe of Perth has gone one step further than promoting the abortion-tainted gene serum: he has taken to supplying it through his Cathedral. So far, St Mary’s Cathedral has hosted two COVID-jab weekends; the last took place on January 8th and 9th.
Costelloe also said he has no objections to opening God’s house to the COVID cult any old time its high priests deem that necessary. The high priests – doctors from Royal Perth Hospital, the Western Australian Police Commissioner and the Vaccine Commander, Commissioner Christopher Dawson – encouraged His Grace to open his doors so that Perth’s Catholics can “stay safe” while they are fulfilling their Sunday obligation.
“It’s an act of love”, the Freemason-friendly Archbishop Costelloe told media last year. “It’s for the common good.” Sure, if “common” means “everyone is doing it” and “good” means keeping the abortion industry in business.
“Abortion?” I hear you say. “But Archbishop Costelloe has assured us that these innoculations have nothing to do with abortion!” He has? Then His Grace is being somewhat untruthful.
There is some part of the community that is concerned that because the very early days of the development of the early discoveries which later led to the vaccines, there was some involvement of cells derived from aborted children. And of course, the Catholic Church’s position on abortion is very clear. …… [but it is licit] because of the remote nature of the origins of it and of the need to have it for the common good.
Wow. Look at that attempt to distance the vex from abortion: “the early days of the development of the early discoveries which later led to the vaccines.” That certainly is something of a stretch.
Despite that obfuscation from His Grace, we know that Pfizer and Moderna used HEK cells at each stage of development. We also know that these Big Pharma companies lie – so they will only under-report the use of fetal cells, not over-report.
So, it hardly needs to be restated here that these experimental “vaccines” constitute proximate complicity with the grave evil of abortion, and not remote complicity, as the Archbishop would have us believe. The use of cells harvested from innocent children (sometimes while still alive) is not, as Costelloe suggests, confined to only one step in the drug’s development process way back in the dim, dark past.
As Children of God for Life remind us, “our obligation is to effectively oppose the use of aborted children in biomedical research” – not to go about jabbing initiates of the COVID cult.
Now, all of this is bad enough. But our Archbishop went above and beyond his usual pattern of ignoring Catholicism and embracing the world: he banned a group of faithful Catholics from praying outside the Cathedral while the jab clinic was open. (See the Facebook live video here – commentary begins around the 18 mins mark.)
According to the reporter, Cathedral security told the Rosary group, who had gathered to pray for the Church, that their prayers were considered a “protest.” The group were told that unless they stopped praying outside the building, the police would be called to move them on.
Imagine that: a Catholic Archdiocese would call police to move on Catholics who were praying. Unbelievable.
Strangely – and this really is odd: the Catholic group were given the alternative of praying inside the Cathedral grounds. So prayer inside the building is edifying while prayer outside the building is “protest”?
Apparently “conscience” is all well and good when it lines up with the right narrative. Should one’s conscience somehow not be invoked if it makes one oppose a prelate’s error? Then again, it wasn’t that long ago that Costelloe was throwing a Catholic school principal under the bus for refusing to get jabbed, so that tells us all we need to know about the post-conciliar canard of “conscience.”
Perhaps the only consolation in all of this is that the jabs weren’t given in the body of the church – so now the Cathedral parish centre can add “depopulation campaign” to the myriad occupations hosted there.
In an earlier article, I drew attention to the incongruence of many Catholics being only too willing to accept an invasive medical treatment at the behest of the Church, yet dismissing Church teaching on issues as important as birth control, because “celibate-men-have-no-right-to-tell-me-what-to-do” and, well, because babies are simply too much work. It’s that elastic “conscience” at work again.
Speaking of babies, we’ve all heard about “Safeguarding Children” and “Protecting The Most Vulnerable”. In fact, that’s about all we’ve heard from the Church for the past ten years – apart from the plethora of cultural Marxist talking points.
So now that the Western Australian government is pushing COVID-jabs on the 5-11-year-olds, will the clinic at St. Mary’s Cathedral soon be injecting children? If so, the Archbishop might want to get that Rosary group back to pray for him, pronto: when the children’s bodies start piling up, their parents are going to be far more vocal than those of the tiny little donor of HEK-293.
In 2021, Pope Francis launched a joint venture between the Vatican and some wealthy technocrats known as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. Heading up this synarchists’ dream is the uber-globalist, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of, well, Rothschild fame.
Forester de Rothschild’s Coalition for Inclusive Capital is funded by, among others, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations – two influential proponents of population control and other nefarious agendas. (An interesting side note for Australian readers: one of the so-called “Guardians” of the Coalition is Sharan Burrow – a WEF associate and General Secretary of the International Trade Union Conference.)
De Rothschild also has links with the Clintons – and with Jeffrey Epstein. Prior to her marriage, Ms Forester had close ties with the Democrat party, and was a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign. Forester also worked for President Bill Clinton, on his National Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee and on his Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. In 1995, she wrote to the former president, mentioning Epstein.
‘Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy’s house.
‘There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future’.
Lynn Forester to Bill Clinton, 1995
But that isn’t the end of Forester’s ties to Epstein: in 2000, Forester sold her Manhattan apartment to an anonymous corporation (this turned out to be the Terra Mar Project – *see below ) which was housed at the same address as Epstein’s New York office. It was quite the bargain at more than USD $8 million below market value and became the home of Ghislaine Maxwell until 2016.
Forester is said to have been close friends with Epstein, and is often credited with having introduced him to Bill Clinton. She was once a member of the McCain Institute (like many similarly incriminating records, the offending page has been scrubbed). One goal of the McCain Institute is to combat human sex-trafficking, but the organisation perversely, has many ties to Epstein and has apparently never exposed his crimes, even though its founder publicly acknowledged his guilt.
*Terra Mar was founded by Maxwell in 2012, and closed abruptly in 2019, just weeks after the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. For more about Terra Mar and its potential links with child-trafficking, see here. And check out this video in which a UN spokesman says of Maxwell, “She controls the oceans…”. Incidentally, the TerraMar Project Youtube channel features a couple of videos lauding Pope Francis and his commitment to caring for our natural home, eg here and here.
There’s much, much more to learn about this highly-connected globalist, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, including the number of times her name pops up on the flight logs with or related to Epstein. Looks like Pope Francis didn’t do his homework on this one – or more likely – he just doesn’t care, protected, as he seems to be, by the most powerful technocrats of the day.
Anyway, all those rabbit holes make the “reptile people” seem like a welcome diversion.
So I’ll end on a slightly different note: Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein visiting the Vatican in 2003. They apparently met with Pope John Paul II, having flown in by private jet for a blessing. Video footage from a 2005 police raid of Epstein’s home shows the photograph among a group, arranged, most likely, to impress Epstein’s unsuspecting victims.
I can imagine the conversation:
“Buy the rights to this picture pronto, Ghislaine – I’ve got a feeling it will come in useful one day.”
“Er, Jeff, where you’re going to end up, not even the Pope can save you.”
NOTE: credit goes to @JesseMatchey on Twitter for sharing much of this information.