Sinful Habits

Antipope Francis is praising American nuns, after a two year investigation came to a close. According to Seattle Pi,
Pope Francis has praised the role of women in Catholic theology, extolling what he called their “feminine genius,” describing them as “strawberries on the cake” and talking about a “specific contribution of women to the intelligence of the faith.”

The report, issued on December 16, was resoundingly positive and was well received by the "Leadership Conference of Women Religious" (LCWR). Anyone who hasn't had their head buried like an ostrich knows that what passes for a "nun" in the Vatican II sect these days is a radical feminist who is religiously humanistic, sociologically Marxist, and politically socialist (at best). 

 Prior to Vatican II there were approximately 180,000 nuns in the U.S. Today, there are roughly 57,000, a decrease of over 67%. When Ratzinger was Antipope, there were stern criticisms of nuns in this country. He wouldn't actually DO anything, but he did like to keep a façade of some sort of Catholicism. Not so Mr. Bergoglio. He praises the most vile elements in his sect. 

What's wrong with the Vatican II nuns? I'll spell it out since the report chose to cover it up:

1. Support of abortion, homosexuality, and the Democratic party in the name of "social justice"

The so-called "Nuns on the Bus" traveled around in 2012 to ostensibly raise awareness of the needs of the poor. They condemned then Vice-Presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, for making budget cuts to social programs. Ryan strongly identifies himself with the Catholic (Vatican II sect) religion. However, they had no criticism of Vice-President Joe Biden, who also receives the invalid Vatican II "communion" while vigorously promoting a budget with money to kill unborn babies by abortion. Biden also supports sodomite "marriage."

The National Coalition of Nuns (NCAN) has gone on record supporting the abortion/contraceptive mandate in Obamacide. NCAN's leader, Catholic Nun Donna Quinn, has openly stated she has taken women for abortions in the past, but exclaimed in 2012 that she leads a “very, very holy” life. The group claims to have “over 2,000 members” and says “a woman cannot have full autonomy unless she has Reproductive Autonomy.”

2. Alignment with heretical doctrines, "theologians," and Wicca

According to Robert Eady:

Straightforward Wicca or the similar but theologically more ambiguous WomanChurch have moved into many areas of the Catholic Church through feminist "theologians," feminist-inspired local activists and disgruntled nuns. 

 If there were any doubts .... that religious feminists had run amok in the Church, they were dispelled when faithful Catholic women found items in the (liturgy) kit's bibliography written by pro-abortion feminist nuns. Today almost every conservative Catholic publication has featured a horror story of some form of witchcraft or earth-goddess-inspired liturgy being performed in some Catholic Church in some large North American city.

Two of the most influential "Catholic" Wiccan, or WomanChurch figures to be found opposing the Church today are Mary Daly and Rosemary Radford Ruether.

Ex-nun Mary Daly teaches lesbian witchcraft. She has written several books, including the anti-male and anti-Catholic Beyond God the Father and. Wickedary, a dictionary of sorts for witches. In Wickedary Daly defines the Beatific Vision as: "the 'face to face' vision of god in patriarchal heaven promised as a reward to good Christians; an afterlife of perpetual Boredom: union/ copulation with the 'Divine Essence'; the final consummate union of the Happy Dead Ones with the Supreme Dead One."

Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, an influential speaker and writer who authored Sexism and God-Talk, was named to the overtly pro-abortion Catholics for Free Choice board back in 1985.

In true gnostic style, Reuther has described the "patriarchal" Church as an "idol of masculinity" to be broken up and ground into powder.

Typical of most WomanChurch feminists, Ruether has no problem defying Church teaching on homosexuality. In 1985, when promoting her soon-to-be-released Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities, Ruether promised a feminist largely "Catholic" audience that one chapter would contain "liturgies for healing" from painful experiences "such as coming out as a lesbian. Not that being a lesbian is unnatural, but that the way we've been repressed by homophobia is unnatural." At this same gathering she urged participants to establish female "base communities," "Women-Church groups," or "covens." (See http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=611) Mr.Eady unfortunately believes the Vatican II sect to be the Catholic Church, but his analysis of the sect's nuns is right on target---Introibo. 

This is what received praise from the antipope. The "strawberries" are really nuts; the icing on a Devil's Food Cake full of spiritual poison for those involved. It doesn't take a genius (feminine or otherwise) to see that, Francis. 

Brainwashed Into Modernism

"Bishop" Nicholas DiMarzio, is the Vatican II sect leader of the formerly Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn since 2003. Like "Pope" Francis, he is neither a validly ordained priest, nor validly consecrated bishop. He is, however, a Modernist through and through. The diocese ( the only one in the U.S. entirely within the political confines of one city) was known for its large, beautiful and elaborate Churches that inspired many people and produced numerous vocations.

 Originally comprised of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, as well as Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, Pope Pius XII erected the Diocese of Rockville Centre in 1957. This new diocese took away Nassau and Suffolk from the Brooklyn Diocese which was now completely within the confines of NYC. In 1968, Brooklyn got its first invalidly consecrated  "bishop" in the person of Fr. Francis Mugavero. He was "gay friendly" as was the second "bishop" of Rockville Centre, the also invalidly consecrated (1971) John McGann.

 The two dioceses shared one seminary out on Long Island, Immaculate Conception Seminary, which was loaded with young men studying for the priesthood. By the late 1970s, Immaculate Conception was known as the "pink palace" due to the few men left, almost all of whom were sodomites. The seminarians were compelled to attend the services of Jews, Protestants, and Hindus to see the "goodness" they possess in the name of ecumenism. The seminary library was renamed in honor of Fr. George Tyrrell, a Modernist expelled from the Jesuits in 1906 for his heretical ideas and teachings. Tyrell was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, after he published two letters in the newspapers condemning St. Pius' great encyclical Pascendi. He died unrepentant in 1909 at age 48.

 McGann and Muguvero waged war on anything and anyone who retained the Catholic Faith. Both men threatened expulsion to any seminarian who would dare to attend Mass at the Ave Maria Chapel on Long Island led by the founder of the Traditionalist Movement, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw, who converted me to the Faith at age 16. Bp. Clarence Kelly, Superior General of the Society of St Pius V (SSPV) left Immaculate Conception Seminary in the late 1960s as the Modernism came in, and would be ordained a priest in 1973 by Abp. Lefebvre. In sum, if you were a sodomite that liked "Hindu spirituality" and believed in reincarnation, you'd make a great "priest."

 A couple of years ago, due to almost no seminarians left, the new Modernists in charge (William Murphy in Rockville Centre, and the aforementioned Nicholas DiMarzio) merged the few left with the seminary of the Archdiocese of New York, led by "Cardinal" Dolan. The former seminary is now used for formation of "permanent deacons" and "lay ministers." The laity and future  "deacons" are exposed to the same things that the seminarians had to endure. One diabolic method of destroying whatever faith may be left, is by means of a retreat known as a "Cursillo."

 The Movement began in Spain in 1944 and it was mostly propagated by a layman, Eduardo Bonnin. It seemed to "fly under the radar" for a while, as its propensity for Modernism was not readily perceived until after Vatican II when it was embraced. The Cursillo movement was forcefully condemned in 1972 by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil. It was Bp. de Castro Mayer who would join Abp. Lefebvre in 1988 as co-consecrator to produce four bishops for the continuation the work of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

 According to the National Cursillo Center website(www.cursillo.org), it defines the three day retreat as "a movement within the church that, through a method of its own tries to, and through God's grace manages to; enable the essential realities of the Christian to come to life in the uniqueness, originality, and creativity of each person."

 If you don't understand what that means, don't feel badly. Jabberwocky is the hallmark of Modernism. Although originally Roman Catholic, the techniques of the Cursillo have been used by multiple denominations, and have received scathing criticism. According to one Brian V. Jansenn, who has written for the Protestant magazine Christian Renewal, there are many and serious reasons to avoid a Cursillo. He attacks the Cursillo based on its techniques and effects.


I) Techniques


 According to Jansenn, "A sense of anticipation is created in the candidates as an aura of mystery surrounds the approaching weekend due to the enforced secrecy.  During the weekend itself candidates are exposed to emotional washing as they are run through a series of sudden and dramatic emotional shifts (the “surprises”).  The technique of love bombing is used as candidates are continually applauded, flattered, and pampered.  Strong peer pressure is exerted on them as the group direction, dominated by the numerous leaders present, is carefully steered toward the climax.  And there is a reversion to childhood:  candidates sit in table groups and draw posters with markers or crayons just like they did in elementary school, as a continual, silly, playful mood is fostered during the weekend. 

            We should mention also the unavoidable sleep deprivation, the withdrawal of familiar comforts and supports (no cell phones, only strangers in your table group, etc.), the loss of time consciousness (windows are covered, watches are confiscated, and no schedule is published), sensory over-stimulation (hugging, back rubs, close physical contact with strangers), and sometimes even dietary modifications resulting in a sugar high.   

            The purpose of these techniques is to keep the candidate disoriented and to break down their resistance and defense mechanisms.  And the goal of this disorientation and wearing down is to precipitate a cathartic experience.  A catharsis is a sudden discharge of pent-up emotions. 
For many, the weekend begins with a sense of dreading the unknown.  This is enhanced by the strange format and many surprises, by darkness and silence, and by moving and dramatic lectures and testimonies.  Eventually such emotion seeks release, and when the dam breaks and the feelings flow, usually through weeping, the resultant discharge often creates a strong sense of relief and euphoria, a “breakthrough.”  This is quickly redirected into exuberant joy, and the candidate is assured that they have had a powerful, religious experience.  Most often this translates into a new commitment to the Cursillo agenda, a close bonding with similarly-affected, fellow candidates, and a loyalty to and affection for the leaders."

II) Effects

 Again Jansenn reports, "The first long-term effect is that the experience tends to wear off.  Some will quickly dismiss it, but for others, this begins the quest for more and more emotional, weekend experiences:  usually a new pattern of attending frequent Cursillo weekends as a part of the team.  But this quest falls prey to the law of diminishing returns.  Subsequent experiences are not nearly so powerful, and eventually they have little or no emotional impact. 

            The weekend also tends to “spoil” the candidate.  Such a powerful experience is unlike anything else in life, and so normal life tends to lose its luster and seems flat and dissatisfying.  When this perspective is brought to the local church, the church is found wanting.  Church services cannot match the emotional high achieved during the weekend, and so the result is often a growing disaffection with and drifting away from the local church—a transfer of loyalty to the Cursillo community. 

            The weekend can also create a sense of spiritual superiority.  “If my local church never provided this deep, religious experience, and if my elders, pastor, or fellow church members have not been enriched as I have, then I must have advanced beyond them.”  This sense of superiority is exacerbated by the fact that candidates are sworn to secrecy.  They have become a part of the in-group, possessing special knowledge and experiences beyond those of the uninitiated.  And the inevitable result is a cliquishness, an affinity toward fellow Cursillo participants which transcends church membership and even family ties." (Underlined Emphasis mine).

 III) Use By Modernists

  Both DiMarzio and Murphy required a Cursillo of their seminarians, and priests deemed "too rigid" (read: retain some Catholic Faith and Morals). The late Traditionalist priest, Fr. Paul Wickens, confided in me that he had a brother in the priesthood who left. In these types of "reprogramming," he was made to feel that there was something wrong with him if he wasn't married, and he left his vocation with permission of  the Modernist hierarchy (which was only too happy to see him leave).

 Bp. de Castro Mayer warned in his 1972 Pastoral Letter condemning the Cursillo movement that "many compare the Cursillo triduum to brainwashing." And, " 'Brainwashing is a very wide notion. If by manipulating an overexcited sensibility, it cannot be denied that there is a very important fundamental element common to brainwashing and to the method of the Cursillos."

 Seminarians who are predisposed to anything truly Catholic are made to feel that they were wrong, and should fully embrace the Modernism of Vatican II; that there is something "wrong" with them if they do not like the idea of women "priestesses," ecumenical services, and fail to see the "deficiencies" in the "Extraordinary Form" of (so-called) "Mass."

  The Vatican II sect wants you to love it for the "Ecumenical Big Brother" it is--and they will go to any lengths in order to secure compliance. So don't be surprised that their "priests" are sodomites, perverts, heretics, and despise the very thought of Traditionalist Catholicism. Their "deacons" and "lay ministers" feel the same.  If they weren't like that at the beginning, Frankie and his hierarchy will transform them into supporters of the One World Ecumenical Church. They are brainwashed (Orwellian-style) into doublethink about pre- and post-Vatican II theology: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Maybe SSPX has been using Cursillo too.

In Their Satanic Majesty's Service

 Antipope Francis, has found the best way of killing off what remnants of Catholic Faith and Morals remain in his Vatican II sect: death by integration---find ways to make the most horrible sins and errors seem OK.  Even the antipopes who came before Francis were careful to issue "condemnations" of sorts, to keep the appearance of Catholicism. True, the "condemnations" were merely words on paper and never enforced, but it allowed people to stay in the sect and blame any harm on "disobedient" so-called "priests" and "bishops." Case in point; abortion. Wotyla (John Paul II) condemned it many times, but Vatican II politicians who supported it received no sanctions.

 Now, Francis is on to a better ploy. According to Catholic News Service (CNS), He wants to find ways to "integrate" adulterers (i.e., those divorced and "remarried") "not merely allowing them to receive Communion (sic), but letting them serve as Eucharistic ministers (sic) and godparents---and to make it easier for Catholic (sic, again) families to accept their homosexual members."  Wow. Adulterers being allowed to do anything in Church without giving up their sin. Families called upon to "accept" sodomites without them giving up one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. According to the report: "Pope Francis said, 'Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration."

 In reference to adulterers acting as godparents, Francis dismissed the objection that they would set a bad example. He said, "It's the testimony of a man and a woman saying 'My dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe the Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on.' Is anything more Christian than that?" Yes! Giving up the sin, and amending your life for a start. Then you won't be "defeated by sin." Then make many acts of penance and reparation for your sin. Realize your choice to sin like that makes you unworthy of being a godparent, and in so doing you become a good example without the role of godparent. Remember Who told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more."

 An even more insidious form of "integration" is taking place with the Vatican II "nun" Sr. Cristina. The twenty-five year old won a secular competition on the show The Voice of Italy. (See my post of 5/10/14). Now she has released an eponymous debut album, wherein she does a cover of the song "Like a Virgin" by the blasphemous pop star named Madonna. Just as Frankie received the praise of the sodomite rocker Elton John, Madonna has heaped praise upon Sr. Cristina, sending out two tweets calling them "sisters for life" and juxtaposing pictures of herself with Cristina (the video for the original song and the cover version were both shot in the same place 30 years apart). On December 10, Sr. Cristina gave a copy of her album to an approving Francis.

 To see exactly who Sr. Cristina is emulating, and what perversions to both faith and morals comes along, I will expose the evil singer named "Madonna." (She makes Elton John look almost harmless in comparison).

 Born in 1958 as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, the singer started out like most entertainers, broke, unknown, and in New York. She found her break when she landed a job going on tour in 1979 as a dancer behind French disco artist Patrick Hernandez. A year later, she formed a band called Emmy, which played in dance clubs. She became a hit in Manhattan, and the local attention she received was enough to land her a record deal with Warner Records. Her 1983 debut album, Madonna, featured her first big hit song called Holiday.

 Not only did she become a smash hit in the 1980s and beyond for her music, she spawned a fashion trend among teenage girls in the mid-80s with lace tops, gaudy jewelry (featuring crosses and crucifixes), frazzled hair, heavy bracelets, fishnet gloves and tops, and skirts over Capri leggings.

 Madonna is well known for her forays into expressions of virtually every sexual perversity while connecting it to the Blessed Mother(!):

• Besides her name, she calls her first mega-hit song Like a Virgin. While on the Blonde Ambition tour, she mimed masturbation to the song while while topless men in foot-long point brassieres danced around her. According to People magazine she said, "As long as I'm riding high on the charts, I don't care if they call me trashy or a slut. I'm proud of my image." Other references to the Blessed Mother include two albums entitled True Blue (the color associated with the Mother of God) and a compilation The Immaculate Collection. In 1996, she named her daughter "Lourdes" and said she would be a "healing experience." (A reference to the Blessed Mother's apparition in Lourdes, France, and the miraculous healing that many have received there).

• She doesn't believe she's more obsessed with sex than anyone else. She will often claim Like a Virgin is not about losing your virginity, but feeling "fresh and new." Her actions, both on and off stage, prove that statement a lie.

• She claims that her critics are against her because "powerful women are a threat to society." She told Q Magazine in December 1994 that "women are not allowed to empower themselves without being labeled heretical and perverse." Along those lines she claimed to have "empowered" herself by having several abortions.

• Madonna seeks to uncover sexuality in everything. She told Spin magazine in June 1985 that she views Catholicism as "kinky," and sports crucifixes because "crucifixes are sexy, ... they have a naked man (sic) on them."

•  She believes and follows the anti-Christian Kabbalah which is occult and syncretic.

• In a 1995 interview with New Music Express, she said, "I think we all have the same God... God is in all of us and we are all capable of being gods and goddesses. That's my brand of Catholic mysticism. Throw in some Buddhism and you've got my religion."

• She published a book entitled Sex in 1992. It is a coffee table book of pornographic pictures, including portrayals of sadomasochism and rape. Ironically, Madonna claims to have been raped when she was young. There's a picture in the book of her apparently being raped by Catholic schoolboys as she wears a Catholic schoolgirl's uniform. She said it was a fantasy of hers and, "I have a smile on my face because I'm having a good time." The book was released at the same time as her 5th album, aptly titled Erotica.

• Madonna is a strong supporter of sodomites. She experiments with lesbianism and stated, "Straight men need to be emasculated....Every straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once." (See New Music Express, May 1991).

• On March 31, 1994, she appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. She asked Letterman to smell her panties (she came out on stage holding them in her hand) and used the f-word 14 times. It was the most censored episode in talk show history.

• Madonna claims she is misunderstood and will one day be vindicated. In the December 1995 issue of New Music Express, she asserts, "My comfort is that all the great artists since the beginning of time have always been completely misunderstood and never fully appreciated until they were dead. They didn't understand Van Gogh, and they crucified Jesus Christ."

 Are you sufficiently disgusted yet? She compares her brazen perversity and wickedness to the art of Van Gogh, and the life of Christ? Yet this is what Sr Cristina and Francis welcome into the Vatican II sect.

 To those who object that Sr. Cristina can use Madonna's music to "evangelize" here are some considerations:



1. Frankie has said "Proselytism is nonsense."



2. Madonna praises Sr. Cristina. Do you think she would do that if the effect of her music was good and wholesome?



3. It's a bad influence on kids. It will lead them to believe Madonna's music, and that of other rotten pop/rock singers, is acceptable. The lyrics are evil. As Proverbs 23:7 tells us, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." The thoughts and ideas we have affect us. If we listen to, meditate upon, and repeat words that are evil, our thoughts will become evil. Thoughts lead to words, and words to actions. Would you want your seven year old daughter singing, "like a virgin, touched for the very first time."?



 Secular rock has been a breeding ground for evil. The Rolling Stones have a song, Sympathy for the Devil. Mick Jagger, the leader of the band allowed the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and author of the Satanic Bible, to use it as the official song of Satanism. The Rolling Stones also put out an album entitled, Their Satanic Majesties Request.

 Now, with Francis integrating adultery and sodomy into his sect as forces for good, and helped by Sr. Cristina leading the young to emulate the likes of Madonna, I can only wonder if , indeed, they are following their master Satan's  personal request.

The "Beautiful Side" Of Evil

 Lionsgate film studios has confirmed that they will be releasing more Twilight saga movies beginning next year. Like the Harry Potter series of books and movies, Twilight seeks to ensnare unsuspecting youth into believing that there is good in evil. You will not see any condemnations coming from the Vatican II cult, as this is exactly what they believe---"elements" of truth and goodness can be found in what is false and wicked.

 It's important to understand the demonic forces that are behind these seemingly innocent works and alert any friends and family with children/grandchildren of the danger. The Twilight series revolves around the dark romance between Edward (a 108 yr old vampire) and Bella (a teenage girl). Edward doesn't age so he appears young, but there remains an underlying pedophile problem never addressed. Edward belongs to a good "coven" of vampires who don't kill humans, drinking animal blood instead. He protects Bella from the bad vampires, even as he fights against his own perverse urges to drink her blood. Hence, Edward is portrayed as a "noble" vampire. The series is seeped in occult themes.

  Similarly, Harry Potter tells us there are "good witches" and bad ones, when all forms of witchcraft (or "Wicca"), are condemned by God. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-13) Portraying evil as good, or having good potential, has never been so rampant as today. The first depiction of good and bad witches actually started with the film The Wizard of Oz (1939). The book of the same name, and upon which both a play and the movie were based, was written by one Frank Baum, an occultist (1851-1919). 

Baum belonged to Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society (an occult sect wherein Blavatsky claimed that Satan was good), and used his writings to promote Theosophical views of magic and the occult.  Baum claimed that he had channeled the Wizard of Oz, “It was pure inspiration.... It came to me right out of the blue. I think that sometimes the Great Author has a message to get across and He has to use the instrument at hand. I happened to be that medium, and I believe the magic key was given me to open the doors to sympathy and understanding, joy, peace and happiness.” ( See Michael Patrick Hearn edition; The Annotated Wizard of Oz, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973)


 Interestingly, Glinda, the "good witch" tells the protagonist Dorothy that it is not necessary to look for answers anywhere but within herself, i.e., you've always had the power to go home; it's within you. This is the same occult message given by Twilight and Harry Potter, where God is never mentioned and all we need to do is look within ourselves for answers and tap into our inner power/strength through incantations, meditation, etc. It's not surprising that New Agers, who also teach the same thing, like such movies.


  We are now besieged by TV shows, movies, and books that carry this idea that there is good within evil. Bewitched, Forever Knight, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Practical Magic, and Charmed are but a few examples of "benevolent" evil characters. Even more frightening, is the little known fact that both Stephanie Meyer (who wrote the Twilight series) and J.K. Rowling (who wrote the Harry Potter series) both claimed to have gotten their ideas from an "outside source" that "revealed it to them."


 For Rowling, during a train ride in 1990, she claimed, "I was staring out the window and the idea of Harry Potter just came. He appeared in my mind's eye fully formed." (See Reuters, "Harry Potter Just Strolled into My Head" 7/17/00) She also claims to hear in her head the conversations she writes:  "Dialogue just comes to me as if I'm overhearing a conversation." (See http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/jkrowling.html)


 As for Stephanie Meyer, a member of the Mormon sect, she claims that the story of Twilight was revealed to her in a dream:
"I woke up (on that June 2nd) from a very vivid dream. In my dream, two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow in the woods. One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire. They were discussing the difficulties inherent in the facts that A) they were falling in love with each other while B) the vampire was particularly attracted to the scent of her blood, and was having a difficult time restraining himself from killing her immediately. For what is essentially a transcript of my dream, please see Chapter 13 ("Confessions") of the book." (See http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html).


She further relates that after her dream, she began to hear voices that would not stop until she wrote what she heard:
"All this time, Bella and Edward were, quite literally, voices in my head. They simply wouldn't shut up. I'd stay up as late as I could stand trying to get all the stuff in my mind typed out, and then crawl, exhausted, into bed (my baby still wasn't sleeping through the night, yet) only to have another conversation start in my head. I hated to lose anything by forgetting, so I'd get up and head back down to the computer. Eventually, I got a pen and notebook for beside my bed to jot notes down so I could get some freakin' sleep. It was always an exciting challenge in the morning to try to decipher the stuff I'd scrawled across the page in the dark." (Ibid--Emphasis in original)


 After she wrote her books, Meyers relates that "Edward" came to her in a dream to let her know he wasn't good. She told Entertainment Weekly, "(Edward told me) I had gotten it wrong, and he did drink blood like every other vampire and you couldn't live on animals the way I'd written it. We had this conversation and it was terrifying." (Emphasis mine). Could both women simply have active imaginations? When you consider both claim that the characters came to them out of the blue, both claimed they could literally hear what they had to write as from an external source, and all dealt with showing evil as good, I think a good case can be made these books and movies were demonically inspired.


 There is no "good" in the practices condemned by God. Any and every form of occult practice is condemned by the True Church. The Vatican II sect at first came out against such films, but then praised them:

"The Vatican's official newspaper lauded Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for its "clear" depiction of the eternal battle between good and evil represented by the struggle between Harry and his nemesis, the evil sorcerer Lord Voldemort.

L'Osservatore Romano said the movie was the best adaptation yet of the JK Rowling books, describing it as "a mixture of supernatural suspense and romance which reaches the right balance".

"There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice," the newspaper judged.

The broadsheet paper also praised the film's clear message that "the search for immortality epitomised by Lord Voldemort" was wrong. It even approved of the film's treatment of adolescent romance amid the halls and corridors of Hogwart's, saying that it achieved the "correct balance" and made the teenage stars more credible.The favourable review is an apparent change of heart from the Vatican's previous assessment of the best-selling series.

Last year an article in L'Osservatore Romano condemned the books for encouraging an interest in the occult among children.The newspaper wrote: "Despite the values that we come across in the narration, at the base of this story, witchcraft is proposed as a positive ideal."The characterisation of common men who do not know magic as 'Muggles' who know nothing other than bad and wicked things is a truly diabolical attitude."The newspaper called the teenage boy wizard "the wrong kind of hero", comparing the books unfavourably with two other British children's classics, the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.


The Vatican's attitude to the books has taken a harder line under the papacy of Benedict XVI in comparison with that of his predecessor John Paul II.Two years before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, as he then was, wrote a letter to a German critic of the books calling the series "a subtle seduction, which has deeply unnoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it can really grow properly".


Earlier this year an ultraconservative Austrian priest, the Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner, accused the Harry Potter novels of encouraging Satanism" Emphasis mine. (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/5826251/Harry-Potter-and-the-Half-Blood-Prince-praised-by-Vatican.html)

  "Pope" Francis will do and say nothing against any of this Satanic garbage, and Ratzinger reversed himself by finding "elements of good" in encouraging the occult. Finding good in Twilight is like finding orthodoxy in Francis. The façade of goodness, truth and being "nice" is to lure you into a cesspool of evil and lies---all in the hopes of claiming your soul.

Partially Bad And Completely Insane

  In the Traditionalist movement, there are two groups that have emerged with faulty solutions in response to the heresy of Vatican II. There are those who, while fully acknowledging Vatican II and the "popes" whom followed taught error, nevertheless refuse to accept the state of sedevacante (i.e. "recognize and resisters"). At the opposite end, we have those who realize the See of Peter is vacant, but erroneously believe that we can just go out and elect a new "pope" (the so-called "conclavists" with "Pope" Michael, among other strange and self-anointed "pontiffs.")

 I felt the need to write this post in light of some recent developments and warn my readers to steer clear of both these groups.

I. Recognize and Resist

 These individuals, mostly associated with the Society of St. Pius X, have found a rabid partisan of their position from a former SSPX bishop, Richard Williamson. Bp. Williamson had been expelled from the Society and founded the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO). In his e-mail newsletter, Eleison Comments, we find His Excellency ranting about alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in his attempt to save the "papacy" of Francis. (See my post of 11/3/14)

 Now Bp. Williamson has come up with a theological novelty--- partial Indefectibility! What is this, you ask?  First, he takes a quote from Pope Pius XII without citation about how if material Rome should crumble".....even then the Church would be in no way demolished or split. Christ’s promise to Peter would still hold true, the Papacy would last for ever, like the Church, one and indestructible, being founded on the Pope then living .” (Emphasis his) Then, he intones that sedevacantists can only see their way through the problems of Vatican II by denying that the "Concilliar Popes" are really popes. (I thought popes were Catholic by definition. The very fact  he claims they are somehow other than Catholic should make him think again). Finally, he quotes Our Lord, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit (St. Matt. 7:18). However, a tree that is part good and part bad, can bring forth good and bad fruit!! (Seems like Williamson is buying into the whole Vatican II ecclesiology---there are elements of a good tree in one which is half-bad!)

 Therefore, since no one is all good or all bad, the Vatican II "popes" are not entirely bad. Williamson tells us Paul VI wept for a lack of vocations. (He caused them with the Council, and probably wanted more sodomites to join) Ratzinger "hankered" after Tradition (he wanted to ensnare Traditionalists and destroy the remnant of the True Church). Frankie wants to "bring men to God" while "dragging God down to men" (Sure. That's why he tells us "There is no Catholic God," atheists can go to Heaven and "proselytism is nonsense.") Hence, they will not be able to kill off the Church, but we must "resist their Liberalism." Bp. Williamson denies the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. She CAN NOT give partial truth and partial error. A pope CAN NOT give that which is evil to the Church. The fact that the "Concilliar Popes" have done so, is evidence that they have defected from the Faith and lost their authority as the unanimous consent of the theologians clearly teaches. He denies that the Church can never be without the papacy, but can be without a living pope for years. As theologian Dorsch teaches:
  

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7). 

 At this point, I feel as if Bp. Williamson has stepped over a line into heresy. A "partially good" Church is simply untenable in Catholic theology. Personally, I could not in good conscience receive the sacraments or attend Mass with Bp. Williamson, unless and until he recants this novel and heretical idea. "Secret apparitions" are looney. Public profession of a partially good/partially bad Church which can give evil, is just plain un-Catholic. Speaking of looney......

II. Conclavists

 I've had a follower of "Pope" Michael adding comments to my post on Sedeprivationism (see my post of 11/10/14).  I think he is a man in good faith searching for the truth, but has been lead astray by a man who is non compose mentis. He thought I was name-calling and being uncharitable. So, I will reprint my response to his comments with some additions to his attempted rebuttal.

So let's look at David Bawden's (aka "Pope" Michael's) claims.

1. "Pope Michael and his group of Catholics informed the world they were going to hold an election, but only a few showed up."

In 1990, I was a 25 year old science teacher in NYC and a Traditionalist for nine years. I never received any "invitation" to a so-called "conclave." Nor did Fr. DePauw, or any of the approximately 100 Traditionalists I knew at the time. In a time before modern computers and the social media, how did he (a) determine exactly who were and were not qualified for this conclave, and then (b) send them an invitation? Was there a full page ad in the NY Times or Washington Post that I missed? You claim a "mob" made Boniface VI pope. I would hardly call six people in Kansas, with no link to Rome (as was the case in those days), a "mob" that can make a pope.

2."Numbers do not determine the validity of an election."

 What does determine its validity? Theologians spoke of an imperfect general council with specific rules, but no pre-Vatican 2 theologian ever taught that some Catholic in Kansas can just decide to invite some "real Catholics" to his house next to the barn and whoever shows up constitutes the electors. Moreover, I would like ANY citation from a reputable pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches that women can participate in a conclave. Bawden's mother, a neighbor's wife, and one Theresa Benns,(who is the "theologian" that engineered the whole concept of a farmhouse conclave) were "electors". All this makes his "election" a farce. Furthermore, Benns does not argue that Traditionalist orders are invalid but illicit. She makes the same discredited arguments about "rightly ordained and sent" clergy, which "Home Aloners" always make. See Fr. Cekada's excellent refutation "Home Alone?" available at traditionalmass.org. 

3. "If you believe the SSPX are schismatic as a sedevacantist, hence they would not be called to elect a pope as they are outside the Church."

I do NOT believe the SSPX are schismatic and outside the Church. They refuse to accept the obvious--we have no pope. They are schismatic in the PRACTICAL order, i.e., if Francis is pope they can not refuse communion with him and decide what they will and will not obey. However, you can't be schismatic in reality if there is no pope to whom you refuse obedience. As long as they are not in actual communion with apostate Rome (they are not) and reject the errors of Francis and Vatican 2 (they do) they are not outside the Church.Your assertion that "to adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church" only holds true if you actually submit to Francis, or wrongly believe Bawden to be "pope." 

4. Bawden has dubious orders. After much investigation, I was able to dig up the name of "Bp" Bob Biarnesen as his ordaining and consecrating prelate. Why would a "bishop" who is in communion with Michael remain such an enigma? Why hasn't he been appointed "cardinal"? He allegedly received his orders in the Duarte Costa line which is rife with problems. Like Thuc, Duarte Costa and his lineage conferred orders on unfit candidates. In regards to Archbishop Thuc, any orders deriving from "Pope Gregory XVII" (an illiterate chicken farmer) must be considered null and void, since he did not possess the minimum theological training to have a presumption of validity in conferring the sacraments. They same can be said of "Bp" Bob. There is no proof he ever was ordained and consecrated, or what comprises his own theological training (if any). The fact that he is kept in virtual secret by Bawden tells me he's got something to hide.

5. Interestingly, Ms. Benns, to whom you post a link in another comment, is back to being a Home Aloner after denying the validity of Michael--the very "conclave" she set up. Her article is prolix. I suggest you have several hours to kill before attempting to read it. After claiming to be an expert at research and writing, she fails to tell us why we should believe her after her vaunted skills set up an antipope, placing his followers outside the Church and leading them to Hell. Since she was a follower of Bawden she publicly placed herself outside the Church. As all Traditionalists (she claims) have illicit orders and no jurisdiction at all, there is no one who can receive her abjuration and grant her absolution, thereby virtually ensuring her damnation--at least according to her own whacky "theology."

 6. "Additionally, what gives the sedevacantists the right to delay electing a pope?"

How about the lack of all things necessary to do so validly? An imperfect general council is much more complex than inviting your parents and next door neighbors to the farmhouse. Before a new claimant can be recognized, the errors of Vatican 2 must be substantially recognized as non-Catholic. We are seeing that now with those claiming that Ratzinger is still "pope" and even others toying with the idea. Next October, we may see widespread rejection of Frankie, with the his probable permission for adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus cracker ("communion"). You deny this principle but supply no proof. In the case of Protestants, they KNEW they were outside the Church. In the case of the Vatican II sect, many believe themselves as authentically Catholic. It's a unique situation. 

7. "Pope Michael is not seriously disturbed. If he is incorrect, he is merely in error. A sedeprivationist or sedevacantist "priest" ordained under "Bp." Sanborn claimed that one who would even consider Michael as pope is mentally ill. However, the same charge could be brought against sedevacantists - it is really a distraction from the issues and logically arguing them."

Anyone who thinks mommy and daddy can elect you pope in the farmhouse has issues. (To be charitable). The SSPV, CMRI, and other independents who base their rejection of Vatican II and the current papal claimant on strong theological principles, and have sound seminaries with great theological formation, can hardly be said to have mental problems. Furthermore, you impugn the orders of Traditionalists without ANY theological justification.

8."I am not aware of many, or any sedevacantists addressing the conclavist issue - which is probably because once they study it they become conclavists."

I am a sedevacantist. I have studied conclavism. I'm well-educated (teacher and lawyer). Now you know one such case! Come to NY, and I'll introduce you to many others like myself!

9. "I hope this was helpful!"

It helped reinforce my conviction that conclavism is a dead end. It will also help my readers to see likewise. I hope Mr. Bawden gets the help he needs. Charles Manson doesn't think he has problems and he has explanations for why he's sane as well. You ask me:

 "What help does he need? Who is to provide it? I think if anyone reads his books, especially the “Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century”, they wouldn’t allege he is insane but merely in error if they disagree with him. He writes cogently and has thought these things out more than any other “traditionalist” I have seen (with Benns). Give him a chance by focusing on your particular problems you have with his position. Don’t you want him to save his soul? Therefore, if you see that he is in error, don’t you just want to help him to know the truth and save his soul? I want ALL of us to get to heaven. We must find the truth and help others to find the truth. At present I think he’s got the correct position. All of the various positions should be collected together and evaluated. We are at present working at that."

I don't know who "we" are, unless you're working on the "pope's" farm. What help does he need? Psychological. Who is to provide it? A psychiatrist in Kansas I suppose would be a good start. I read "Mein Kampf" but I still think Hitler was both evil and disturbed. Yes, I want him to go to Heaven, so let's get him some help, and maybe he can do so. I want you to save your soul as well. That's why I'm urging you and all my readers to stay away from the "recognize and resist" crowd, as well as self-anointed "popes" whose knowledge of theology would actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and carried such dire consequences.  

In sum, we are in a state of sedevacantism, and God will show us a way out in His good time. Don't believe in a half-good Church or a half-sane wannabe "pope."