Three days ago on January 25, I published a poston a poll on a traditional Catholic website, From Rome, on whether there should be a military intervention at the Vatican to oust Pope Francis (real name Jorge Bergoglio) and restore 92-year-old Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to the papacy.
From Rome‘s editor is a Franciscan monk, Br. Alexis Bugnolo.
I explained that the poll was prompted by frustration about Pope Francis and the conviction that Benedict XVI had not “really” resigned as pope, but only from the active ministry as pope — which, of course, is exactly what the title “Pope Emeritus” means, just as the title “Professor Emeritus” refers to a professor who has retired from teaching at his/her university (“emeritus”), but nevertheless retains the title “professor”.
About the poll, a From Rome reader StMA posted this comment:
Which military does From Rome imagine would “intervene” at the Vatican to oust fake pope Bergoglio? If the Church’s clergy — from cardinals to priests — would do their job, no military intervention would be needed.
To which From Rome responded defensively and disingenuously:
“We do not imagine anything. We are just taking a poll.”
Today, From Romepublished the final results of the poll, crowing that “Catholics overwhelmingly support military intervention at the Vatican”.
From the post:
The Poll Results are in, and they speak for themselves:
The same reader posted a comment about the results of the poll:
Once again, I must ask this blog and its 159 readers who voted “Yes” in this poll:
Which country/government do you imagine would risk the lives of their soldiers to launch a military intervention against the Vatican, a sovereign state, when this is a matter solely for the Catholic Church to resolve?
From Rome responded by calling the commenter “out of line”:
The Catholic Faithful have appealed to Kings and princes hundreds of times throughout the Centuries to clean up the Church by means of military intervention, whether or at Rome or elsewhere. It is their God given right to appeal to Christ the King, either through their superiors in the Church or through their superiors in the Temporal Powers, since Christ is Lord of them both. So you [sic] comment is way out of line. — As for risking the lives of their soldiers, you got to be kidding…
Not in agreement or accordancewithgenerallyaccepted or establishedlimits.
Contrary to or in violation of acceptablerules,conventions, or standards;improper or inappropriate.
One wonders what rule, convention, or standard reader StMA had violated?
Also, by asserting “The Catholic Faithful have appealed to Kings and princes hundreds of times throughout the Centuries to clean up the Church by means of military intervention, whether or at Rome or elsewhere” in its dismissive and abusive response to the reader, From Rome‘s editor in effect belies his previous disingenuous denial that he was not advocating a military intervention but “just taking a poll.”
Frankly, From Rome‘s speech and behavior do no credit to the cause of traditional Catholics who are, with good reasons, unhappy with Pope Francis.
I now repeat what I had written in the January 25 post:
As an American, I do not want a U.S. military intervention at the Vatican for any reason. And if the U.S. were to intervene and oust Jorge Bergoglio from the papacy, then what? Should the U.S. military occupy Vatican City until Benedict XVI is restored to St. Peter’s? Benedict is 92 years old and frail. Should the U.S. military then force a papal conclave to elect a new pope? And if another Bergoglio is elected, then what?
The Catholic Church’s cardinals created this mess. The Catholic Church, and no one else, should resolve their own problems.
Drudge Reporthas gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!
On February 11, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world when he resigned as “Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter”. In a brief statement in Latin announcing his resignation, he cited his deteriorating strength and the physical and mental demands of the papacy, but declared that he would continue to serve the church “through a life dedicated to prayer”. In so doing, he became the first pope in 600 years to retire rather than die in office
After two weeks of ceremonial farewells, the Pope left office at the appointed time. A month later, on March 13, 2013, the papal conclave elected an Argentinian cardinal, Jorge Bergoglio, to be pope. Meanwhile, in retirement Benedict retained his papal name rather than revert to his birth name, Joseph Ratizinger. And so the Catholic Church found itself in the unprecedented situation of having two popes: Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
“There isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about its invalidity is simply absurd.”
Notwithstanding Benedict’s denial, Catholics unhappy with Pope Francis continue to insist that Benedict XVI had been coerced to resign. Some say that in his statement of resignation, Benedict never said he was resigning from the papacy, but merely that he was resigning from the ministry, that is, the active exercise of being a pope.
Note: But doesn’t the title “Pope Emeritus” mean precisely that? — that Benedict retains the title of “Pope” but is retired and no longer active as pope, thus “Emeritus”. Just as the title “Professor Emeritus” refers to a professor who has retired from his/her university (emeritus), but nevertheless retains the title “professor”.
Increasingly frustrated by Pope Francis’ speech and behavior, some traditional Catholics are becoming unglued, notably the traditional Catholic website From Rome.
On January 18, 2020, From Romeinitiateda WhiteHouse.gov petition asking President Trump issue a tweet that he’s “concerned” about Pope Benedict XVI:
“I am concerned for the welfare of all the elderly and that they not be abused or manipulated, including Pope Benedict XVI. I urge all to take effective steps for their care!”
The petition requires 100,000 signatures for the White House to act. A week after the petition was begun, only 579 people have signed.
From Rome‘s latest act of desperation is a poll on whether there should be a military intervention at the Vatican.
On January 19, 2020, a day after the petition to the White House, From Rome published a poll asking its readers if an armed intervention is needed to restore Benedict XVI as pope:
In view of the Massive public interest in the welfare of Pope Benedict, the growing and soon to explode public consensus that He is still the true and only Pope and that Bergoglio is an uncanonical anomaly, From Rome wants to take the pulse of Christendom with a poll asking a very very impolitic question. Please share this on all social media, so we can get the best response:
As of this morning, here are the poll results:
A reader commented:
“Which military does From Rome imagine would ‘intervene’ at the Vatican to oust fake pope Bergoglio? If the Church’s clergy — from cardinals to priests — would do their job, no military intervention would be needed.”
To which From Rome responded defensively and disingenuously:
“We do not imagine anything. We are just taking a poll.”
After which, the website posted this disclaimer:
Disclaimer: The taking of this poll in no way implies any action, support or condoning of private military or armed action against the Vatican City State or anyone in its territories. It is merely a journalistic appeal to know what people are thinking and how strongly they feel it. Whether the USA or an Italian government in the future might take this action or not, is neither foreseen nor solicited by FromRome.info
As an American, I do not want a U.S. military intervention at the Vatican for any reason. And if the U.S. were to intervene and oust Jorge Bergoglio from the papacy, then what? Should the U.S. military occupy Vatican City until Benedict XVI is restored to St. Peter’s? Benedict is 92 years old and frail. Should the U.S. military then force a papal conclave to elect a new pope? And if another Bergoglio is elected, then what?
The Catholic Church’s cardinals created this mess. The Catholic Church, and no one else, should resolve their own problems.
At the end of the book, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi (London: R. Washbourne, 1882), is a section titled “Some Prophecies of the Holy Father St. Francis.” On pp. 248-250 is the following prophecy about the Church (paragraph breaks added):
Shortly before he died in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the members of his order and warned them of great tribulations that would befall the Church in the future, saying:
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.
H/t Yahoo News commenter Sabazios for the St. Francis prophecy.
Below are 6 facts for your reflection and discernment:
Fact No. 1
“Church law says a pope’s resignation is valid only if he takes the decision in full freedom and without pressure from others.” (Reuters)
Fact No. 2
On Feb. 28, 2013, after serving 8 years,Pope Benedict XVIstepped down from the papacy. He is the first pope to resign since Pope Gregory XII in 1415, and the first to do so on his own initiative since Pope Celestine V in 1294.
Described as “the main intellectual force in the Church” since the mid-1980s, now-Pope Emeritus Benedict was originally a liberal theologian, but adopted conservative views after 1968. A genuine scholar, Benedict’s prolific writings defend traditional Catholic doctrine and values. During his papacy, Benedict XVI advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of the West. He regards relativism’s denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. Pope Benedict also revived a number of traditions, including elevating the Tridentine Mass to a more prominent position.
Fact No. 3
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and his spokesmen repeatedly deny he was forced to resign. (Reuters)
Fact No. 4
Despite the denials, speculations that Benedict had been forced to resign persist to this day.
“Two years ago this week, [Pope] Benedict’s announcement that he was stepping down for health reasons shocked the Catholic Church and much of the world. It also loosed conspiracy theorists who believe Benedict was forced to resign…. The circumstances surrounding Benedict’s decision to step down have titillated scholars and the journalists alike, especially given the fact that his resignation came not long after the ‘Vatileaks’ scandal. The release of internal Vatican memos, by some accounts, revealed how Benedict’s efforts to reform the church, like provide transparency on the global sex abuse scandal and the management of the Vatican bank, were undercut by internal politics. (The Atlantic)
Pope Francis made the cover of Time, New Yorker, Rolling Stone and The Advocate, an LGBT magazine that makes no secret of its problems with previous Popes but chose Francis as “person of the year”. (CNN)
“Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men. It is a man’s part to discern them as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.” –J. R. R. Tolkien
8-weeks-old aborted human
Founded in 1994, the Pontifical Academy for Life of the Roman Catholic Church is charged with promoting the Church’s consistent life ethic. Though considered an autonomous entity, the Academy is linked to the departments (“discasteries”) of the Roman Curia. The latter comprises the administrative institutions of the Holy See or the Vatican — the central body through which the affairs of the Catholic Church are conducted, which acts in the Pope’s name and with his authority.
In a statement in 2005, the first year of the pontiff of Benedict XVI, on the subject of the many vaccines that use cell lines derived from aborted babies, the Pontifical Academy for Life said that despite the potential benefits of using these vaccines, “there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically.” Parents are urged to ask their physicians to use vaccines not derived from the cell lines of the fetuses aborted in the 1960s if such vaccines exist and, if they don’t, to write to pharmaceutical companies urging the development of alternate vaccines.
The Academy’s position in 2005 was consistent with that of Catholic theologians, who maintain that the use of these morally tainted vaccines constitutes “remote material cooperation,” which could be justified only in compelling circumstances.
That position is consistent with philosopher Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative — that we should treat others as ends, not as means to our end(s). For Kant, treating another merely as a means to our own end or objective is immoral — and that is precisely why vaccines that are developed with cell lines from aborted human babies are immoral.
14 years later, the Pontifical Academy for Life of Pope Francis is singing a completely different tune.
In a statement released in July 2017 but only now made public by the Catholic News Service, the Pontifical Academy recognizes that many of the most common vaccines for measles, rubella and chickenpox are prepared from cell lines that originally were developed from a female fetus aborted in 1964 and a male fetus aborted in 1966. The Academy however says not only is it no longer “remote material cooperation” to use vaccines developed from cell lines of aborted children, it is the moral duty of Catholic parents to vaccinate their children for the good of their children and the community. And the parents can do so with a “clear conscience” that “the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation in voluntary abortion.”
Not coincidentally, the statement was issued shortly after Pope Francis completely revamped the Pontifical Academy for Life, replacing all of the group’s members and giving the office a new direction.
Although the Pontifical Academy for Life had changed its policy in 2017, it only sent Catholic News Service a working translation of the 2017 document on March 20, 2019, after U.S. news media reported on a Kentucky Catholic family suing the local health department for forcing chickenpox vaccination on their son against their Catholic beliefs.
The boy, Jerome Kunkel, 18, is a senior at Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, a Catholic K-12 school affiliated with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.
On February 5, the health department sent Assumption Academy parents a letter informing them of a chickenpox outbreak and urging them to make sure their children’s vaccinations were up to date. 32 students, 13% of the student body, had contracted the disease.
On March 15, the health department sent the parents another letter, threatening that “all students, grades K-12, without proof of vaccination or proof of immunity against varicella virus will not be allowed to attend school until 21 days after the onset of rash for the last ill student or staff member.”
A day ago, on March 14, the Kunkel family filed a lawsuit in the Boone County Circuit Court alleging that the health department violated Jerome’s First Amendment rights, and that they believed using the vaccine would be “immoral, illegal and sinful” according to their Catholic faith.
In filing the lawsuit, the Kunkel family is being consistent with the handbook of the Assumption Academy, posted on its website, which states:
Schools of the U.S. District of the Society of St. Pius X comply with vaccination policies of local health and education authorities while adhering to moral principles of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not oppose vaccinations in principle, but it does consider as morally illicit the development of vaccines from aborted fetal tissues. In 2005, the Vatican clarified the proper position of all Catholics on this matter, and the SSPX adheres to that declaration.
Of course, little did the Kunkels or Jerome’s Assumption Academy knew that Pope Francis had pulled the rug out from under them by reversing the Church’s policy on vaccines developed from cell lines of aborted babies.
Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 8, No. 1853 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.
Four days ago came news from the Vatican that in a letter Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI praised his successor, Pope Francis, as a “man of profound philosophical and theological formation,” and that there is an “inner continuity” between his pontificate and that of Pope Francis.
Benedict had written the letter in thanks for having received an advance copy of a series of books on the theology of Pope Francis, released on the eve of Francis’ 5-year anniversary as pope.
The Vatican, in the person of Msgr. Dario Edoardo Viganò, prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communication, released this photo (see below) of Benedict’s letter, next to the stacked series of 11 books on Francis’ theology. Note that only the first page of the letter is visible.
“I applaud this initiative that seeks to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would only be a practical man devoid of particular theological or philosophical formation, while I would have been only a theoretician of theology that understood little of the concrete life of a Christian today.
The little volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and they help therefore to see the internal continuity between the two pontificates, even with all the differences of style and temperament.”
Nicole Winfield reports for the Associated Press that on March 14, 2018, the Vatican admitted that it had altered the photo of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter about Pope Francis, which changed the meaning of the image in a way that violated photojournalist industry standards.
Most independent news media, including The Associated Press, follow strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos. The AP norms, considered to be the industry standard among news agencies, states that “No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph.”
The Vatican admitted it had blurred the two final lines of the first page of Pope Benedict’s letter where he begins to explain that he had not actually read the books in question, and therefore cannot contribute a theological assessment of Francis as requested by Msgr. Vigano because he has other projects to do.
According to the AP, Msgr. Vigano read only parts of Benedict’s letter during a press conference launching the series of 11 books on Francis’ theology, including the lines that were blurred out. But Vigano didn’t read the whole letter. The Vatican didn’t respond to a request to see the full text.
Remember the sin of omission?
This is what Pope Benedict XVI, age 90, actually wrote in his letter, which is concealed by the Vatican (source: The Remnant):
“However, I don’t feel I can write a brief and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I should write and express myself only on books I had really read. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already assumed.
[Tuttavia non mi sento di scrivere su di essi una breve e densa pagina teologica perché in tutta la mia vita è sempre stato chiaro che avrei scritto e mi sarei espresso soltanto su libri che avevo anche veramente letto. Purtroppo, anche solo per ragioni fisiche, non sono in grado di leggere gli undici volumetti nel prossimo futuro, tanto più che mi attendono altri impegni che ho già assunti.]”
In other words, Pope Benedict XVI is saying:
He has not read the series of 11 slim volumes on Pope Francis’ theology.
Consequently, he cannot comment on Pope Francis’ theology, as Mgsr. Vigano requested.
Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI has no intention to read the series because he has other things to do.
That being said, Pope Benedict XVI did send mixed messages in his letter. As Christopher A. Ferrara of The Remnant points out:
The fact remains, however, that Benedict has lent his name and signature to the fraudulent claim that Bergoglio [Pope Francis’ real name] exhibits a profound philosophical and theological formation, even though he has spent the past five years engaged in shallow mockery of “the theologians,” whom he would consign to a desert island, while shamefully misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Thomas as supportive of his campaign to admit public adulterers to Holy Communion. […]
Despite its contrary signaling, therefore, Benedict’s letter to Vigano must be seen as cooperation in a scheme to rescue Bergoglio’s imploding papacy from itself, no matter what Benedict’s subjective intention may have been in going along with the ruse. The letter’s claim of an “internal continuity” between his pontificate and Bergoglio’s is a transparent evasion of the truth. “Internal continuity” is just another way of saying “apparent lack of continuity.” Nor can the apparent lack of continuity be reduced to “differences of style and temperament.” There is not an even arguable continuity between the two Popes regarding the dominant theme of Bergoglio’s pontificate: an absolutely unparalleled attack on the Sixth Commandment and even the natural law, far more dramatic than Bergoglio merely trudging along the path of “ecumenism,” “dialogue” and “liturgical renewal” established at Vatican II. […]
Benedict would have to know in particular that Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia reduces the Sixth Commandment, an exceptionless precept of the divine and natural law, to a mere “rule” and an “ideal” that does not bind strictly in certain “complex circumstances,” thereby smuggling into the life of the Church, under the guise of “authentic Magisterium,” precisely the evil of situation ethics that John Paul II condemned. […]
The unprecedented and untenable division of the Church into traditionalist, “conservative” and liberal branches, with Bergoglio now clumsily attempting to saw off the first two branches, signals an historical turning point at which it seems only divine intervention of the most dramatic sort will be able to restore the Church [….]
“The greatest charity one can do to another is to lead him to the truth.” ~St. Thomas Aquinas
In a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner on July 15, 2017, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI described the Catholic Church as a “boat” that “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”
Note: Cardinal Meisner was one of four Catholic clergymen who wrote a letter (dubia) to Pope Francis asking him to clarify his Amoris Laetitia apostolic exhortation that can be understood as giving permission to civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics (and therefore living in adultery, according to the Church) as well as unmarried cohabiting Catholics (i.e., living in fornication) to receive Holy Communion. Reportedly, Francis published the exhortation despite having received corrections from theologians. Months after Meisner et al. sent Francis their letter, the pope still has not responded.
If the Church is a “boat” that “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing,” then Pope Francis’ Vatican isalready submerged — in a cesspool of child porn, child rape, homosexual sex-and-drug orgy, and an in-your-face homoerotic church mural.
(1) Child Porn & Child Rape
Michael Stone reports for Patheos, Oct. 3, 2014, that police found more than 100,000 child porn videos and photos on the computer of former Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski in his office at the Holy See diplomatic compound in the Dominican Republic. Wesolowski was the Vatican’s papal nuncio or ambassador in Santo Domingo.
Under house arrest at the Vatican, Wesolowski is also accused of raping numerous children in the Dominican Republic and Poland, and is one of the highest-ranking church officials to be accused of sexually abusing children during the Catholic Church’s widespread and costly sexual abuse scandal. Wesolowski is also suspected of having sexually abused children while serving in other posts during his career — in South Africa, Costa Rica, Japan, Switzerland, India and Denmark.
After being publicly accused of procuring child prostitutes in 2013, Vatican officials secretly removed Wesolowski from his post as papal nuncio in Santo Domingo so as to avoid criminal prosecution. In September 2014, Weslowski was placed under house arrest at the Vatican in response to popular outrage after reports began to circulate that the accused child rapist was free to wander the streets of Rome. Authorities in both the Dominican Republic and Poland — Wesolowski’s country of origin where he has also been accused of sexually abusing children — want him extradicted to face criminal charges.
According to Vatican detectives, some of the horrors found on the former Archbishop’s computer included around 160 videos showing teenage boys forced to perform sexual acts on themselves and on adults, and more than 86,000 pornographic photos methodically archived in several category-based folders. At least another 45,000 pictures were deleted, while even more child pornography was found on a laptop Wesolowski used during his trips abroad.
Wesolowski was charged with sexually abusing minors and child porn possession; if convicted, he would face 12 years in jail. Scheduled for July 11, 2015, his trial was postponed because of an “unexpected illness”. On August 27, 2015, Wesołowski was found dead in his residence from a heart attack. (Wikipedia)
More recently, another high-ranking Vatican official was charged with sexual assault.
The New York Post reports that on June 22, 2017, Australian police charged Cardinal George Pell — Pope Francis’ chief financial adviser and Australia’s most senior Catholic — with multiple counts of “historical sexual assault offenses,” meaning offenses that generally occurred some time ago. Police gave no other details.
Pell, the highest-ranking Vatican official to ever be charged in the church’s long-running sexual abuse scandal, had also been accused of mishandling cases of clergy abuse when he was archbishop of Melbourne and, later, Sydney. He has denied all abuse allegations.
Update: On December 11, 2018 in Australia, Cardinal Pell was convicted by a unanimous jury on all charges he sexually abused two choir boys there in the late ’90s. Pell is the Vatican’s third most powerful official as its finance chief, and is the highest Vatican official to ever go on trial for sex abuse.
Meanwhile, the AP reports that, ignoring advice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope’s own advisers question.”
At least one case has come back to bite Francis:
“An Italian priest who received the pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him”.
(2) Homosexual Cocaine Orgy
In late June, 2017, Vatican police raided a cocaine-fueled gay-sex party at the apartment of Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, 49.
Capozzi is the secretary of one of Pope Francis’ key advisers and president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio.
Ironically, the apartment is in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica, which belongs to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith — the arm charged with tackling clerical sex abuse. As such, the building enjoys the extraterritorial rights of the Vatican, unchecked by the Italian State.
After neighbors complained repeatedly about constant comings and goings of visitors to the building during all hours of the night, Vatican police raided the apartment and found multiple men engaged in rampant drug use and homosexual activity. Police arrested Capozzi, whom Italian media called an “ardent supporter of Pope Francis,” after taking him to a clinic to detox from the cocaine he’d ingested. Capozzi is now on a spiritual retreat in an undisclosed convent in Italy. Despite his arrest, he is still listed as an active staff member on the website of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts.
Capozzi, who on his LinkedIn page calls himself an “expert in canon law and dogmatic theology,” managed to evade suspicion from Italian police by using a BMW luxury car with license plates of the Holy See, which made him practically immune to stops and searches. This privilege, usually reserved for high-ranking prelates, allowed the monsignor to transport cocaine for his frequent homosexual orgies without being stopped by the Italian police.
In response to the news of the police raid, Pope Francis decided to “accelerate” the retirement of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. At age 79, Coccopalmerio is way beyond the age of retirement of 75, but was kept on by Francis. Incredibly, Coccopalmerio had recommended Capozzi for a promotion to bishop, despite Capozzi’s previous alleged drug overdoses.
Coccopalmerio, as President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, is the Vatican’s top canonical official and one of Pope Francis’ closest collaborators and ardent supporters. Earlier this year, the Vatican’s publishing house released with much fanfare a book by Coccopalmeiro that defended Francis’s Amoris Laetitia, even though it contradicted perennial Catholic teaching.
In a 2014 interview with Rossoporpora, Coccopalmerio said that while homosexual relationships are deemed “illicit” by the Church, Catholic leaders, such as himself, must “emphasize” the “positive realities” that he said are present in homosexual relationships:
“But if I see that the two persons truly love each other, do acts of charity to those in need, for example … then I can also say that, although the relationship remains illicit, positive elements also emerge in the two persons. Instead of closing our eyes to such positive realities, I emphasize them.”
Michael Hichborn, president of the U.S.-based Lepanto Institute, said he highly suspects Coccopalmerio knew of his secretary’s homosexual cocaine orgies:
“Given the monitoring and whispering that goes on in the Vatican, it is unlikely to the point of absurdity that Cardinal Coccopalmerio was unaware of Msgr. Capozzi’s disgusting activities. In fact, when we consider the 300-page document on the homosexual lobby that was handed to Pope Benedict XVI just before he resigned, the probability is that many who work in the Vatican were fully aware of what Capozzi was doing, and that such activities are taking place among other clergy as well.”
Hichborn said that the homosexual orgy happening right next to St. Peter’s is indicative that the Vatican is “ground zero for a mass apostasy that is happening right now within the Catholic Church.”Hichborn said that the Church’s enemies are now trying to destroy her from within:
“We know for a fact that Communists and homosexuals were specifically recruited as far back as the 1920’s to infiltrate seminaries. It was a concerted effort to destroy the Church from within.What we are seeing is the culmination of nearly 100 years worth of this effort playing itself out.”
Update (Nov. 8, 2018): A highly-placed Vatican source with direct knowledge, who must remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, tells LifeSite that Pope Francis knows of Coccopalmerio’s presence at the party.
(3) Homoerotic Church Mural
In March 2017, reports surfaced that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, in 2007 when he was a diocesan bishop, had commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a gigantic blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia in Umbria, central Italy.
The mural that covers the opposite side of the facade of the church portrays Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with writhing naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers. The image of the archbishop himself is depicted among those in the nets.
Archbishop Paglia defended the muraldeemed by Catholic critics to be “blasphemous” and “disgusting,” as well as “demonic,” saying it was part of a commitment to evangelizing. Regarding his inclusion in the mass of nude bodies shown in the mural, he said, “I too am included in the mural as one who needs redemption no less than anyone else.”
Not coincidentally, Paglia also defended Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia on allowing adulterers and others living in mortal sin receive the Eucharist, which reinforces the suspicion of many that the real intent of Amoris Laetitia ultimately is to legitimate homosexuality.
Commenting on the cesspool in the Vatican, Riposte Catholiqueobserves:
“One thinks one is dreaming: in the most deplorable of ways, the Rome of today seems to have fallen lower than the Rome of the Borgias.”
In a talkgiven in Washington D.C. last October, the orthodox Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan points out that where there is heresy, there is also sexual immorality because “heresy” always goes hand-in-hand with an “unchaste life”.
No wonder some Catholics call Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis is his job title) an anti-Pope.
No wonder U.S. Catholic congregations are aging and dying off. At least 60% of most congregations today are over 65 years of age. (Catholic Journal)
To call this confusing is an understatement.
In a recent speech, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XXVI, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, said that Benedict and his successor, Pope Francis, are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative member.”
Pope Benedict XVI’s real name is Joseph Ratzinger; Pope Francis’ is Jorge Bergoglio.
In Latin, Petrine Office is munus petrinum. The word “Petrine” is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as:
Relating to St. Peter, the first pope who was appointed by Christ, or his writings or teachings.
Relating to the authority of the Pope over the Church, in his role as the successor of St. Peter.
In other words, in this context, “Petrine” means papal, which means that according to Archbishop Gänswein, although Benedict had resigned in 2013, nevertheless he and Francis are an “expanded” papal ministry, whatever that means. Edward Pentin reports for the RCRegister that on May 20, 2016, speaking at the presentation of a new book on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Archbishop Georg Gänswein said that Pope Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
The new book, Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI (Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI), is by Roberto Regoli.
Archbishop Gänswein, prefect of the Pontifical Household and the personal secretary of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, said: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.” Archbishop Gänswein also confirmed the existence of a group who had fought against Ratzinger’s election in 2005, but stressed that that had “little or nothing” to do with the latter’s resignation in 2013.
Gänswein said the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be Pope “was certainly the outcome of a battle,” referring to Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Papal Conclave between a pro-Ratzinger group called the Salt of the Earth Party comprised of Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medin, and a liberal, pro-Bergoglio group called the St. Gallen group that included Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor — a group Cardinal Danneels jokingly referred to as “a kind of mafia-club”. Godfried Danneels is a pro-homosexual Belgian cardinal and former archbishop of Brussels who calls same-sex marriage a “positive development“– which means he approves of homosexuality and homosexual sex that both the Bible and the Catholic Church’s Catechism abjure. Danneelscalls on the Catholic Church to recognize a “sort of marriage” for homosexuals. Despite his heretical advocacy for homosexuality and his cover-up in 2010 of a sex-abuse case involving a fellow bishop — Danneels’ uncle, Roger Vangheluwe, Bishop of Bruges — Pope Francis gave Danneels a place of honor at the all-important Synod on the Family last October.
In an interview with the RCRegister last November and EWTN Germany, German journalist Paul Badde confirmed the existence of the St. Gallen faction, and named German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as members.
But Archbishop Gänswein insists that Pope Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable,” being “aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”
Others, however, say Benedict had been pressured to resign. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: “Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”
Despite his resignation, Pope Benedict XVI continues to view his task as “participation in . . . a ‘Petrine ministry’.” Gänswein said: “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry” — something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ Instead, Benedict “has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry” as “cooperatores veritatis“, which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”
This is why Benedict XVI has not given up the papal white cassock or his papal name of Benedict — unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone. Nor has Benedict, according to Archbishop Gänswein, “retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy,” enriching the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a false shepherd.
“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.” (1226)
—(Taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham)
In 1996, then Pope John Paul II (now St. John Paul II) promulgated papal constitution Universi Dominici Gregis forbidding the canvassing or lobbying for votes by the cardinal electors in the selection of pope. Violators would be automatically excommunicated, i.e. immediately imposed, without necessity of declaration. (The Latin expression for “automatic” is latae sententiae, which means “incurred as soon as the offence is committed”.) The result of the election would be “null and void.”
Universi Dominici Gregis, which means “the Lord’s whole flock” in English, is an Apostolic Constitution of the Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II on February 22, 1996. It supersedes all previous apostolic constitutions and orders on the subject of the election of the Roman Pontiff. Universi Dominici Gregis begins:
The Shepherd of the Lord’s whole flock is the Bishop of the Church of Rome, where the Blessed Apostle Peter, by sovereign disposition of divine Providence, offered to Christ the supreme witness of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. It is therefore understandable that the lawful apostolic succession in this See . . . has always been the object of particular attention.
Precisely for this reason, down the centuries the Supreme Pontiffs have deemed it their special duty, as well as their specific right, to establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor . . . .
While it is indeed a doctrine of faith that the power of the Supreme Pontiff derives directly from Christ, whose earthly Vicar he is,8 it is also certain that this supreme power in the Church is granted to him “by means of lawful election accepted by him, together with episcopal consecration”.9 A most serious duty is thus incumbent upon the body responsible for this election. Consequently the norms which regulate its activity need to be very precise and clear, so that the election itself will take place in a most worthy manner . . . .
[T]he College of electors of the Supreme Pontiff is composed solely of the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church . . . whose members come from every continent.
Universi Dominici Gregis then specifies, among other laws, that:
The cardinal electors are to vote by secret ballot (Universi Dominici Gregis II:10).
Anyone who commits the crime of simony — the buying and selling of church offices and votes — will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:78).
Cardinal electors who attempt to influence (lobby) or are influenced (lobbied) in the election of the pope will be automatically excommunicated (Universi Dominici Gregis VI:80-83).
Here are Universi Dominici Gregis laws 80-83:
80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope. 81.The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election. 82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void. 83. With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.
Bro. Alexis Bugnolo of the blog, From Rome, writes:
Note that since the Papal law is wide in what it forbids, not only is it a crime to promise a vote, it is a crime to join in a conspiracy to canvass for such votes, since this is tantamount to promising to vote for one candidate and not vote for other candidates. However, note that the papal law only penalizes voting Cardinals. Cardinals too old to vote, are not thus penalized, though they are collaborating in the solicitation of votes.
The Papal election of 2005 that selected Pope Benedict XVI was the first papal election to be held under John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. Benedict XVI made three changes to Universi Dominici Gregis:
Reinstating the traditional two-thirds vote required to elect a new Pope regardless of the number of ballots it takes;
Allowing the College of Cardinals the possibility to bring forward the start of the conclave once all cardinals are present, or push the beginning of the election back by a few days should there be serious reasons;
Automatic excommunication of any non-cardinal who broke the absolute oath of secrecy of the College of Cardinals during the proceedings to select the new leader of the Catholic Church.
In other words, Pope Benedict XVI kept intact Universi Dominici Gregis‘s papal laws 80-83, including law 81 that explicitly forbids the cardinal electors from lobbying each other on behalf of a candidate. But the cardinal electors who voted Argentinian cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as pope did exactly that — they lobbied fellow cardinals and were influenced by the lobbying, in violation of Papal Law 81.
What follows are three pieces of evidence in support of this assertion.
To begin, in an article for The Wall Street Journal, titled “Fifteen Days in Rome: How the Pope was Picked,” Aug. 6, 2013, Stacy Meichtry and Alessandra Galloni wrote that although Bergoglio had some support in 2005, he was “definitely a dark-horse candidate” in 2013:
Veteran cardinals who had cast ballots for Cardinal Bergoglio in 2005 saw a chance to float his candidacy again. His earliest supporters—a coalition of cardinals from Latin America, as well as Africa and Europe—viewed him as a consummate outsider. […] The challenge was getting Cardinal Bergoglio the 77 votes he needed, representing two-thirds of the conclave, to become pope.
Exhibit #1: Testimony of Cardinal Elector Theordore McCarrick
Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, D.C., was one of the cardinals in the Papal Conclave that elected Bergoglio. On October 11, 2013, during a speech given at Villanova University, McCarrick said that he was lobbied to support Bergoglio whom he (McCarrick) and other cardinals had not even considered before.
Beginning at the 18:20 mark in the video below, Cardinal McCarrick said that before the cardinal electors “went into the general conversations, he was approached by “a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman.” The man then came to the seminary where McCarrick was staying in Rome. Then, this “very brilliant man, very influential man in Rome” said, “What about Bergoglio? Does he have a chance?” McCarrick said he was surprised at the question, and replied, “I don’t think so because no one’s mentioned his name.” The man said, referring to Bergoglio, “He could do it, you know, reform the church,” and spoke about how Bergoglio had reformed the church in Argentina in just five years. McCarrick confessed, “That was the first time I’d heard there were people who thought Bergoglio was a possibility in this election.”
At the general congregation of the cardinal electors, McCarrick spoke for five minutes, in which he told his fellow electors that he hoped that whoever was elected pope would be someone who, if not himself a Latin American, would “have a very strong interest in Latin America because half the Church is there . . . that’s where the people are.”
Exhibit #2: Testimony of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor
As reported by the Catholic Herald on Sept. 12, 2013, former Cardinal of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who was not an elector but is rumored to be the leader of “Team Bergoglio,” admitted that Bergoglio knew that he was being put forth as a candidate prior to the initiation of the Papal Conclave, and that Murphy-O’Connor was his lobbyist:
Murphy-O’Connor said: “All the cardinals had a meeting with him [Pope Francis] in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’ […]
The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said: “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: ‘Si – capisco’ – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.”
Page 355: “They had learned their lesson from 2005” – referring to Team Bergoglio learning from their failed attempt to get Bergoglio elected pope in 2005.
P. 355: “They first secured his [Bergoglio’s] assent.Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked.” Bro. Bugnolo maintains that “such a statement is morally equivalent to a sign of will giving consent, and in the context of a proposal to launch a campaign, it is also morally equivalent to a pact. This is an excommunicatable offense given the context of the offer of a campaign. A conscientious man, observant of the law of the conclave, would have added a sign that he repudiated an organized campaign, if only out of charity for the campaigners, who would thereby fall foul of the papal law.”
P. 355: “Then they got to work touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man…”
P. 355:“… Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot. An ancient Italian cardinal kept the tally of how many votes they could rely on before the conclave started.”Bro. Bugnolo writes that this is a violation of Universi Domenici Gregis law #81 “without any wiggle-room, because you cannot tally votes, unless votes have been promised, and if they are promised, then the ones asking have sought them, and both parties have entered into some kind of obligation or pact or agreement to vote for a particular candidate in the first ballot, while not voting for all other candidates.”
P. 355: “The Spanish cardinal Santos Abril y Castello, archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome and a former nuncio in Latin America, was vigorous in canvassing on Bergoglio’s behalf among the Iberian Iberian bloc.”
Ivereigh then names other cardinal collaborators in the conspiracy: Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris, Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, and U.S. Cardinal Sean O’Malley.
Pp. 356-357: “For this reason, and because the organizers of his campaign stayed carefully below the radar, the Bergoglio bandwagon that began to roll during the week of the congregations went undetected by the media, and to this day most vaticanisti believe there was no organized pre-conclave effort to get Bergoglio elected.”
In footnote 10, Dr. Ivereigh delivers the final confirmation of a conspiracy to elect Jorge Bergoglio to be Pope Francis:
In his Francis: Pope of a New Word (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013), ch. 3, the leading Vatican commentator Andrea Tornielli says that there were no “campaigns organized in advance” of the conclave for Bergoglio. There was one.
Assuming that the above three accounts (Exhibits 1-3) are true, then Pope Francis is an illegitimate pope, which means he and his co-conspirators should be automatically excommunicated and all his acts as pope “null and void.”
To sign an international petition asking the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals to investigate whether the election of Jorge Bergoglio as pope was in violation of Papal Law No. 81,click here.
Update (July 13, 2018):
Bishop Gracida, bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, TX, also believes that the canvassing during the papal conclave that elected Bergoglio as Pope is canonically illegal, which renders the validity of the papal election in doubt. (PCM)
One of FOTM‘s faithful readers recently sent me an email of palpable frustration, a sentiment I share and no doubt by you as well. She wrote:
Is it just me or is something really in the perverted wind of this country? I turn on the TV and suddenly on a soap I have watched decades, a character who has been on there for a few years is suddenly a transgender. I watch a Sunday show on PBS, “Calling the Midwife,” and suddenly a supposedly happily married man sexually approaches a stranger in a man’s restroom. Some of my favorite shows, like “CSI” have gay characters, and the list goes on. ABC-Disney is making a sitcom about the life of a gay man, Dan Savage, who is one of the nastiest-mouthed human beings out there.
How can 4% of the population control 80% of the viewing?
I saw a couple of years ago that Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett went to Hollywood and demanded changes. A few months ago, Ulsterman wrote that Jarrett was overheard in OUR White House bragging they have so much more to do to us…. Our viewing choices are shrinking daily. Not to mention the sad world we are leaving the children.
Indeed, how can such a small percentage of the population — the percentage of self-identified LGBTs in the U.S. population actually is less than 2% — control so much of entertainment, the media, and pop culture?
The “Gay Mafia” and “Velvet Mafia” are typically associated with the upper echelons of the fashion and entertainment industries, and the terms are also used humorously by gay people themselves. The term was widely used in the 1980s and 1990s, and could often be seen in the pages of the New York Post…. “Lavender Mafia” refers to the perceived homosexual elements of life within the Catholic church.
But Wikipedia doesn’t go far enough because the word “mafia” is undefined. This is how the Oxford Dictionaries defines “mafia”:
An organized international body of criminals, operating originally in Sicily and now especially in Italy and the US and having a complex and ruthless behavioral code.
Any organized group using extortion and other criminal methods.
A closed group of people in a particular field, having a controlling influence.
Clearly, definition no. 1 is not appropriate for the Gay Mafia because it’s not about Sicily or Italians. Definitions nos. 2 and 3 are more appropriate. The term “Gay Mafia” therefore may be defined as:
An organized group of homosexuals who use extortion and other illicit methods to exert a controlling influence over a particular industry or field.
The Gay Mafia can be found in at least three industries or fields: the media; Hollywood; and the Catholic Church.
1. Gay Mafia in The Media
Ever heard of an organization called the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA)?
The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) is an organization of journalists, media professionals, educators and students who work within the news industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. NLGJA opposes all forms of workplace bias and provides professional development to its members.
Wikipedia says the NLGJA, based in Washington, D.C., was founded in 1990. It currently has about 700 members in the U.S. and abroad, primarily journalists and students in print, broadcast, and online media.
The NLJGA exerts its influence over journalism and the media in the following ways:
From its inception, NLJGA hosts an annual convention inviting their members to participate in top-level training sessions, thought-provoking discussions, and social and professional networking events.
The organization’s most noteworthy tangible contribution to the journalism industry is the NLGJA Stylebook Supplement on LGBT Terminology — a guide used by journalists when writing about the LGBT “community.”
“Sexual orientation in the workplace” seminars, offered free of charge to news organizations, provides an LGBT-friendly office environment for homosexual journalists, and pushes for domestic partnership benefits at newspapers across the nation.
The seminars evolved into the Newsroom Outreach Project — meetings with broadcast, print and online newsroom leaders across the country on correct terminology and treatment of LGBT in the workplace.
Rapid Response Task Forceis a team of LGBT journalists who address any news piece that readers report as being offensive or inaccurate and inform writers and readers of the correct terminology.
Student outreach via the NLGJA Student Central website, which provides support to young journalists in their early years with scholarships and internships, online networking opportunities, articles about LGBT issues in journalism, student project opportunities, NLGJA membership information, and links to online resources.
The video below is about a NLGJA fundraiser on April 16, 2015 in New York City’s Prince George Ballroom which featured an auction of items of the Chippendale male strippers. Attendees included ABC’s Meredith Viera (who was the main speaker), CNN president Jeff Zuckerman, and other media stars from the big networks CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.
The video’s narrator, news media watchdog Accuracy In Media(AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid, says that the NLGJA is subsidized by the media on both the left and the so-called right(Fox). According to the UK’s Digital Spy, in 2006, CNN donated $100,000 (!) to the NLGJA.
Kincaid warns that the next phase of NLGJA’s media campaign is paving the way for America’s acceptance of “transgendered rights,” and after that, of the sado-masochistic “leather community.”
WNDalso warns about a coming “media blitz” to “normalize transgenderism.” Former Olympian champion Bruce Jenner’s “I’m a woman” coming-out as a male-to-female transgender on last Friday’s ABC primetime special with Dianne Sawyer is only the beginning.
That there’s a powerful homosexual clique in the entertainment industry is no secret. Perhaps the most infamous “outing” of Hollywood’s Gay Mafia was that by former Hollywood powerhouse Michael Ovitz, “the man who once was king.” In 2002, in a series of interviews with Vanity Fair magazine’s Bryan Burrough, Ovitz blamed his downfall on the vicious backstabbing by Hollywood’s Gay Mafia.
Note: Ovitz is a Hollywood talent agent who co-founded Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in 1975 and served as its chairman until 1995, after which he briefly was president of the Walt Disney Company from October 1995 to January 1997.
According to Burrough, a “driving factor” in Ovitz’s decision to do the Vanity Fair interviews was his “burning need to name names, to throw light on the shadowy Hollywood cabal he believes did him in. He calls it the Gay Mafia, though several of its ‘members’ aren’t gay, and much of what he says about these men is nasty and unprintable. In Ovitz’s eyes the cabal’s demagogic leader . . . is [David] Geffen, laying waste to all Ovitz held dear, spreading rumors about his family, at the same time he was poisoning the business deals that would have saved AMG [Artists Management Group]—all things Geffen denies.” Geffen’s partners in crime, Ovitz alleges, include former Disney C.E.O. Michael Eisner, the New York Times, and Ovitz’s onetime protégés at the Creative Artists Agency, Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, and Richard Lovett.
Note: David Geffen is the openly homosexual co-founder, with director Steven Spielberg, of DreamWorks.
According to Ovitz, “David [Geffen] tries to destroy everything close to me. He went after my kids. He spread rumors about them. The guy is totally immoral, and he paints himself like this priest.” The vehicle Geffen repeatedly used to sabotage Ovtiz’s image is New York Times’Hollywood correspondent Bernard Weinraub, whom Ovitz called the Gay Mafia conspiracy’s town crier and who wrote a list of nasty articles on Ovitz over the years. Ovitz claimed he had twice met with the newspaper’s senior staff, including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., but “it’s been no use.” As Ovitz put it, “Geffen comes up with the spin, and Weinraub parrots it back, quoting the same people over and over. There’s no balance in their coverage of me. None. Zero.”
3. gay mafia in The Catholic Church
Even the Catholic Church has a “lavender mafia” that, while not exerting the kind of power and influence on American culture as the media and Hollywood Gay Mafia, nevertheless works to corrupt the church and undermine its teachings.
In an article for Life Site News, John Westen describes a 2012 paper written by Polish priest and Ph.D. in Philosophy Fr. Dariusz Oko, “With the Pope Against the Homoheresy,” in which Fr. Oko recounted his discovery of a “huge homosexual underground in the Church.”
Fr. Oko writes that “I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered that the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well,”
Oko reveals his own run in with a homosexual clique in the Roman Catholic Church blocking justice for those abused by homosexual clergy, headed by the homosexual ArchbishopEmeritus of Poznań, Juliusz Paetz. Oko learned of the archbishop “from a seminarian who told me, all trembling from emotions and terror, about his having been molested by his own ordinary. He was at a brink of losing faith, as well as mental and spiritual integrity. Our interventions at various levels of Church hierarchy were of no avail, however; we encountered a wall that could not be overcome, even in a case as self-evident as that.” What finally broke through the wall, was “a tremendous commotion in the media and reaching the Pope [Benedict XVI] himself. Otherwise, everything was blocked at lower levels of local or Vatican hierarchy.”
Describing the formation of homosexual cliques of clergy Fr. Oko says:
They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding of a clique or even mafia, aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money.
When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds.
They may actually achieve a dominating position in many areas of church hierarchy, become a “backroom elite” which actually has tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church. Indeed, they may even prove to be too powerful for honest, well-meaning bishops.
Fr. Oko also wrote about “the fear and confusion of the clergy, particularly in certain dioceses and congregations, when faced with” the topic of homosexuality. The clergy “escape into silence, unable to articulate even elementary statements on the teaching of the Church on the subject. What are they afraid of? Where does that fear in entire groups of mature, adult men come from? They must be afraid of some influential lobby which wields its power and which they may fall into disfavor with.”
Fr. Oko maintains that Pope Benedict XVI was well aware of this subculture within the Church, publicly lamented its “filth” and the damage it had caused, and “made cleansing the Church from homosexual abuse and preventing its reoccurrence in the future one of the priorities of his pontificate.He removed compromised clergymen from their offices with much energy. In the very first months following his election, still in 2005, he had an instruction issued to strictly forbid ordaining untreated homosexuals.The instruction was preceded by a letter sent from the Holy See to bishops around the world, ordering that priests with homosexual tendencies be immediately removed from any educational functions at seminaries.” Later in 2008, the Pope issued a directive forbidding even non-practicing homosexuals from becoming seminarians.
Ominously, when Fr. Oko wrote his paper in late 2012, he warned that the homolobby “represents the very centre of internal opposition against the Pope” and that Pope Benedict XVI “cannot do it all by himself.” He “needs each and everyone of us. He needs support and healthy preaching in every local Church . . . defending the truth of salvation, no matter how much it should cost us.” Fr. Oko said that “If homolobbyists are allowed to act freely, in a dozen or so years they may destroy entire congregations and dioceses,” resulting in “entire countries and nations” leaving the Church.
It is the contention of Leo Zagami, author of Pope Francis: The Last Pope?, that Pope Benedict XVI resigned because of the power of the church’s homosexual underground.
This is what Fr. Oko urges faithful Catholics to do:
Recognize the priests who are homosexual: Fr. Oko warns that active homosexual priests are “devious” and “masters of camouflage.” Although members of the homolobby are a relatively small group, they often hold key positions (which they are very anxious to achieve), create a close network of relationships and support one another, “which is what makes them dangerous.” One way to recognize them is “by their fruit” (cf. St. Matthew 7:16).
The homosexual mafia in the Church must be dealt with in a very professional way. We must act like a prosecutor or an officer in the battlefield.
It is important that we find a large group of people of goodwill to protect us and support what we do. That group should include clergymen, as high in the hierarchy as possible; experts in various fields; archive records specialists; lawyers; policemen; journalists; and as many believers as possible.
Exchange information, documents, and evidence. The global network of homolobbies and homomafias must be counterbalanced by a network of honest people.
Make use of the Internet, an excellent tool that makes it possible to create a global community of people concerned about the fate of the Church.
Be mindful that we are like “sheep sent among wolves,” and so we must be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (St. Matthew 10:16). We must have the courage to stand up against evildoers, as Christ had the courage to stand up against the Pharisees of his times. “God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7).
All interventions should be made with utmost respect and love for every person, including the abuser.
Pope Benedict 16th called it the Dictatorship of Relativism. He wrote: In his futuristic novel Brave New World, the British author Aldous Huxley had predicted in 1932 that falsification would be the decisive element of modernity. In a false reality with its false truth – or the absence of truth altogether – nothing, in the final analysis, is important any more. There is no truth, there is no standpoint. Today, in fact, truth is regarded as far too subjective a concept for us to find therein a universally valid standard. The distinction between genuine and fake seems to have been abolished. Everything is to some extent negotiable.
A sub-division of that dictatorship is the Tyranny of Diversity. Judicial Watch reportsApril 3, 2013, that “In a staggering case of affirmative action gone wild,” the city government of Phoenix,capitol of Arizona and America’s 6th largest city, is recruiting minorities to be lifeguards at public pools even if they’re not good swimmers. It’s all in the name of diversity.
On its official website. the city proudly declares that “diversity” is among Phoenix’s “vision and values”:
We Value and Respect Diversity
Understanding diversity helps us to work together and serve our community. Diversity is more than gender and race; it encompasses our uniqueness and individuality. By embracing our differences, we find many paths to success. We put this belief into action to provide effective services to our diverse community.
Evidently officials are willing to compromise those “effective services” at 29 public swimming pools spread throughout the city. To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.” Kelly Martinez, a Phoenix official, explains that the pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that. The kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”
To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.
One of the recruits is high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn’t grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding. If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.
Judicial Watch points out Phoenix’s recruitment of minority lifeguards is part of a national trend to boost the minority workforce at whatever cost. Under Obama we have seen a lot of this at the federal level through a variety of specially-designed government programs that give ethnic minorities special treatment at all federal agencies as well as medical and agricultural fields, among others.
Earlier this year the administration made history by hiring the government’s first “Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity” to mastermind a multi-million-dollar effort that boosts the number of minorities in biomedical research and slashes discrimination in the federal grant process. The effort was initially launched last year after a government-sanctioned study uncovered a “disturbing and disheartening” lack of racial diversity in the field.
Before that the administration created a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies and Obama appointed a “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help advance the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs. Who could forget the race and gender employment quotas required at private financial institutions under Obama’s financial reform measure (known as the Dodd-Frank bill) to overhaul Wall Street? It’s all in the name of diversity.
And of course, it’s the taxpayer who gets screwed because we are paying for all these “diversity” programs. ~Eowyn