Islam's Fifth Column: Western liberals

by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 31, 2017

By the term "fifth column" is meant "any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation." That describes perfectly the role of Western liberalism — including, one must say, the current Vatican apparatus — in its endless apologia for Islamism. Contrary to all the principles it professes, the liberal-mediatic complex not only refuses to see or hear any evil where Islam is concerned, but further demands nothing less than the Islamicization of the entire Western world through mass Muslim migration.

Yet inherent to Islam is a twisted, positively barbaric ethical code that treats women like chattel; legalizes domestic violence and even rape; mandates genital mutilation; sanctions "honor killings" to avenge male pride, the death penalty for apostasy and the summary execution of homosexuals by throwing them from the tops of buildings; and in general seeks to impose the regime of Sharia law under which all manner of male perversity is legally protected and women have the status of second-class citizens. And this evil regime is no mere artifact of "radical Islam" but rather is basic to the juridical makeup of Islamic nations, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. 

Islam, in short, represents every horror the Western liberal feverishly imagines to exist in "male-dominated" Western societies. Yet the liberal mind refuses to admit any criticism of the religion founded by perhaps the greatest "male chauvinist pig" in world history: Mohammed.

Why? John Zmirak has written an important article on this seeming paradox, reflecting the conclusion I myself have expressed in various forums. That conclusion is obvious enough: liberals defend Islam because Islam is the historic enemy of Christianity, which liberals despise more than anything on the face of this earth. With the connivance of its liberal fifth column, Islam is now in the process of achieving the eradication of Western Christianity it was prevented from achieving by the constant and often miraculous opposition of the Catholic Church — from the centuries-long reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula beginning in 718, to the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, to the Battle of Vienna in 1683. 

All of this, Zmirak writes, is explained by "an old and miserable saying: 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'." That is, liberal affinity for Islam serves the liberal jihad against what –

"leftists, feminists, and 'Mainline' Christians who back them have identified [as] the enemy. It is orthodox Christianity and the society which it built up in the West. That includes bourgeois society, private property, the traditional family, and the market economy. And there is literally nothing on earth that today's left hates more than traditional Western society. When modern progressives watch Father Knows Best they get the same chills as we do from Schindler's List."

Nothing else but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could explain why Western liberalism operates as the Islamic fifth column. As Zmirak puts it: "If your main goal in life is tearing down the traditional West, to repay it for past grievances, then Islam can be your best ally. It's the Red Army that can march into Nazi Berlin — which is on some level how you imagine America. So keep on importing millions of angry young Muslims into Western countries. Keep demonizing those who criticize Islam."

Incredibly enough, today we witness the spectacle of no less than a Pope who incessantly agitates precisely for the mass importation "of angry young Muslims into Western countries" while demonizing those who would strictly limit their immigration. This is a mystery of iniquity to take its place alongside all the others that are contributing to the current unparalleled ecclesial crisis.

Writing in 1951, a mere twelve years before the Second Vatican Council abruptly abandoned the Church's age-old opposition to the errors of Mohammed, Pope Pius XII issued this warning:

"Venerable Brethren, you are well aware that almost the whole human race is today allowing itself to be driven into two opposing camps, for Christ or against Christ. The human race is involved today in a supreme crisis, which will issue in its salvation by Christ, or in its dire destruction."

It is precisely this crisis of which the Mother of God Herself warned when She came to Fatima — the place named after a Muslim convert to the faith — almost exactly a century ago.

Bergoglio was named "Pope Sheikh" by Muslim Leaders who reject Jesus Christ.

Apostasy and cultural Marxism.

Romereports 2017-03-29: "We are brothers and, as brothers, we are all different and all the same. Like the fingers on a hand: there are five fingers, all are fingers, but all different."

"Pray for me."

He gave and received many signs of affection, like this Koran or this garment usually worn by sheikhs.

"This is a symbol... given to the sheikhs. So they call you Pope Sheikh."

"Did you just give me an upgrade?"

 The Muslim pope
The Muslim pope has a new title “pope sheik!” Bergoglio said to the Muslim Leaders who reject Jesus Christ: I am being promoted in category. 

L'Osservatore Romano

John 5:43
I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. 

‘I’m not going to modify basic biology’ that threatens ‘subjective’ reality: Ben Shapiro destroys transgender arguments.

Speaking at Ferris State University, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro took on transgenderism and pro-abortion advocates in the Q&A after the speech, crushing their arguments in the process. 

Young woman: How do you say that some people don’t have real privilege when you basically just said that trans people aren’t valid, they’re not a thing, they’re just boys pretending to be girls or girls pretending to be boys? Gender is a completely different thing.

Shapiro: No. Gender is not disconnected from sex. So –

Young woman: It’s not completely disconnected, but it’s still a cultural thing, it’s still a problem in society, it’s still in the mind.

Shapiro: No, it is not in the mind, okay. You’re not a man if you think you’re a man. I didn’t say “pretending,” or if I did, I shouldn’t have said “pretending,” let me amend –

Young woman: You said, “playing.”

Shapiro: I said, “A boy who thinks he’s a girl.” That’s the usual phraseology I use; not “playing.” I usually say, “A boy who thinks he’s a girl” or “a girl who thinks she’s a boy.,” which is technically what we’re talking about here. As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I’m not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. You’re still a human being, and you’re a human being with an issue then I wish you Godspeed in dealing with it in any whatever way you see fit, but if you’re going to dictate to me that I’m supposed to pretend, I’m supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I’m not going to- I’m not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are.

Young woman: Okay, but you’re still saying that these kids should like, not be accepted because they don’t really fit in either place? They can’t just like—

Shapiro: I’m saying that the Boy Scouts have a standard. You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.

Young woman: Where is that written, though?

Shapiro: In the name, “Boy Scouts.” Because for all of human history, boy meant boy and girl meant girl. Boy did not mean girl.

Young Woman: It’s 2017, though.

Shapiro: If I call you a moose, are you suddenly a moose? If I redefine our terms –

Young woman: That’s a completely different thing.

Shapiro: Yes, that’s right. Men and women are a completely different thing. This is true. Have you ever met a man or a woman? They are completely different.

Young woman: It’s a completely different thing . . . It’s not a thing; it’s a gender.

Shapiro: I don’t understand. Let me ask you this. I won’t ask you how old – I will ask you how old you are, because you’re young enough that it’s probably not insulting to ask you.

Young woman: I’m 22, so I’m probably a little bit naïve, right?

Shapiro: No. Why aren’t you 60? Why aren’t you 60? Why can’t you identify as 60? What is the problem with you identifying as 60?

Young woman: It’s not the same as gender, you can’t just –

Shapiro: You’re right. Age is significantly less important than gender. You can’t magically change your gender, You can’t magically change your sex. You can’t magically change your age.

Young woman: You can still legally change it; people will recognize –

Shapiro: You can’t legally change your age, by the way.

Young woman: Obviously. You can change your name; you can change your sex; you can change your identity.

Shapiro: Just because you can do things legally doesn’t mean that they are correct biologically. You could do lots of things in the past that were incorrect biologically but correct legally. For a long period of time in the United States, sterilization of the mentally ill took place; that didn’t make it okay; Skinner vs. Oklahoma, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision.

Young woman: Right. I just still don’t understand why . . .

Shapiro: It’s not a matter of open-minded and accepting; I want them to get the treatment that they see fit. The idea behind the transgender movement as a civil rights movement is the idea that all of their problems would just go away if I would pretend that they were the sex to which they claim membership. That’s nonsense. The transgender suicide rate is 40 percent. It is 40 percent. According to the Anderson School at UCLA, it makes no difference – there’s a study that came out last year – it makes no difference, virtually no difference statistically speaking, as to whether people recognize you as a transgender person or not, which suggests there’s a very high comorbidity between transgenderism, whatever that mental state may be, and suicidality, that has nothing to do with how society treats you.

Young woman: Do you think it could be that they are bullied at school?

Shapiro: First of all, I’m against bullying of any sort. The idea that somebody would beat somebody up is terrible. As somebody who was viciously bullied in high school I’m not a fan of bullying. The normal suicide rate across the United States is four percent; the suicide rate in the transgender community is 40 percent. The idea that 36 percent more transgender people are committing suicide because people are mean to them is ridiculous. It’s not true, and it’s not backed by any science that anyone can cite. It is pure conjecture. In fact, it is not even true that bullying causes suicide, according to a lot of studies. For example, in the black community, where the idea is supposedly that America is a racist society, blacks are bullied a lot; in the black community, the black community has significantly lower suicide rates than the white community. In fact, in third world countries, the suicide rate is significantly lower than in first world countries. Suicide actually seems to be a privilege of the upper classes, if you actually look at it from a financial perspective. So the idea that suicidality is directly a result of people like me saying, “No. Men are not women and women are not men," it’s not true.

Young woman: So you think it doesn’t impact their identity at all, their depression or how they feel about themselves?

Shapiro: I think the idea that you’re going to sacrifice the entire society’s proper definition of sex because you think that there is, in legal terms, somebody with an “eggshell skull,” meaning somebody who has a preexisting condition that makes them more susceptible to criticism, that that is not a way to run a society. You can’t sacrifice truth because some people are going to actually suffer because of the truth. Plus, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the suicide rate would go down in the transgender community in any marked way, if people just started pretending that men are women and women are men. We’re trying that experiment now; we’ll find out whether it works. So far, no evidence.

Young woman: Have you talked to a group of trans people, instead of this group, like, white people?

Shapiro: I’m more than happy to talk to a group of any people if they’ll have me, but usually they protest me.

The Marxist apostate Bergoglio maliciously calls woman with sex-change operation a ‘man’ and calls partners ‘married’ 

The gay prime minister of Luxembourg and his partner, were welcomed by Bergoglio, and they felt honored.

On March 24, Bergoglio met with 27 leaders of the world to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. 

Xavier Bettel, is a  known pro-sodomy activist, said on his Twitter account that it was an honor for him to have been received with his gay partner, Gauthier, by the "Leader of the Catholic Church". Xavier and Gauthier have been confirmed by Bergoglio himself in the Vice of Sodomy.

The left-winger Pablo Iglesias  shared on his Twitter account the  photo of the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel. Pablo Iglesias showing that Bergoglio and the current vatican leadership supports the Vice of sodomy.

 

Paris Conference Explores Question of Deposing the "Pope".

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.    March 16, 2017

PARIS (ChurchMilitant.com) - An upcoming gathering of canon lawyers, theologians and scholars will explore the extraordinary question of the mechanisms for deposing a pope. Titled "Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenges," the conference is inspired by the recently published book by Laurent Fonbaustier, "The Deposition of the Heretical Pope."

The pope is not judged by anyone — unless he deviates from the Faith.

Sponsored by several French universities, including the Sorbonne, the itinerary will include 15 speakers offering talks on topics like "Conciliarism and the Deposition of a Pope Through the Prism of Gallicanism," "The Downfall of the Pope: Between Renunciation and Deposition," and "The Deposition of John XXIII and Benedict XIII at Constance, 1415–1417." 

Fonbaustier's book itself was inspired by a renewed interest in Gratian's decretal: "The pope is not judged by anyone — unless he deviates from the Faith."

The site of the conference is significant: It was in the 1300s that the University of Paris explored the question of the possibly heretical Pope John XXII. A debate erupted over the primacy of the pope, with some scholars issuing the Defensor Paces, which argued that all Church power, including that of the pope, must be subject to the State. The document was anathematized by papal bull in 1327, condemned by the University of Paris, with theologians defending the primacy of the pope. 

As explained by Deacon Nick Donnelly,

Determined to meet the challenge of Pope John XXII's error head on, King Philip VI called a meeting of the theological faculty of the University of Paris. On December 19, 1333 a commission of 23 masters of theology assembled under the presidency of the Dominican patriarch of Jerusalem, Peter de la Palud, and in the presence of the kings of France and Navarre, and many bishops, priests, and lay faithful. They unanimously declared their firm belief in established and continual Catholic teaching on the righteous soul's immediate reward of the Beatific Vision on death and individual judgment. 
The commission drew up a profession of faith which they signed, and submitted to Pope John XXII. The profession of faith was accompanied with a letter to the Holy Father which was polite and respectful, but also expressed clearly and firmly the result of their deliberations. They reminded Pope John XXII that he had declared that he had spoken as an individual theologian, not as Head of the Church infallibly defining a doctrine. They also expressed the hope that the Holy Father would give his apostolic sanction to their decision.

Pope John XXII ultimately withdrew his heretical views after the demand for a retraction.

Two of the speakers at the upcoming conference include Professors Nicolas Warembourg and Cyrille Dounot, who signed a letter in June 2016 along with other scholars offering a theological critique of Amoris Laetitia, the pope's apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family. The cover letter read:

As Catholic theologians and philosophers, church historians and pastors of souls, we are writing to you in your capacity as Dean of the College of Cardinals to request that the College of Cardinals and the Patriarchs of the Catholic Church take collective action to respond to the dangers to Catholic faith and morals posed by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia issued by Pope Francis on March 19th 2016. This apostolic exhortation contains a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals. We have specified the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia in the accompanying document. We request that the Cardinals and Patriarchs petition the Holy Father to condemn the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true. 

Dr. Joseph Shaw, spokesman for the group, later issued a letter in December, signed by 23 scholars, supporting the dubia cardinals.

"As Catholic scholars and pastors of souls, we wish to express our profound gratitude and full support for the courageous initiative of four members of the College of Cardinals, Their Eminences Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner," the statement, released on December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, began.

Shaw spoke with Church Militant at the time. "[W]hat we are facing today is open and official disunity of belief and Communion," he remarked. "Bishops and bishops' conferences are drawing up public guidelines on the basis of incompatible theological principles, and are openly and systematically admitting or refusing to admit to Communion completely different groups of people."

The barque of Peter is drifting perilously like a ship without a rudder, and indeed, shows symptoms of incipient disintegration.

The dubia, or questions, issued to the Holy Father in September by the four cardinals, come in light of confusion from Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, particularly paragraphs 300–305, used by liberal bishops to promote opening up the sacraments to the divorced and civilly remarried, among other things, contrary to longstanding Church teaching and practice. Currently, multiple dioceses have issued contradictory guidelines implementing the apostolic exhortation.

The letter signed by 23 scholars sounds an ominous warning about the future of the Church.

With the reigning Pontiff now sounding a very uncertain trumpet in this battle against the "principalities and powers" of the Enemy, the barque of Peter is drifting perilously like a ship without a rudder, and indeed, shows symptoms of incipient disintegration. In such a situation, we believe that all Successors of the Apostles have a grave and pressing duty to speak out clearly and strongly in confirmation of the moral teachings clearly expounded in the magisterial teachings of previous popes and the Council of Trent. 

The conference on deposing the pope will take place March 30–31 at the Center for Law and Religious Societies of the Legal Faculty Jean-Monnet of the University Paris-Sud in Sceaux, a suburb of Paris. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Comment: In a secular world a person takes a position of trust. During the initial background check everything is acceptable. If it is learned that said person materially misrepresented who they are...felon, falsify experience, etc can lose their job. If it is discovered they won office based upon material deception and cheating the system the election can be declared invalid and the person removed from office. In the same way, a person who assumes an ecclesiastical position where they have deviated from the faith and fallen into formal heresy, as established by the Magisterium of the Church should have their election invalidated. 

In Bergoglio´s case:
1- He is a member of the Rotary Masonic Club since 1999.
2- He allowed adoption by many same sex couples.
3- He was a member of the Saint Gallen mafia.
4- Allowed Holy Communion while in Argentina to knowing adulteres and sodomites. 

5. Protected pedophile priests (Here) and (Here), 
6. His heretic Book Encourages Priests To Leave The Priesthood If They Fall In Love,  
7.A former student of Bergoglio who is gay said that he owes him his open and progressive thinking,  

8. The Superior General of the Jesuits does not recommend Bergoglio be made Bishop, for having an unbalanced personality, 
9. He promoted the Heresy religious indifferentism & syncretism: Recommended as exorcist a Lutheran, 
10. He supported the use of condoms, 
11. His close relationship with Marxism, Bergoglio buried Marxists, pro-abortionists, Communists atheists, Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, in the church grounds (in the garden of the Santa Cruz church),  etc. 

 
Jorge Mario Bergolio must be investigated. He had a history that was covered up but the evidence showing otherwise is readily available. He should never have been elected. He should have been investigated as Cardinal if not sooner about his actions against the Church.

Vatican pro-life academy’s founding members blast new President’s X-rated mural as ‘demonic,’ ‘disgusting’

March 15, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) --
Pete Baklinski Wed Mar 15, 2017 - 2:03 pm EST

A large homoerotic mural commissioned by a leading Vatican prelate at his former Italian cathedral church is coming under strong criticism from Catholic leaders, including founding members of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, a pro-family Catholic medical doctor, and a renowned Catholic artist and author. 

Critics are saying the work commissioned by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia is "blasphemous," "disgusting," and even "demonic."

“There is a need for reparation for this blasphemous work. And it is blasphemy because of the effeminate depiction of Christ in a context that the artist himself said was meant to be ‘erotic,’” said Dr. Thomas Ward, president of the National Association of Catholic Families and former corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. 

“It is especially insulting that this image is in the presence of the tabernacle, in the presence of Our Blessed Lord. It is no stretch to say that in this context, and with the image’s clearly erotic content, it is demonic,” he told LifeSiteNews. 

Paglia, former bishop of the Italian diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia where the mural hangs in the cathedral, has been elevated to influential levels of responsibility. 

After serving as President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Pope Francis appointed him last year to head the Pontifical Academy for Life and also made him Grand Chancellor of the St. John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family. As the former head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, he oversaw the development and launch of a sex-ed course for teens that experts criticized as “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.”

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, tasked by Pope Francis to create a sex-ed program for teens. 

Paglia commissioned homosexual Argentinean Ricardo Cinalli to paint the cathedral mural in 2007. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.

READ: Vatican archbishop featured in homoerotic painting he commissioned

Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March 2016 that the archbishop oversaw every detail of the work.

“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” he said. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.” 

The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.

In one instance, one male can be seen with his hand between another male’s legs groping his reproductive organ. 

Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. Wearing his skull cap, he is depicted as clutching another semi-nude man who is tenderly embracing him. 

Cinalli told La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets were meant to be “erotic,” although Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating.

“In this case, there was not – in this sense – a sexual intention, but erotic, yes,” Cinalli said. “I think that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.” He later added, “The one thing that they didn’t permit me to insert was the copulation of two people within this net where everything is permitted.”

Dr. Ward questioned Paglia’s recent appointments to influential posts within the Vatican given his artistic sensibilities. 

“Given that Archbishop Paglia is in the net of erotic figures going to heaven, and given that he discussed every detail with the painter, the question has to be asked by parents worldwide why was this man put in charge of a prototype of sex education aimed at Catholic children throughout the world?” he said. 

“Catholic parents must look at the scale of evil [that has infiltrated the Church at the highest levels]. They have to wake up to what is going on: It’s a moral nuclear wasteland,” he added.  

Christine Vollmer, president of the Latin American Alliance for the Family as well as a founding member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, called the mural “disgusting.” 

“This work is absolutely disgusting,” she told LifeSiteNews. “Added to this scandal is the huge debt Bishop Paglia allegedly left in his diocese. Given this, along with his elevation to key posts in the Church, it’s obvious that this man has high-ranking protection at the Vatican.”

Vollmer agreed with Ward that Paglia should not have been allowed anywhere near the creation of a program intended to form teens in Catholic sexual morality. 
Under Paglia’s oversight, the program — titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People” — uses sexually explicit and suggestive images in activity workbooks and recommends various sexually explicit, R-rated movies as springboards for discussion. 
“It’s incredible that Paglia was tasked with overseeing a sex-ed program given his involvement in this work and his own self-portrait in it,” she said. 
On December 31, 2016 the Academy for Life under Paglia's watch unexpectedly removed all of its members, listing instead 172 "former" members. The move came after Pope Francis had approved new statutes for the academy two months earlier. One revision included that academy members are no longer required to sign a declaration that they uphold the Church’s pro-life teachings.
Mercedes Arzú Wilson, president of Family of the Americas and also a founding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that Academy for Life founders Pope John Paul II and Professor Jerome Lejeune would be “scandalized and distraught” to see Paglia as head. 
Wilson said it is “incomprehensible” that Pope Francis appointed Paglia not only as head of the Academy for Life but also as the Grand Chancellor of the Saint John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. She also called it “scandalous” that he was selected to oversee the launching of the Vatican sex-education course for teens, a course that she said is “repulsive and destructive to the innocence of children” as well as “contrary to the true teachings of the Catholic Church.”
“I hope that Pope Francis will reconsider the appointment of Archbishop Paglia before it becomes another scandal to his Pontificate,” she told LifeSiteNews. 
Catholic artist and author Michael D. O’Brien criticized the mural for giving the viewer the “false message” that “all sexual activity, regardless of how depraved, is blessed by God.” 
He gave LifeSiteNews the following commentary on the work: 

Ricardo Cinalli is undoubtedly talented, revealing strong influences of Dali, Picasso, and Michelangelo, a mixture of Surrealist and Renaissance styles stirred into the contemporary obsession with sexuality. In the great majority of his work, the nude, including graphic depictions of sexual activities, is primary. 
In the mural at the Cathedral of Terni the theme appears at first glance to be Christ as divine fisherman, ascending into heaven with nets containing the souls of grave sinners — a legitimate theme, if one considers Mary Magdalen and numerous saints before their conversions. 
However, in this mural the entangled male and female forms, young and old, are broadcasting significant signals that they live in the darkest depths of human sexuality, in a variety of "lifestyle choices,” some tattooed with diabolic symbols. They are being taken upward by the Christ figure to paradise with no apparent signs of repentance. 

O’Brien suggested that the work leads the viewer to see the human person simply as a sexual being created for sexual pleasure, not as an embodied spiritual being who has been created and redeemed to share in God’s own life. 
He commented: 

Unlike the past masters of religious art who have painted the nude — one thinks of Massacio's "Expulsion from Paradise" or Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" — in Cinalli's work the human body and sexuality are paramount, and redemption is merely the excuse or the costume in which it dresses for the performance of the artist's real intention: Everyone is loved by God and therefore all sexual activity, regardless of how depraved, is blessed by God. 
This false message is in direct contradiction to the urgent imperatives of Sacred Scripture. It also violates the norms outlined by St. John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, in which he devotes a significant section to nudity in art. The dignity of the human person, he emphasizes, must always be respected by both artist and viewer, and any depiction of the naked human body should lead to the contemplation of the whole truth about man — his eternal value. The problem of pornography in the modern age, John Paul II writes, must be assessed according to Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, about purity of heart and about its opposite, adultery of the heart. [See Theology of the Body, General Audiences, 29 April 1981, and 6 May 1981]

O’Brien called Cinalli's mural “neo-pornography thinly disguised by its apparent religious theme.”
“It is not about divine mercy. Nor is it about the inherent dignity of humanity in its masculine and feminine forms. It is the misuse of art as socio-political, sexual propaganda,” he said.

Bergoglio desecrated the Basilica of St. Peter.

Bergoglio is complicit with the heretical Anglicans desecrated the Basilica of St. Peter’s by hosting an Anglican liturgy in the Basilica. He has risen above the Magisterium and disobeys it openly, acting according to his own will as if the Church were his property and not Jesus Christ.  He does not obey God but does his own will. Bergoglio rebels against God just as King Saul disobeyed God. Bergoglio destroys the Holy Mass, replacing it with these ecumenical rituals   which promotes the heresy of religious indifferentism. 

Bergoglio 26 February 2017: But to send them to see, to learn from the young Churches would be a great richness in the sense you said. Ecumenism is easier there, it’s easier, something that does not mean <it’s> more superficial, no, no, it’s not superficial. They don’t negotiate the faith and <their> identity. In the north of Argentina, an aborigine says to you: “I’m Anglican.” But the bishop is not here, the Pastor is not here, the Reverend is not here . . .  “I want to praise God on Sunday and so I go to the Catholic Cathedral,” and vice versa. They are riches of the young Churches. I don’t know, this is what comes to me to say to you.

 Saint Cyprian of Carthage – Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined with an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church.
Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 , Apostolicae Curae: Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”

Pope Leo XIII

• It breaks away from the Apostolic succession

In the rite of conferring and administering any sacrament one rightly distinguishes between the ceremonial part and the essential part, which is customarily called the matter and form. […] Now, the words which until recent times were everywhere held by the Anglicans as the proper form of priestly ordination, namely, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ certainly do not in the least signify definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power, which is especially the power ‘of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord,’ in that sacrifice which is no ‘nude commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross’ [see n. 950]. Such a form was indeed afterwards lengthened by these words, ‘for the office and work of a priest’; but this rather convinces one that the Anglicans themselves saw that this first form was defective, and not appropriate to the matter. But the same addition, if perchance indeed it could have placed legitimate significance on the form, was introduced too late, since a century had elapsed after the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; since, moreover, with the extinction of the hierarchy, there was now no power for ordaining. (Denzinger-Hünermann 3315-3316. Leo XIII, Letter Apostolicae curae – On the Nullity of Anglican Orders, September 13, 1896)

Anglican Communion News Service: "The Church universal needs Anglicans" - Pope Francis

With this heretical belief of Bergoglio about the Anglicans, he contradicts the profession of faith of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, for which Jorge Bergoglio is not in full communion with the true Catholic Church.

On “the degraded Vatican culture”

by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 9, 2017

Beloved by the powers of this world, Francis has just made the cover of Rolling Stone magazine — the leading publication of the degenerate “rock culture” — for the second time. This time it’s the Italian edition, with a cover story under the headline “Francesco — Pop Pope.”



The “Pop Pope” has surrounded himself with an entourage of radical progressives whose candid photos tell us volumes about the character of the Church’s leadership under Francis. Let us examine a sampling of this strange gallery of ecclesial power-wielders:

Then there is Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, now head of the neutralized Pontifical Council for Life, who, as I discussed here, commissioned a blasphemous and obscene mural for the cathedral of his former diocese, featuring himself and one “Father Fabio” in the hideous work:

Every one of the prelates depicted, dutifully citing Amoris Laetitia (AL) as sole authority, supports the overthrow in practice of the teaching of John Paul II and all of Tradition on the impossibility of Holy Communion for people living in adultery. And every one of them has been elevated to a new level of prominence and authority by none other than the “Pop Pope.” 

Perhaps it suffices simply to look at the photos above to realize that the Church is now in grave danger from much of its own leadership, particularly within the Vatican apparatus. But concerning Paglia in particular, the always-insightful Maureen Mullarkey draws a larger lesson from the mural affair. She writes:

“Paglia’s narcissism — the urge to flaunt his liberation from the moral considerations he is pledged to honor — is stunning. It is a finger in the eye of congregants who trust in a priest’s fidelity to his vows. To place it in a public house of worship is treachery. It is also a declaration of Paglia’s own trust in his immunity from reprimand….”

Note well the phrase “immunity from reprimand.” Paglia, rainbow-colored sunglasses and all, knows quite well that his outrages will have no consequences, but on the contrary will be rewarded with power and influence. And this, Mullarkey notes, indicates a far deeper, endemic problem: “Ultimately, the core of the issue here is not about a mural at all. Not substantially. Nor is it even about Archbishop Paglia. It is about a degraded Vatican culture which props up a man like Paglia, awarding him authority when he should be handed sackcloth and ashes and packed off to a hermitage.”

We are witnessing at this very moment in history precisely the unparalleled crisis foretold in the Third Secret of Fatima, whose undisclosed portion was revealed in part by Benedict XVI in answer to a question concerning the Third Secret he himself had selected beforehand:

“As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope (Benedict XVI) and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church…”