Archive for June, 2018

Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

June 29th, 2018 by Vigilo

by Bishop Sanborn

In all three countries, Ireland, Argentina, and Poland, the guilt for this defection from Catholic morals (see my previous post) must be placed upon the Novus Ordo clergy. For of all the countries of the world these three are among the most predominantly Catholic, and the Catholic clergy were in a perfect position to influence the population away from these moral atrocities.

In the 1950’s, when the United States was 25% Catholic (now only about 20%), the Catholic clergy were able to keep dirty and filthy Hollywood in relatively good order by a wonderful institution known as the Legion of Decency. Scripts would have to be altered and scenes deleted by Hollywood producers in order to obtain the approval of the Legion. In Catholic school, I remember receiving every week a mimeographed sheet indicating what films were being played at the local theaters, each film receiving a rating from the Legion. A-1 was for general patronage; A-2 was for adults and adolescents; A-3 was for adults; B was termed “morally objectionable in part for all.” C was “condemned,” something reserved for pure pornography.

We were told that it was a mortal sin to see a B picture — and that included adults. Every year on December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the whole parish would stand up at Mass, at the moment of the announcements, and recite the pledge of the Legion of Decency, whereby we promised not to see the dirty films. In my house, the sheet which we received from school was posted in the kitchen. Any permission to go see a movie was subjected immediately to the rating given to it by the Legion of Decency.

I bring this up in order to show the tremendous power of the Catholic Church in a Protestant country, the United States, to influence public morality.

The decay of morality among Catholics must be placed at the feet of the Novus Ordo clergy. While it is true that a number of them have striven against public immorality either in their sermons or through the media, they are pitifully few, and in most cases do not enjoy the support of the Novus Ordo hierarchy.

If the bishops of Ireland, Argentina, and Poland had made a concerted effort against the legalization of these wicked sins, there is no way in which these offenses against God’s law would have passed.

Vatican II is the cause of the moral decay, since its very soul is relativism in regard to truth. As much as objectivity of truth characterized pre-Vatican II Catholicism, both in dogma and in morals, this new relativism is what pervades all of the post-Vatican II era. The eldest child of this relativism is ecumenism, which holds that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Implicit in this statement is that God does not care what religion you belong to, or what dogmas you adhere to, as long as you have an interior personal relationship with Him. In this system, all religions are true, and all are means of salvation. Ecumenism’s ugly little sister is religious liberty, whereby conscience is extolled above the Church’s magisterium, generating a supposed God-given right to practice whatever religion you believe.

This relativism in regard to truth is what has destroyed Catholicism in all of the institutions which were once Catholic. It has also destroyed the clergy’s ability to insist upon Catholic morality in the public sphere. It has destroyed unity of faith among Catholics, the label “Catholic” now referring only to adherence to an institution, but not to a set of dogmatic or moral tenets. Add to this the other Novus Ordo ideas which have been popularly spread by this new religion, such as “everyone is going to heaven” and “there is no hell,” and “we all worship the same God.” The result is a feckless and useless clergy incapable of transmitting the Catholic Faith.

Their sermons are boring and trite, not concerned about objective Catholic dogma and morality, but about purely naturalistic ideas of being good to your neighbor, being concerned about the environment, and being generally “nice.” Funeral sermons are not about purgatory and judgement, but about the fact that the deceased is in heaven, usually playing golf with God, or mowing God’s lawn, making spaghetti (if she’s Italian) or some other vapid or inane activity which characterized the deceased in this life.

We must further add the effect of the new catechisms, which came into being in the 1960’s, and which, through a failure to present the Catholic Faith in an objective question- and-answer method, ruined the virtue of faith in Catholics who were subjected to them. They presented the typically Modernist doctrine that God is discovered through a personal religious experience, and not through a knowledge of dogmas which are adhered to by the virtue of faith. Modernism is the most lethal enemy of the virtue of faith, and we have seen the result of this poisoning of souls in the public immorality and worse, in the legalization of immorality, indeed in the murder of babies and unnatural vice, both abominations in God’s eyes in countries which were once staunchly Catholic.

The Novus Ordo clergy, as a whole, and with only a few exceptions, are guilty of this moral apostasy and have on their hands the blood of the innocent babies who will be aborted in these once Catholic countries.

Did Bergoglio say anything to the Catholic voters in Ireland before the referendum? Not a single word. Did he intervene at all in his own native land to prevent the legalization of abortion in Argentina? Not at all.

In regard to unnatural vice, he recently told a “gay” man that God made him that way. He addressed these words to a certain Juan Carlos who is one of the victims of sex abuse in Chile on the part of the Novus Ordo clergy: “Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like that and he loves you like that and I do not care. The Pope loves you as you are, you have to be happy with who you are.”

The implications of this statement are both blasphemous and morally disastrous regarding Juan Carlos. It is blasphemous, inasmuch as it makes God the cause of what is clearly a disorder. It would be like saying to someone born with muscular dystrophy (a very debilitating genetic disease) that “God made you that way,” and that “you have to be happy with who you are.” Or it would be the same as telling an electrician who is so insane that he thinks that male couplings should be attached to other male couplings, and female to female, that “God made you that way and he loves you like that.” The comment, furthermore, encourages Juan Carlos to act in accordance with his disordered appetite. The advice from a truly Catholic priest would be that the person afflicted with this disorder must do all in his power to resist the inclinations of this faulty desire.

Implicit in this statement of Bergoglio’s, which is totally in accordance with many other statements and actions of his, is that the appetite justifies the object of the appetite. In other words, “if I am inclined to this, it must be all right, since I find this urge within myself.” This attitude, which is prevalent in all modern society, is typical of the modern intellectual disease of relativism, namely that there are no objective norms, but that it is the subject (the person) who determines the object. In other words, “something is right because I want it,” and not the other way around, that is, “I want something because it is right.” The same is true about religion: “Something is true because I believe it,” and not “I believe something because it is true.”

If we apply this principle of appetite justifying the object of appetite, the effects are horrifying. What about people who have as a lust object the murdering and dismembering of other people? This is a true appetite in some people.

It is of no wonder that nearly all of the cases of child abuse in the Catholic clergy came after Vatican II. For the subjectivism and relativism unleashed by the council caused the breakdown of all of the constraints of holy purity, so intrinsic to Catholic spirituality, and especially the purity of the priests. There was a spirit of “all hell breaking loose” after the council, a spirit of revolution against the traditional constraints of morality demanded of priests. This was because the council caused, particularly in the clergy, who understood the principles of the council and were most affected by them, a weakening or a downright abandonment of the faith, especially in the sacredness of their own priesthood. The New Mass did much to promote this decomposition of the virtue of faith, as it reduced the priest to a mere president presiding over a protestantized and man-centered liturgy, dictated by what Fr. Cekada calls the Ladies’ Soviet, that is, the parish liturgical committee whose members consisted mostly of opinionated and domineering battle-axes. Given this reduction of the priest, and given the general principle that appetite justifies the object of your appetite, and given the abandonment of the traditional spirituality of mortifying one’s evil inclinations, the effect was almost inevitable: anyone inclined to child molestation would use the vantage point of his priesthood to lure unsuspecting and trusting young persons into very serious sins of impurity.

Another very grave element contributing to the immorality of clergy after Vatican II is the abandonment of clerical attire. The traditional Canon Law requires priests to wear clerical attire at all times in public unless there is a serious reason why they cannot or should not. (Hence it was not required, obviously, that a priest wear his collar when he is swimming or camping out). Most Novus Ordo priests today are unrecognizable as priests in their dress, which has the effect of making them relax too much in public, becoming “one of the guys,” and of permitting them to do immoral things without being noticed as clergy. Traditional Canon Law states that a priest would commit mortal sin of the went for more than three days without clerical attire, unless he had a sufficient reason.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

June 26th, 2018 by Vigilo

by Bishop Sanborn

Shame on Ireland. While strolling through Rome last month, Bishop Selway and I met an Irish lady who asked us to pray for Ireland, because in a few days (May 25th) there would be a referendum concerning abortion.

Ironically the woman was a Protestant, although she was from Galway, which is in the Republic of Ireland, nearly entirely Catholic.

A staggering 66.4% of the Irish, nearly all Catholics, voted in favor of legalizing the murder of innocent babies. The voting followed lines of age: those against were mostly from the older generation; those in favor mostly from the younger generation. My Irish grandfather must be turning in his grave to think that his race would have voted for the legalization of such a heinous crime. If he were alive I could just imagine what he would say, perhaps not entirely repeatable.

Shame on Argentina. The Congress of Argentina, another nearly entirely Catholic country, recently voted to permit abortions to take place up to fourteen weeks of pregnancy.

Shame on Poland. Yet another nearly completely Catholic country, Poland, with deep roots of Catholicism and many well-known saints to its name, recently permitted a “gay pride” parade in Warsaw.

This parade, entirely legal, came only a few months after Poland’s government declared that Christ was the King of Poland.

King of Poland? To proclaim Christ as King of your country, and at the same time to permit sodomites to parade in your capital to show off their pride in their sexual perversions is an act of the grossest hypocrisy. It is pure pharisaism, that is, to pretend piety and devotion on the outside, but to be corrupt interiorly.

It is the same thing as to hang a picture of Christ the King in your home, and then to spit upon it.

Our Lord had very hard words for the Pharisees. The holy Gospel is filled with these hard words, showing a particular disgust that Our Lord had for those who would give God fine words on the outside, but love sin on the inside. In Saint Matthew Our Lord addresses these hypocrites in this way: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.” (Matthew XXIII: 27)

Poland has placed a crown of thorns upon the head of their King.

from Novus Ordo Watch

Francis at the World Council of Churches:
Analysis & Commentary

Photo: Magnus Aronson/WCC

One really has to hand it to them. Although they always say essentially the same things, somehow the Modernists always manage to come up with some new buzzwords for the headlines.

Such was the case again today, June 21, when Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, to participate in the 70th anniversary celebrations for the ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC). If Francis had one catchphrase today, it was “new ecumenical spring.” More about that further on.

The three main events of Francis’ trip consisted of an ecumenical prayer service, an ecumenical meeting, and the Novus Ordo worship service (“Holy Mass”) at the end of the day. The full program released by the Vatican can be accessed here:

Numerous photos of the different activities were released by the Vatican and by the World Council of Churches:

Perhaps the most telling photograph of the whole event is the one displayed below, which shows Francis admiring a most hideous and blasphemous “crucifix” that had been gifted to him (click photos to enlarge):

Photos: WCC

Francis can add this abominable piece of junk to his ever-growing collection of blasphemous and twisted “art”, which already includes a Communist hammer-and-sickle crucifix, an occultist crucifix, a monster-ance, and many other ugly things.

Some people think that a disgusting crucifix is not objectionable because the Crucifixion of Our Lord was ugly in reality. However, the Church does not admit this line of reasoning: “On September 11, 1670, a decree of the Holy Office forbade the making of crucifixes ‘in a form so coarse and artless, in an attitude so indecent, with features so distorted by grief that they provoke disgust rather than pious attention’” (source). People need to understand that the reason why we have crucifixes today is not in order to portray the actual Crucifixion precisely as it looked when it took place, but in order to recall to mind the love of God for sinners as He gave Himself up in propitiation for our sins, so as to elicit acts of Faith, hope, and charity from souls.

Before we take a look at the endless wisdom with which Francis graced his listeners today, let’s first review a few other things that might otherwise get drowned out.

The first papal claimant to visit the World Council of Churches’ headquarters in Geneva was Antipope Paul VI, on June 10, 1969. The traditional Catholic position with regard to the WCC and ecumenism/religious unity in general can be found here:

It turns out that Francis’ visit to Geneva is so expensive that the local diocese, which the Vatican has asked to carry the costs, may have to file bankruptcy as a result. The total cost of the trip is estimated at $2,200,000, and even after promised donations the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg will lose approximately $1,000,000, according to a report by Swiss Info. Francis is on record saying he wants a “poor church for the poor”. This is surely one way to do it — although it is not clear what benefits the poor would derive from a church that is equally poor.

The first speech Francis gave at the WCC today was an address at the interreligious prayer session:

So many words, so little meaning — that’s a good way to summarize the content. Taking his cue from the motto for the WCC event (“Walking, Praying, and Working Together”), Francis drew up his own talking points and then tried to read them back into a Scripture passage that had been recited earlier. He spoke first about “walking” and later about “in the Spirit.” His reflections contained such completely unfounded assertions as, “only in company do we make good progress” (how so? says who?) and the usual mantra about “constant conversion” and “renewal of our way of thinking”, whatever that means (ask ten ecumenists and you’ll get eleven different answers).

Francis’ endless blather about “following the lead of the Spirit” is so much hot air, since these people cannot even agree on who the Holy Spirit is (for example, the Eastern Orthodox claim the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only but not from the Son, which is a heresy). But then, what else is Bergoglio going to say? The whole ecumenical program is a lot of words and a lot of activities that have no clear goal. Yes, they all want “unity” somehow, but none of them — least of all Club Francis in the Vatican — desires anyone’s conversion to Catholicism, which is the only religious unity that is in agreement with the will of Jesus Christ (see Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos).

In January of 2017, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, “Cardinal” Kurt Koch, publicly admitted that the different parties involved in ecumenical dialogue cannot even agree on so much as the point of it all:

These people “are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit” (Mt 15:14). They have brought so much ruin to souls, it really cries to heaven for vengeance.

Then Francis said something he knew was going to generate headlines:

It might be objected that to walk in this way is to operate at a loss, since it does not adequately protect the interests of individual communities, often closely linked to ethnic identity or split along party lines, whether “conservative” or “progressive”. To choose to belong to Jesus before belonging to Apollos or Cephas (cf. 1 Cor 1:12); to belong to Christ before being “Jew or Greek” (cf. Gal 3:28); to belong to the Lord before identifying with right or left; to choose, in the name of the Gospel, our brother or our sister over ourselves… In the eyes of the world, this often means operating at a loss. Let us not be afraid to operate at a loss! Ecumenism is “a great enterprise operating at a loss”. But the loss is evangelical, reflecting the words of Jesus: “Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:24).

(Antipope Francis, Address at Ecumenical Prayer of World Council of, June 21, 2018)

This may sound good on the surface but it obviously promotes the heresy of Indifferentism and implies that the Protestant sects are part of the Body of Christ, that the differences between Catholics and baptized non-Catholics are essentially not matters of heresy vs. revealed truth and schism vs. unity but simply political and selfish squabbles. The references to St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians are misleading, since in both cases the Apostle was addressing Catholics. Francis is comparing disputes among Catholics with disputes between Catholics and heretics, thereby showing that he does not believe in the Catholic religion at all. Not that we didn’t know that already.

For those who may be unaware of what the true Catholic Church teaches on the matter, have a look at these beautiful and exceptionally clear words of a real Pope from 150 years ago:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added.)

Ecumenism is indeed operating at a loss but it is not an evangelical loss, as Francis so blasphemously claims, it is a loss of Faith and therefore a loss of souls.

After blowing more hot air, Francis proceeded to declare that heretics ought to evangelize together with Catholics: “Even now we can walk in the Spirit: we can pray, evangelize and serve together. This is possible and it is pleasing to God!” We know that “evangelization” means the proclamation of the Good News, the Gospel. But precisely what gospel does Francis think heretics and Catholics should proclaim together? The true gospel of Catholicism? The heretics won’t do that. Or the false gospels of Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Charismaticism, Jansenism, etc.? Catholics cannot do that. So then what does “evangelizing together” mean?

More empty phrases followed: “Walking, praying and working together: this is the great path that we are called to follow today.” Oh, that’s interesting. If that’s the call for “today”, precisely what have they been doing the last 70 years? And precisely what should be so pleasing to God about walking, praying, or working with that lesbian pro-abortion bishopess that’s sitting next to me?

It is true, as Francis says next, that the division among those who profess to be followers of Christ is contrary to His Will. That is certain. However, it is likewise contrary to His Will to seek for some kind of unity other than that which He has established for His Church. As Pope Pius XI’s Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus states: “Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.”

In other words, there is but one true flock and one true Shepherd, and those who are deceived by heresy and/or schism are not a part of it (they are therefore part of some other, false flock and follow some other, false shepherd); and the way to remedy this situation is for them to return to the “harbor of truth and unity of faith”. This is the true Catholic teaching, and it goes to show how fake and deceptive it is for Francis to promote the Sacred Heart, when he constantly teaches doctrines contrary to that Sacred Heart.

The video of the activities including Francis’ first speech is embedded here:

The next big speech Francis gave was his address at the ecumenical meeting, and it was a doozy. Again we will have a critical look at a few excerpts.

The Jesuit antipope said:

If we are here today, it is also thanks to all those who went before us, choosing the path of forgiveness and sparing no effort to respond to the Lord’s will “that all may be one” (cf. Jn 17:21)…. The World Council of Churches was born in service to the ecumenical movement, which itself originated in a powerful summons to mission: for how can Christians proclaim the Gospel if they are divided among themselves? This pressing concern still guides our journey and is grounded in the Lord’s prayer that all may be one, “so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21).

This line of reasoning is verbatim what was condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1928:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one” [Jn 17:21]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” [Jn 13:35]? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 4)

Pius XI then proceeds to explain how this ecumenical thinking contradicts the very foundations of Catholicism, and readers who have not done so before are urged to read the Pope’s encyclical in its entirety. Unlike the Modernist twaddle from the Vatican II antipopes, real papal encyclicals are a joy to read and very educational and edifying.

Of course, Francis also obsessive-compulsively regurgitated the Novus Ordo mantra of ecumenism being “irrecovable”: “Thanks to the Holy Spirit, who inspires and guides the journey of ecumenism, the direction has changed and a path both old and new has been irrevocably paved….” Precisely why the commitment to ecumenism should be irrevocable when they just overturned 1,900 years of anti-ecumenist doctrine and practice, is never explained. As is typical for the ecumenical program, things like this are simply asserted, they are never proved or explained.

Next, Francis clearly implies once more that the motley crew of heretics gathered before and around him is part of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, an abominable absurdity: “In the face of the recurring temptation to tailor it to worldly ways of thinking, we must constantly remind ourselves that Christ’s Church grows by attraction.” This he says in the context of calling the non-Catholics he addressed to a common missionary effort — as though heretical sects had a mission from God.

Then, finally, came the quote with the ecumenical springtime: “I am convinced that an increased missionary impulse will lead us to greater unity. Just as in the early days, preaching marked the springtime of the Church, so evangelization will mark the flowering of a new ecumenical spring.”

Again we have to ask what gospel Francis thinks Catholics can preach in unison with heretics and schismatics of every stripe. Whatever it might be, it definitely cannot be the true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for “[w]hosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 9); and, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8-9).

Whether Francis came up with the term “new ecumenical spring” himself is doubtful. A few weeks ago, the pastor of some Protestant sect in Germany had already used almost the exact same phrase in an interview with “Fr.” Antonio Spadaro: “To me it looks as if we have reached a new spring with Pope Francis and his initiatives” (“Pope Francis at the World Council of Churches: An interview with Pastor Martin Robra”La Civiltà Cattolica, May 31, 2018). By the way, the last “new springtime” that proceeded from the Vatican didn’t work out too well — just saying.

In any case, Francis then proceeded to speak about the event’s motto again: walking, praying, and working together. As for the walking, he suggested “a two-fold movement: in and out.” He elaborated: “In, so as to move constantly to the centre, to acknowledge that we are branches grafted onto the one vine who is Jesus (cf. Jn 15:1-8)” — as though Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, etc. were grafted onto Jesus Christ. He continued: “Out, towards the many existential peripheries of today’s world, in order to join in bringing the healing grace of the Gospel to our suffering brothers and sisters.” There simply is no “healing grace of the Gospel” apart from the true Gospel of the Catholic Church, and therefore no common ecumenical witness to it is possible. Minor detail.

Then Francis upped the ante on the use of metaphors with some real zingers sure to generate headlines: “Prayer is the oxygen of ecumenism. Without prayer, communion becomes stifling and makes no progress, because we prevent the wind of the Spirit from driving us forward.” No doubt there is a lot of wind in Francis’ words, and they surely proceed from some kind of spirit.

Lastly, it was a given that before long his favorite heresy would make an appearance again, his legendary “ecumenism of blood”:” May we never forget that our ecumenical journey is preceded and accompanied by an ecumenism already realized, the ecumenism of blood, which urges us to go forward.” There is no need to repeat all the arguments against this heresy here. Interested readers can consult our substantial post on the issue from years ago:

The video of the activities including Francis’ second speech is embedded here:

Thus far Francis’ two main speeches. The third one was a homily given at the “Mass”, and it was incredibly dull. It was focused on three buzzwords Francis picked from the Gospel of the day: “Father, bread, forgiveness.” You can read it here, but there will be no commentary. The video is here:

All in all, the day’s events were predictable: A lot of words were spoken, but very little was said; at least very little that had clear and concrete meaning, and even less that had Catholic meaning. Instead, heresy, error, and blasphemy abounded. And that’s what cost the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg a whopping $2.2 million.


Image sources: / screenshots from livestream at
License: Used with permission / fair use

By the Very Rev. Fr. Casimir M. Puskorius, CMRI

When the word “godfather” is mentioned in casual conversation, the image that sometimes comes to people’s minds is that of the Italian mobster serving as a baptismal sponsor. This is most unfortunate, because, whether fictional or real, such a scenario disregards the Church’s serious requirements for valid and lawful (i.e. licit) sponsorship in Baptism. The Church lays down these conditions because of the vital importance of the sponsors: they are obliged to look after the Catholic upbringing of the child. They do not replace the parents in this regard, but are to supplement the parents’ efforts to raise the child in the Faith. Should the parents of the child become incapacitated, the entire obligation of Christian education (to the extent possible) devolves upon the godparents.

Since the laity generally do not have access to Canon Law books, it is primarily for their benefit that these requirements are listed, as contained in The Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. I, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., LL.B., Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1948. The words of the 1917 Code of Canon Law are italicized; words in bold italic are my own emphasis.



In order that a person may act validly as sponsor, the following rules apply:

  1. He must be baptized, have attained the use of reason and have the intention of discharging that office.
  2. He must not belong to an heretical or schismatic sect, nor have been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor suffer from infamy of law, nor be excluded from legal acts, nor (if a cleric) have been deposed or degraded from the clerical rank.
  3. The father or mother or spouse of the person to be baptized cannot be sponsor.
  4. He must be designated either by the person to be baptized or by the parents or guardians, or in their default by the minister of baptism.
  5. The sponsor must, either in person or through proxy, physically hold or touch the one baptized, or receive him immediately after baptism from the sacred font or from the hands of the minister (Canon 765).


1. Commentary on #1 & 5: Obviously, an unbaptized person cannot be sponsor at someone else’s baptism. The sponsor must be able and willing to look after the (traditional) Catholic upbringing of the child. This would exclude Novus Ordo Catholics from being sponsors, because they themselves have not resolved to practice the traditional Catholic faith, and cannot be expected to encourage the same in their godchild. Also, in cases where a sponsor acts by proxy, the sponsor himself or herself must designate the “stand in.” The parents cannot designate the proxy! Fr. Woywod notes (p. 392):

“If the appointed sponsor cannot or does not wish to attend at the baptism in person, he may appoint a representative (proxy) to take his place. The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments has declared that the sponsor himself must appoint his representative (proxy), because the custom of leaving the appointment to the parents of the infant or to the baptizing priest, the sponsor being unconcerned in the matter, makes the sponsorship doubtful. It has further ruled that such custom must be abolished (July 25, 1925, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XVIII, 43-47). The Code does not lay down any restrictions as to the persons who may be appointed as proxies. Therefore, the only requisite is that he is capable of accepting the mandate and performing the material acts in the place of the sponsor. Though it is not becoming to appoint as proxies non-Catholics, excommunicated persons or others whom the Code excludes from sponsorship, still the Code does not forbid it. The name of the proxy is not entered into the baptismal record, but the name of the sponsor represented by the proxy.”

2. Commentary on #2: Again, another very obvious requirement: those outside the Church cannot fulfill the office of sponsor for someone within it. Fr. Woywod declares (p. 391):

“Protestants or schismatics cannot be sponsors, and, if the priest cannot prevent the intervention of non-Catholics, the Holy Office demands that the priest inform the non-Catholic that he cannot be a sponsor properly so called, but can assist at most as a witness (Collectanea de Prop. Fide, I, n. 447). The Holy Office has declared that, if suitable sponsors are not available, it is preferable to have none at all, rather than admit a person belonging to an heretical sect (Ibid., II, n. 1831). The Holy See has declared that, even where one of the parents was a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic and they were married outside the Church, a Protestant sponsor should not be admitted in the baptism of their child” (Holy Office, June 27, 1900; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIII, 372).

If a Catholic has been punished for an ecclesiastical crime by sentence or declaration of excommunication, he cannot be sponsor until the penalty is lifted. Infamy of law is attached to certain crimes, as outlined in Canons 2293, 2320 (desecration of the Blessed Sacrament), 2328 (violating bodies or graves of deceased), 2343 (laying violent hands on the Roman Pontiff, his legates, or on Cardinals), 2351 (participating in dueling), 2356 (attempting a second marriage without seeking annulment first), and 2357 (crimes against the sixth commandment with minors under 16 years old, or rape, sodomy, incest or traffic in vice). Fr. Woywod notes that this infamy of law, though automatic in some cases, would still have to be juridically declared to prevent one from validly serving as a sponsor (pp. 390-391):

The crimes to which infamy of law is attached are specified in various Canons of the Code. It can be incurred only in the cases specifically enumerated in the Code (Canons). Furthermore, the infamy of law and the exclusion from legal acts in question must have been inflicted by the ecclesiastical court. The disability to act as sponsor is not incurred ipso facto by the crimes to which the law attaches an ipso facto infamia juris or ipso facto exclusion from legal acts, as is to be inferred from the following Canon 766.

A couple of other observations of Fr. Woywod would be well worth to note (pp. 391-392):

If the parents or the guardian appoint a sponsor who by the law of the Code cannot validly or licitly act as such, the minister of baptism is obliged to reject him, and, if the parents or the guardian refuse to appoint another, the minister of baptism must appoint a sponsor. A person who without a proper designation assumes to act as sponsor, does not become a sponsor, for, as stated in Canon 765, §4, the designation is one of the requisites for validity of sponsorship.


The Catholic Church is not satisfied with laying down conditions for valid sponsorship. There are requirements of lawfulness as well. We turn again to Canon Law:

For licit admission as sponsor, the following conditions must be observed:

  1. The sponsor must be fourteen years of age, unless for a just reason the minister admits younger persons.
  2. The sponsor must not be under excommunication, nor excluded from legal acts, nor suffer from infamy of law for reason of a notorious crime, even though no sentence was pronounced against him, nor must he be under an interdict, or otherwise a public criminal, or disgraced by infamy of fact.
  3. The sponsor must know the rudiments of the faith.
  4. The sponsor must not be a novice or professed member in any religious organization, unless there is nobody else to be had and the permission is granted by at least the local superior.
  5. The sponsor must not be a cleric in sacred orders, unless he has the explicit permission of his proper Ordinary (Canon 766).

In case of doubt whether one can validly or licitly be admitted as sponsor, the pastor shall, if time permits, consult the Ordinary (Canon 767).

1. Commentary on #1: Those under the age of fourteen are less likely to understand the duties of sponsorship; hence, a justifying cause is needed to allow a younger person to act as sponsor.

2. Commentary on #2: To be a lawful sponsor, one should be free of ipso facto excommunication, i.e. the penalty automatically incurred for certain crimes (such as procuring an abortion, or getting married before a non-Catholic minister). In other words, although the person has not been declared excommunicated by an ecclesiastical court, that person is still excommunicated, and needs to be absolved from that penalty before he can licitly act as a sponsor. Otherwise, a serious sin is committed.

Besides freedom from excommunication, the Code also demands for lawful sponsorship that the sponsor not be guilty of notorious crime, be free from sentence of interdict, not be a public criminal, and be free from infamy of fact (as opposed to “infamy of law” described earlier). Fr. Woywod elucidates (p. 393):

Canon 2197, §3, declares that an offense is notorious by notoriety of fact if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice nor excused by any extenuating circumstances admitted in law. In general, the Code in Canon 766, §2, excludes from sponsorship persons who are guilty of a grave public offense which in the common estimation of respectable Catholic men makes them so unworthy of the office of sponsor that their admission would cause scandal. The Holy See ruled that Freemasons who are publicly known as such cannot be admitted as sponsors (Holy Office, July 5, 1878; Collectanea de Prop. Fide, II, n. 1495). The same holds good of Catholics who belong to any other forbidden society, and are notoriously known as members; likewise Catholics whose life is unchristian and scandalous.

3. Commentary on #3: One can hardly fulfill the duties of godparent if he doesn’t know the basics of the Catholic Faith.

4. Commentary on #4 & 5: The reason that clergy and religious are prohibited, as a rule, from acting as sponsors is that the duties of godparents are likely to be a distraction from their clerical and religious obligations. Clergy are already involved in the salvation of souls, and religious are limited by rules of cloister and common life from the care and attention that should be given to godchildren.

Every now and then, I have a little mercy on my wife, and I bail her out from cooking dinner with an impromptu trip to a restaurant (preferably with a buffet). In this case, it was an Eat n Park. As we ate our 5 or so helpings from the unlimited soup and salad bar, we could not help overhearing the conversation from the adjacent booth.

OK. It wasn’t much of a conversation. Maybe it was a date? All we can say for sure is that it was an uninterested female, listening to a very animated guy (about 30 years old) talk non-stop about…..a video game. The amount of detail, the characters, the strategy, how much each character costs, the amount of time devoted, and on…we got quite the dose of eSports and gaming. Not to be gossipers, but my wife and I filled in a few blanks for each other as we took turns making trips to the buffet. I mean, we were kinda curious as to just how important this game was, to warrant him NOT having a car, as the game took so much of his time and money. Yeah, his admission.

That meal really hit home just how obsessed, er, devoted gamers can be. This guy eats, sleeps, and breathes his video game. Though surely he is not alone. In fact, he mentioned many ‘friends’ whom he had never met. One guy he really admired and envied, acquired a certain coveted character! Wow! As for the girl, she was just giving dismissive ‘mmm’ responses to everything…. But it begs the question: How many more are like him?

The Rising Trend of eSports and Gaming

For better or worse, things change. Trends come and go. Fads rise and fall.

Before continuing, I should disclose that I have not personally played a video game in probably decades. I’ve been meaning to plug in that dusty Nintendo I have stored away, and play “Ice Hockey, ” but something always is higher on the to-do list. (It really is called “Ice Hockey” btw)

That said, I’m definitely aware that others do play video games… a lot…and the Rising Trend of eSports and Gaming is real. I’ve walked past my now college age cousin playing with a headset, conversing with players in-game. I’ve heard the complaints from my sister about my nephew playing too much. I know that there are gamers of various stripes.

Contrast this air conditioned ‘play time’ with that of a story from the Great Depression. My nanu (grandfather) has many stories of how they played outside as youth. They even reused construction scraps to create variations of games we know today. Or my mother who recalls how all the neighborhood kids would be outside playing baseball, hockey, sled riding, etc. My own youth was spent outside on the swing, then climbing trees (until the neighbor cut them down), playing hockey, bicycling, swimming, and so on. After all, staying in the house would be considered a form of strict punishment!

But now, many kids prefer to stay in the house playing video games….electronic sports. Pigskin is being swapped for pixels. Vulcanized rubber for a plastic remote. Helmet for a headset.

The trend is clear. ESports and gaming are on the rise.

Where else can this be measured?

Pro Sports Attendance

There has been a topic recently about Major League Baseball instituting rule changes (like introducing the designated hitter in the National League) to increase offense. Why? Attendance has been getting hammered, down 6.6% from a year ago! They believe that replacing a pitcher’s at-bat with an actual hitter will lead to more offense, which will keep better interest for fans. They overlook that the American League, which already has the designated hitter rule, has most of the lowest drawing teams by attendance.

Is this an anomaly? Apparently not. In 2015, the National Football League’s Super Bowl had a TV viewership of over 114 million. In 2018, the viewership was down to 103 million.

After the ‘Stand for the Anthem’ controversy last season, several NFL stadiums saw huge swaths of empty seats. This was not really apparent in attendance as the tickets were pre sold (it will be interesting to see what happens this upcoming season)… but the eye test was unmistakable.

Staples Center | Los Angeles, CA | League of Legends Final | 2013

Staples Center | Los Angeles, CA | League of Legends Final | 2013

The National Hockey League’s San Jose Sharks play hockey at the SAP Centre. That venue hosted the INTEL Extreme Masters gaming event and drew 12,500 fans over two days. It’s true that the Sharks draw way more than that in a single game, but the INTEL event was viewed by 4 million people from their homes! That is ALMOST as many viewers as the NHL’s Stanley Cup Final draws! So it can be said that regular season viewership of the NHL is already surpassed by eSports and gaming viewership. Yes, read that again.

More ESports photos here.

An article on growing eSports viewership here.

Sure there and many variables with these stats, like weather for baseball attendance, and live streaming for hockey viewership. The point is, rule changes will do nothing in the face of a demographic shift.


This entire write up is not to say pro sports is dead, but it is changing. It must not be ignored that peak professional sports may be really close, if not already here. There is major competition in the rising eSports and gaming area, and we can see that attendance and viewers of conventional pro sports is becoming a concern.

It’s not all that crazy though. None of the major sports leagues even existed 150 years ago. When compared to thousands of years of human history, what is 150 years, but a phase. And the era of ever inflationary mega contracts for the athletes is only a few decades old. There is no reason why there can’t be salary deflation. Especially if attendance and viewership continues to trend down. The owners are running a business, and none of them want to lose money.

See below this IR4 chat about the Past, Present, and Future of Video Games. IR4 stands for the 4th Industrial Revolution. Check out their IR4 Patreon page to keep up with future updates.  (note: there are a few expletives used during the eSports and gaming talk)


Maybe you still are not convinced that eSports and gaming are a big deal… Then you should probably go to Eat n Park for the soup and salad bar. It’s only 8$ for a limited time… 11$ if you get it with a meal.

If you are already convinced that eSports and gaming are just beginning to take off in popularity, then here are some ways to prosper.


Capitalize on the Rise of eSports and Gaming

We are called to be good stewards of all that God provides us. So if you do take advantage of these opportunities in the Rise of eSports and gaming, be charitable with your wealth.

Keep in mind, it may not be the best time to buy some of these companies, as some of them are overbought or heading into resistance. However, a pullback can prove to be an opportunity of a lifetime. This is to alert you to long term plays for eSports and gaming, not for specific short term trades.


The recently launched HUYA Inc. (HUYA) is a leading game live streaming platform in China.



Versus Systems Inc (VRSSF) has launched the Winfinite platform, which gives developers and publishers the ability to give in-game and real-world items as prizes. 


Activision Blizzard (ATVI) owns the Overwatch League! This is like the National Football League of gaming… and the owner of the New England Patriots and New York Mets are already owners of teams in the Overwatch League. More on Activision Blizzard here.


Tencent Holdings Ltd. (TCEHY) is a Chinese company which has the biggest stake in gaming in the whole world. It has owns most of or a piece of almost everything in the eSports and gaming industry. It even owns a piece of Activation Blizzard. 


Electronic Arts (EA) is the owner of the popular EA Sports subsidiary. They have been churning out games for several decades and have made popular the ‘Madden’ line of football games. 


Mentioned in the IR4 podcast was Twitch. Twitch was actually acquired by Amazon (AMZN). Through Amazon Web Services they can not be overlooked, as they have become a cloud computing giant, and Amazon is a mainstream vehicle to get involved with ESports. 


Fijian e-Gaming Tournament Group is partnering with AsuraCoin, currently in ICO, to be the token for payments to their tournament winners.


Unikrn has the UnicoinGold (UKG) betting token… and if people bet on conventional sports, then of course betting on eSports and gaming is to follow in big numbers. 


Skincoin (SKIN) allows gamers a medium-of-exchange to customize characters and buy upgrades…. and obviously these in-game items have a monetary value attached, as we heard from the guy at Eat n Park. 


Decentraland (MANA) is a virtual reality platform of the Ethereum blockchain. Virtual Reality. 


Enjin (ENJ) is a cryptocurrency for virtual goods. 


GameCredits (GAME) has a decentralized platform for developers to reach gamers, and also is trying to become the sole payment system for internet gaming. Imagine having an application on Google Play or Apple…then cut out the middle man Google and Apple…that is what is meant by a decentralized platform for developers.


There are a lot of eSports and gaming options above, so you have your work cut out for you in determining which are the right investments for you. Also, many of these are competing against each other, so in some cases, a company or coin can lose to another while the overall industry takes off.

I will link a few more links here of some pages I ran across while compiling this eSports and gaming article… this one touches on WAX, CHIMAERA (not the metal band), DreamTeam, First Blood, HunterCoin, Skrilla, and BitQuest. And here is a HUGE LIST of ESports and gaming coins. Also, Steve Bannon was recently pointed out as having in a stake in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and in that article it is mentioned how he was involved with the Gaming Industry before he was involved in President Trump’s candidacy. So this industry has been around, and is still growing.

Above are a few plays you can look at if you want to take advantage of the rise of eSports and gaming. Is there something you think needs to be listed here? Please sound off below. Thanks for spending your time here. I know our time is limited and I appreciate that you chose this page on which to spend it.



from Novus Ordo Watch

“Cardinal” Pietro Parolin on official attendee list

Vatican Secretary of State to attend Bilderberg Conference

[UPDATE 15-JUN-2018: Vatican Spokesman explains why Parolin attended Bilderberg]

This is a difficult topic to write about without having half of all readers immediately run away screaming, “conspiracy nuts!” We have no choice but to take this risk because the issue is too serious to ignore, and facts are facts. (For a sobering reality check on what sundry Popes have said about certain conspiracies against the Catholic Church, please see here.)

The official web site of the notorious globalist Bilderberg Conference has released its participants listfor this year’s meeting, which is scheduled for June 7-10 and will be held at the NH Lingotto hotel in Turin, Italy. Until recently, the attendee lists for these annual top-secret meetings of the world’s elite were always kept highly confidential, and it was only through leaked copies that the outside world could be informed of who was attending (aside from reporters of alternative media trying to identify individuals as they made their way to the conference, as can be seen here, for example [you’ll want to mute the video due to use of profanity]).

This year, the official participants list includes a name of particular significance: “Cardinal” Pietro Parolin of Vatican City. Parolin is the Vatican Secretary of State, which means he is “Pope” Francis’ right-hand man. He is second only to Francis himself in terms of importance and influence in the Vatican II Sect. This is the first time, as far as we know, that a member of the Modernist pseudo-Catholic church has been invited to participate in a Bilderberg meeting. “…[S]ome say [Parolin] will deliver a secret message written by Pope Francis to his minions”, writes Leo Zagami in a post covering this news story.

Those who are not familiar with the topic of the Bilderbergers may not grasp how significant Parolin’s attendance is, so a little background is in order.


The first Bilderberg meeting took place in 1954 at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands (hence the nickname for the group). An official web site for the Bilderberg Conference has only existed since 2010. Before then, an official web presence would have been unthinkable, as the very existence of the Bilderberg Conference had long been firmly denied by those involved and there has always been a complete and total ban of any media coverage (which is why you never heard about these conferences from your mainstream news source). Thus very few people are aware that all of the following high-profile individuals have secretly participated in the Bilderberg Conference at one time or another: Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Ben Bernanke, George H. W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and many others.

Despite the strict prohibition of media coverage, a few courageous people (such as investigative journalist Daniel Estulin) have long tried to discover and report on whatever they could about conference locations, attendees, and topics, and about the nature and goals of the Bilderberg group. With the complete blackout of mainstream media coverage, anyone who insisted that the secret Bilderberg meetings were real were naturally always ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists.” With the rise of alternative media, however, the policy of complete secrecy became increasingly difficult to maintain, and for this reason it seems the Bilderbergers have judged it more prudent now to publish an official web site, announce the conference and its participants, and act as though the annual meetings were simply an innocuous “forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America”, as their home page claims.

So now in 2018, “Cardinal” Parolin will be the first guest from Vatican City to ever attend a Bilderberg Conference. Appropriately, it is the 66th such meeting. What’s surprising here is not so much that a representative from the Vatican II Church would participate in such a gathering, but that we’re at a point now where they are not even concerned about having his name show up on an officially-released attendee list of such a covert, conspiratorial, and anti-Catholic enterprise.

People who are interested in finding out more about the highly secretive Bilderberg conferences and their nefarious aims are encouraged to do a little bit of their own resarch on the internet. YouTube in particular will prove very useful in this regard, as video footage always speaks louder than words on a page. The following resources will also prove helpful:

“For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God” (Jn 3:20-21).

For next year’s conference, perhaps Francis himself will show up.