I don't think he is a priest. Looks like he's a Deacon whose day job is working in security. There's some info on this link but the Google translation isn't so good: https://www.mentealternativa.com/di...ta-del-dinero-kirchnerista-hasta-el-vaticano/ There's a video embedded in that report of a year ago (September 2018). There are a few videos on youtube from around the same time so it looks like he was either lying, exaggerating, delusional or telling the truth but didn't have the evidence after all.
I researched more on this Deacon, and he has been interviewed by way too many media entities for him not to be considered seriously. May he be intelligence? Looks to me he is trying to bring to light on what we suspect about Pope Francis. He is also concerned about a communist takeover in Argentina. He is right to be concerned.
I don't know Byron. I put his name in the search box and the search results produced the article linked to in my previous post as well as videos on youtube. All the videos are in Spanish and youtube's translation option is so hit and miss that I didn't bother with it. Based solely on the article in my link, I think it possible that he came across something odd in a Red Cross box, put two and two together and arrived at 22. I find it hard to believe that he was brought into the Vatican and given the kind of access he claims to have had. If I'm reading the article correctly, his photo evidence is of boxes in a bank vault in Saudi Arabia. That's a long way from the Vatican. What did he work at? It looks like he may have worked for some courier service or a company which provides a door to door service for bulk shipments. Politics is a dirty business everywhere. It's particularly dirty in Argentina. John Allen has an article in Crux about opposition to the Holy Father. (I'm not a John Allen fan). In the Crux article, Allen said something about the opposition in Argentina coming from people who claim that Pope Francis is siding with a left-wing party leading up to an election there. Allen says that an Argentinian Bishop known to be very close to the Holy Father has denied that. That's "ask my brother am I a liar" territory but it is indicative of two sides of a political divide trying to use the Church for leverage. While the Holy Father may well be sending out signals in favour of some Communist party, it doesn't automatically follow that everything their political opponents say is true.
Nobody really knows because the secular press are so biased it's hard to distinguish the spin from the news. And the Catholic press aren't much better. I like the attitude of this man, Vittorio Messori, who has been a target of the axe of mercy although so far he seems to be surviving: http://www.lafedequotidiana.it/vittorio-messori-la-chiesa-non-e-di-bergoglio/ The article isn't very long so I'll quote it all here for the benefit of those who don't like clicking on links. (I clicked the link provided for the original in Italian and it looks like Rorate's reproduction is accurate): Vittorio Messori: “The Church does not belong to Bergoglio” “The Church doesn’t belong to Bergoglio but to Christ. Certainly, I’m worried” says the well-known Catholic journalist, Vittorio Messori, fine intellectual, author of a historic, John Paul II interview, at the time when interviewing a pope was not the done thing by newspapers. “I have seen many people worried, even desperately. As a believer, nonetheless, I keep in mind that the Church is not a business, a multinational or a state. In a word, it cannot fail. Certainly, there are plenty of reasons for alarm. I’m thinking, for instance, of the upcoming Synod on the Amazon and its related equivocations; I don’t know what they want to attain – probably the married priesthood. So, I’m worried, but not desperate because the Church does not belong to Bergoglio or the bishops, but to Christ alone and He governs it with wisdom. The forces of evil will not prevail,” In your opinion, is there a kind of underlying confusion? “Yes, there is, and it is saddening, bewildering, But I think sooner or later the Father will intervene. God surpasses our limited vision of things”. Do you believe that there is a type of conformism, even informational, regarding Pope Francis? “The conformism you are referring to exists. It is quite palpable in the Church. It is staggering that only two or three, almost ninety-year-old cardinals are speaking up and protesting. Many bishops and cardinals I talk to in private, throw up their hands in despair and dissent, but they are afraid, silent - they keep quiet. For 2000 years, touching the Pope has [always] been discouraged, but such a tendency is accentuated today and one can clearly experience it firsthand. It is said that this is the Church of mercy, but is it really so? Those in command are intolerant of any criticism. I wrote a polite article for the Corriere della Sera, in which I posed some questions and reflections and I was covered with insults, especially from certain Catholics in the media. A committee to petition my removal from the Corriere sprung up. This committee includes - to use the fashionable expression - the “giglio magico”* of the Pope. Well then, how can it be affirmed coherently that this is the Church of mercy, of open and sincere dialogue, of parrhesia. As I said before, I’m worried, but not desperate. Christ will not abandon His Church.” *supporters. The term “giglio magico” refers to the Italian politician Matteo Renzi’s supporters. Source: http://www.lafedequotidiana.it/vittorio-messori-la-chiesa-non-e-di-bergoglio/
Sep. 18, 2019 Threat of Schism Comes From Germany, Not United States COMMENTARY: An American-led schism seems so remote as to be impossible, whereas Germany’s bishops are openly defying Pope Francis. Father Raymond J. de Souza | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/threat-of-schism-comes-from-germany-not-united-states Talk of schism in the Church is “promiscuous” now, writes New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Pope Francis addressed it at length on his return flight from Madagascar. But where is the danger of schism? It is far more likely from Germany, where bishops are openly defying the Holy Father, than from the United States. The question of potential schism was raised on the recent papal flights to and from Africa. On the outbound flight, presented with a book accusing some Americans of plotting to overthrow the Pope, the Holy Father said that “it is an honor when the Americans attack me.” Papal spokesman Matteo Bruni then quickly turned that inside out to mean that the Holy Father greatly respects American viewpoints. That didn’t fly with the press corps, so Pope Francis was asked about it on the flight home, in response to which he confessed that he didn’t want schism, but “did not fear it.” Also on the plane to Mozambique, Pope Francis, answering a question about concerns raised by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: “He has good intentions; he is a good man. The Pope likes him. But he is like a child.” Despite being reported by German and Austrian Catholic news agencies, the Holy See Press Office did not comment upon that astonishing characterization of the accomplished theologian. The two comments together invite consideration of where the schismatic danger, if it exists, lies. An American-led schism seems so remote as to be impossible. There is a not a single U.S. bishop who has said or done anything that would point toward anything even approaching schism. That there are sectors of U.S. Catholic opinion that are critical — even hostile — to Pope Francis is true, but internet chatter does not a schism make. In any case, since Vatican II there have been entire countries where the theological establishment — university professors and seminary formators, not internet journalists — have publicly dissented from Catholic teaching and no schism resulted. Even direct criticism of the Holy Father’s teaching or decisions does not constitute a schism. It may well erode trust and fraternal goodwill, but it does not rupture communion. In any case, though, in terms of national episcopates, the Americans are hardly leaders in offering criticism of this pontificate. The Polish bishops have publicly offered an interpretation of Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) that is at odds with the favored interpretation in Rome. The Ukrainian bishops have spoken clearly about Russian “aggression” and “invasion” of Ukraine when the Holy Father preferred to speak of “fratricidal conflict” without assigning blame, seeking not to offend Moscow. The Venezuelan bishops have long denounced the Maduro regime in terms that have gone far beyond what Holy See diplomacy has been willing to concede. As recently as this month in Hong Kong, Catholic leaders have taken the lead in protests against the regime in Beijing while the Holy See remains entirely silent. It would be difficult to think of any bishop who has been more directly critical of any decision of Pope Francis than Cardinal Joseph Zen has been of the Holy See’s 2018 accord with China. And nowhere were ordinary Catholic voices more critical of Pope Francis than in Chile, where the Holy Father’s appointment of Bishop Juan Barros, against the advice of the Chilean bishops, set off a sexual-abuse conflagration that has consumed the Church there. Those Chilean critics were vehemently denounced by Pope Francis until he completed reversed himself. So if the danger of schism is measured even by the misleading criterion of public criticism, the danger does not lie in the United States. For that reason, the Holy Father himself conceded on the flight home that “criticism comes not only from the Americans — it’s coming from all over.” The danger of schism, if present anywhere, comes, instead, from Germany, where there is little public criticism at all. Nevertheless, the German episcopate — not journalists and commentators — is in open defiance of the Holy Father’s express wishes, led by Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, who is one of the closest advisers to Pope Francis, one of six members of the council of cardinals, and chairman of the Vatican’s economic council. The German bishops have proposed a “binding” national synod involving bishops and lay associations, which will examine questions such as married clergy and sexual morality. The German bishops have already been granted by Pope Francis some of their key priorities — Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, according to their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and national authority over liturgical translations and admission of Protestants to Holy Communion, or at least a refusal by Rome to declare their initiatives in that regard to be out of bounds. The binding “synodal process” does not have the unanimous support of the German bishops. Cardinal Müller, for one, has offered his own serious criticisms of the proposal, as have Cardinal Rainer Woelki of Cologne and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg. Pope Francis wrote a public letter to the German bishops in June, asking them to rework their proposed synod to take into better account its impact on communion with the Church universal. In August, the German bishops voted 21-3 to continue as they originally planned, the most public refusal of any episcopal conference anywhere in the face of a direct request of the Holy Father. On Sept. 4, the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops and Council for Legislative Texts sent a detailed analysis of the German synod proposals to the German bishops, concluding that the proposed synod was not “ecclesiologically valid” and contrary to canon law, in addition to being contrary to the instructions of the Holy Father in his June letter. It is not possible that such an analysis would have been sent without the Holy Father’s approval. Cardinal Marx took note and dismissed the Vatican’s concerns out of hand in a letter dated Sept. 12, released to the press and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine the following day. Far from threatening communion with the universal Church, Cardinal Marx argued that the entire Church would benefit from a German re-examination of settled matters of doctrine and discipline. The message was clear: It is not the Church in Germany that must remain in communion with the Holy Father as universal pastor, but rather the universal Church that must remain in communion with the majority of the German bishops. The defiance of Rome is forthright, deliberate and unapologetic. The synod will move ahead as planned, Vatican objections notwithstanding. Currently, Cardinal Marx is spending three days with the Holy Father at the meeting of the council of cardinals. If there is to be a schism, Pope Francis will be the first to know. Its potential leader is sitting at table with him.
Who benefits from all this talk of schism? By Phil Lawler | Sep 17, 2019 | https://www.catholicculture.org/com...Greuvk6SofJjt64mVPk9H21Ar6ohdHoW1uys0Z_hwo4Rk Why are we even talking about schism? Who began this extraordinary conversation, and whose interests are served by it? Ross Douthat of the New York Times admits that he used the term “schism” long ago, as a theoretical possibility—which he now (rightly) regards as remote. But now Pope Francis speaks calmly about the prospect of schism, and even says that it does not frighten him—which, as I’ve pointed out, is frightening in itself. How did we come so far, so fast? How did we reach a point at which the nation’s most prestigious secular newspaper raises the notion that American Catholics might split from the universal Church, and the Pontiff treats that prospect as a serious possibility? Have the Pope’s American critics threatened to break with Rome? Never! Quite the contrary, the most important critics of this pontificate insist that they—we—are doing our utmost to preserve the unity of the universal Church, to maintain our strong ties with “all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.” Cardinal Raymond Burke, often cited as the leader of a rebellious faction, has in fact repeatedly and adamantly pledged his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. One cannot cause a schism by defending the established doctrine of the Church. (One can, on the other hand, cause a schism by holding a meeting of a nation’s bishops, seeking to change teachings of the universal Church, and ignoring admonitions from the Holy See to drop this divisive plan—as the leaders of the German bishops’ conference are doing right now. Yet when the New York Times mentions schism, the threat is said to come from “some conservatives—especially in the United States,” rather than from the rambunctious “progressives” in Germany.) So again I ask: How did this conversation arise, about the alleged threat of an American schism. And if you follow Catholic conversations on the internet, you know the answer. The topic has been raised—and promoted, and repeated, and touted as an imminent threat—by the Pope’s busiest and most aggressive online defenders. Which prompts another question: Why are these folks—who have so enthusiastically championed the Pope’s moves to alter Church teachings on issues such as marriage and the Eucharist—so anxious to talk about breaking with the Pope? And again I think I know the answer. Why did President Lincoln maneuver the Confederacy into the bombardment of Fort Sumter? Because he saw that war was imminent, and he wanted the South to take the first shots. Similarly, the most “progressive” Catholics recognize that they cannot engineer the radical changes they want without precipitating a split in the Church. So they want orthodox Catholics to break away first, leaving them free to enact their own revolutionary agenda. So let me conclude with a heartfelt plea to my fellow Catholics, and especially to my more excitable friends on the internet. Don’t take the bait. We are not thinking of schism. We are thinking of—and working and praying for—the preservation of Catholic unity, a unity that keeps us in full communion not only with the Bishop of Rome and with our fellow Catholics around the world today, but also with all the faithful Catholics of previous generations. It’s our Church: the Church of the apostles and saint and martyrs and of us poor sinners. We’re not leaving. Hell no; we won’t go. *** Vittorio Messori (Opus Dei) Sep. 17, 2019 Messori on Church Unrest: Many Are Concerned But Christ Won’t Leave His Church Many prelates are privately ‘pulling their hair out’ because of the current situation, said the Italian writer, who co-authored Crossing the Threshold of Hope with Pope St. John Paul II, and ‘those in command are intolerant of every critical voice.’ Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/messori The well-known Catholic Italian writer Vittorio Messori has said he and “many Catholics are concerned, some are even desperate” about the current state of the Church, but that he is not without hope because Christ never leaves his Church alone. Messori, who wrote The Ratzinger Report with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Crossing the Threshold of Hope with Pope St. John Paul II, told the Italian Catholic daily La Fede Quotidiana Sept. 17 that confusion is “present and it is saddening, confounding.” He said a kind of “conformism” about Pope Francis exists, which is “palpable” in the Church. “It’s disconcerting that only two or three almost 90-year-old cardinals speak and protest,” he observed, adding that he knows of “many bishops and also cardinals whom I have dialogued with in private who are pulling their hair out in disagreement.” “But they are afraid, silent, shutting up,” he said. Messori noted that for two millennia criticism of the pope had been discouraged but today this tendency is “accentuated.” “It’s said this is the Church of mercy, but it’s nonsense,” he said. “Those in command are intolerant of every critical voice.” The Italian writer recalled writing a “polite article” in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera in which he “asked questions” and made “reflections” but was “overwhelmed with abuse, especially from certain Catholic media.” He added that a kind of committee was set up asking Corriere della Sera to remove him as a contributor. “So with what consistency can it be stated that this is the Church of mercy, of open and fair dialogue, of parrhesia?” he asked, referring to Pope Francis’ frequent call for both mercy and open, frank discussion. But he noted that the Church is not a business, multinational or simply a government. “In short, it cannot fail,” Messori observed. “Of course, there are reasons for alarm. I think, for example, [of] the next Synod on the Amazon and related misunderstandings. I don't know what they want to achieve — probably married priests. “Therefore I am worried, but not desperate,” he said, because “Christ does not leave the Church alone” and the Church “is not of Bergoglio or of the bishops, but only of Christ.” “He governs her with wisdom,” he said. “The forces of evil will not win.” In 2017, Messori criticized the Pope for mirroring modern society by turning the Church into a place where “everything is unstable and changeable.” “In a ‘liquid world’ where everything becomes uncertain, precarious, provisional, it is precisely the stability and firmness of the Catholic Church that all humanity needs, not only believers,” he said.
More civil "suggestions" coming from behind that protective wall. ROME — Pope Francis said life imprisonment is never legitimate because it deprives criminals of “prospects of reconciliation and reintegration.” After having officially declared the death penalty “inadmissible” in 2018, Francis has now gone on to extend his condemnation to life imprisonment without parole even for the most dangerous criminals, saying that society has the responsibility to “never suffocate the flame of hope.” Reviving the flame of hope “is the duty of all,” Francis said this week in an address to prison staff, chaplains, and inmates. “It is up to every society to feed it, to ensure that punishment does not compromise the right to hope, that prospects of reconciliation and reintegration are guaranteed.” In a key paragraph, the pontiff expressed his view that a life sentence is a problem rather than a solution. “While remedying the mistakes of the past, we cannot erase hope in the future,” he said. “Life imprisonment is not the solution to problems, but a problem to be solved. Because if hope is locked up, there is no future for society.” “Never deprive anyone of the right to start over!” he added. In the past, Catholic theologians would often defend the legitimacy of severe punishments including the death penalty by arguing that while they may deprive criminals of hope in this life, they can encourage hope for eternal salvation, which is the proper aim of hope. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” In his address last Saturday, Pope Francis said that all people, including the most villainous, also have the right to hope for full rehabilitation in this life. Those who work with prisoners “are witnesses of this right: the right to hope, the right to start anew,” he said. https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/09/19/pope-francis-calls-for-abolition-of-life-imprisonment/
I saw that video in the YouTube lineup (I watch via television). Will watch it this evening. I'd seen previous video of Sister Agnes and Akita, but in a documentary fashion (unsure of date or production company). Was she permanently kicked out of the monastery???
Look up Son of Sam on the internet He has a Christian ministry and is in prison for life Aka David Berkowitz
Father Joseph Mary of EWTN just included the story of a prison inmate, who was incarcerated because of the murder of a father with three children. This convict had a real conversion in prison but accepted the sentence of the court as just. I think in the telling of this story, Father Joseph was pointing out that this man's reconcilliation with God occured in prison and this prisoner also pledged to bring Christ's healing to anyone who would listen to him, a reintegration of sorts. The homily hasn't posted online yet but I will post it when it's available.
I was thinking and praying about what the Holy Father had to say about i prisoners tonight while walking the dogs. Basically he has been saying that it is immoral to execute or keep prisoners confined too long. The first comment I would make is that no matter how, Brilliant , or Holy, or Merciful the Roman Pontiff may be it is never his role to make up New Church Teachings on the hoof , so to speak. His vocation is to preserve and instruct the Faithful in our Teachings, this rather than to change them. What he has been saying is not the Teachings of the Church but rather his own personal opinions. What makes it very difficult is when he rubber stamps his own opinions as some New Church Teaching. But anyway this topic brought to mind a fascinating interview I saw a few weeks ago with a gentleman from Los Angeles whose name was I think Jesse Romero who is really a saint, I think. Senor Romeroz was an ex police officer there and told the most remarkable story. He said when he joined the force as a rookie they all had to serve a year as guards in a High Security Prison with some of the worst mass murders in the USA. Anyway he conducted an experiment. The officers got their own food in prison, really high class food. He offered to bring a few of these serial killers a top class meal from the officers canteen if only they would say the words, 'Jesus is Lord' The leapt at the chance but when they tried to say them they couldn't because of course they were fully demonically possessed. I have tried to find this interview with I think Patrick Madrid. Anyway there is such a thing as totally evil people; I have met them. There are people who are perfectly possessed, in League with Satan. Which is why the Churches Teaching is what it is rather than Pope Francis's personal opinions on matters.
This doesn't surprise me. Remember when Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi" went for $450 million at an auction? At the time I knew of (indirectly & online) a handful of "Dark" artists who absolutely refused to even NAME the painting, much less share an image. And these are artists who otherwise slobber all over anything even remotely smacking of real art. I'm a writer, so that's how I knew of those artists. Very telling. And no -- I'm not in fellowship with them.
Jesse Romero is one of my favorites. Check out on you tube the radio station Virgin Most Powerful radio. They have good programs. Jesse and two other retired LA policemen do a show called Jesus 911. Also another show called The Jesse and Terry show. Good stuff. Yesterday they interviewed one of Fr Ripperger's assistants. Real muscular Catholicism.
