Monthly Archives: August 2018

Coercion, Fear, Wolves – Pray For Our One and Only Living Pope, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger

A substantially erroneous attempted partial resignation, totally invalid, made due to coercion by the ravenous sodomite wolves that infest every corner of the institutional Church.

After learning what we have learned in just the past few short weeks, in reading the Sipe letter and realizing the level of evil we are dealing with with these sodomite Cardinals and prelates, how can anyone deny that Pope Benedict XVI was coerced?  Pope Benedict XVI saw it coming literally from the very, very beginning:

“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”



St. Peter’s Square
Sunday, 24 April 2005




A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
-Canon 188

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is the one and only living Pope, and has been all along.  Only this truth will set us free. If Bergoglio dies or is otherwise removed while not acknowledging that he is not now and never, ever has been the pope, and that Pope Benedict XVI is still occupying the Petrine See, ANY SUBSEQUENT CONCLAVE WILL ALSO BE INVALID.

No valid conclave is possible so long as the See is occupied. Period.

And then you will end up with Antipope Pietro Parolin, who has 40 I.Q. points on Bergoglio and is 20 years younger.

If I may make a “Godfather” analogy to help make this clear, what we have now is Antipope Fredo Corleone (Bergoglio).  If another invalid conclave is called, we will end up with Antipope Michael Corleone (Parolin). Let that sink in.


MAILBAG: Family and Parish Victimized By Sodomite Trad Liturgical Fetishist in North America

Hi Ann,

I read your recent post about “wolves in jacquard and lace,” the one concerning liturgical fetishists and their insidious positions in many churches. I was struck dumb reading your post because we have dealt with the same thing in our parish. We had a friend, “G”, whom we had known for years. He had always been a strong proponent of the traditional, “real” Catholic faith, and he was what we can now identify as a “liturgical fetishist”.

We asked G to be the godfather of our youngest son 3 years ago, at which time he told us he was “gay”. My husband and I were assured he was not acting on it, in therapy, not using pornography, etc., so at the time we thought (foolishly) that it was no big deal. We appreciated being told though. Fast forward to 2 years ago, where it was uncovered that “G” was still frequently viewing gay pornography. We were shocked and disgusted.  Soon thereafter he was hired as a youth ministry worker at our church, and all the parents, many of the students, loved him and thought he was so strong in his faith.

Over the subsequent months, through various chains of communication, many horrible things were revealed:

  1. that he was still using gay pornography
  2. that he was attracted to the early teen boys in the youth group
  3. that he was very tempted by going on retreats with the kids
  4. that he inappropriately touched a boy we know and developed an unnaturally close relationship with him
  5. that he engaged in peeping tom activities in the shower
  6. that he had secretly taken pictures of his male friends while at a retreat
  7. that he was teaching heretical things to the kids in confirmation class

Thank God, we informed our pastor and G was fired. We have cut him off and no longer feel safe having him around our children. He had always been weirdly touchy and uncomfortable, and now we are glad to not have to deal with him anymore.

I thought you were wrong when you said “all homosexuals without exception are a clear and present danger to children, and if they haven’t abused a child yet, just give them time.” It truly is the nature of the male sodomite perversion to seek out unnatural intimacy with younger boys. Someone with no impulse control cannot be trusted.

I did think it was interesting though, that G fits the liturgical fetishist profile you describe.  Anyways, just sharing our awful piece of the pie.


A Wised Up Trad Mom

ADULT EYES ONLY: Richard Sipe’s Letter to Faggot Archbishop Robert McElroy – FOR AGGRESSIVE COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION

This MUST be distributed as aggressively as possible.  Warning: this contains descriptions of sexual abuse that are absolutely stomach-churning.  Adults should read every word and realize what satanic monsters we are dealing with.  Homosexuality isn’t a benign variant on human sexuality.  They aren’t “just like us, but with one little twist.”  Homosexuality, BY DEFINITION, is an evil, demonic, criminal psycho-spiritual pathology.  Someone should make a three hour long video describing in detail what exactly that pathology is.

The odious faggot McElroy is on the super-fast track up the ladder of the Antichurch, and he was considered to be “anointed” to a huge American Archdiocese and being made a Cardinal.  Oh, he is also the sickening sodomite James Martin’s number one fan.

Speaking of James Martin, that faggot needs to be taken down, like yesterday.  This #CatholicMeToo thing need not be limited to prelates, and in fact, must not be limited.  These priest predators, prowling throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls and sodomy with hot young Twinks, exactly like the priest predator James Martin, need to be taken down every bit as much as the Donnas and the Blanches.

Here is the source link to the PDF on Sipe’s website.

Here is the text reprinted in full.  I deem this letter that important

In your charity, please say a prayer for the repose of the soul of Richard Sipe, or better yet, have a Requiem Mass said for him.  He died 72 hours ago, on the 8th of August.  The Barnhardt Requiem Mass next week will thus include Mr. Sipe.

A.W.Richard Sipe
2825 Ridgegate Row /La Jolla /CA 92037
July 28,2016
Bishop McElroy:
I received your note postmarked July 19.
It was clear to me during our last meeting in your office, although cordial,
that you had no interest in any further personal contact. It was only after
that I sent you a letter copied to my contacts in DC and Rome.
The new Nuncio, Archbishop Pierre, told my colleague he is interested in
the care of and reaction to victims of clergy assault: and I am assured that
the Papal Commission for the Prevention of Abuse is also dedicated to this
aspect of the crisis.
I will as I was asked, put my observations in the form of a report. Your
office made it clear that you have no time in your schedule either now or “in
the foreseeable future” to have the meeting that they suggested.
Bishop, I have been at the study and research of the problem of clergy
abuse since 1960. In 1986 I wrote to Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk,
president of the USCCB at the time, with my preliminary conclusions. His
response was negligible, although he passed the substance onto the
USCCB office who gave my figures to a NEWSWEEK reporter.
In 1990 before my study A Secret World; Sexuality and the Search for
Celibacy was published I agreed to meet with the entire staff at their DC
Institutional resistance is understandable, if surprising to me. So much of
my work has been validated and in many quarters now taken for granted.
The number of priests and bishops having sex with minors was not the
primary or central focus of the study. But my calculation of 6% (six percent)
clergy abusers as a base line has held up very well. [ the most recent
validation is between 6 ½ and 9% in the U.S. Some dioceses have
registered 23%. Some religious houses have recorded 25%.]
Sexual violation within the RC clergy is systemic. I say that on the basis of
observation and scientific conclusion. And I say that with empathy and
Now that aspect of the sexual crisis is well known around the world. The
crisis behind the scandal will be the next phase of reality with which to
come to terms: Namely: the broad range and frequency of sexual behaviors
registered in the clerical system. “At any one time no more than 50% of
priests are practicing celibacy.”
That was the hypothesis and thrust of A Secret World (1990) and repeated
in Celibacy in Crisis (2003)
In May 1993 at the Vatican International Conference on Celibacy in Rome
Cardinal Jose Sanchez then Chairman of the Dicastery on Clergy fielded
questions about my study and conclusions and a similar sociological
statistical report by Fr. Victor Kotze of South Africa. Father Kotze concluded
that in any three-year period only 45% of priests were practicing celibacy.
When asked directly by reporter Mark Dowd, and a reporter recording for
the BBC TV what the Cardinal thought of those studies he said, “I have no
reason to doubt the accuracy of those figures”.
During the first National Survivors Conference in Chicago, October 1992, I
addressed the group with these words: “The crisis we are facing today—
sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy—is the tip of an iceberg. And if
we follow it to its foundations it will lead to the highest corridors of the
Sooner or later it will become broadly obvious that there is a systemic
connection between the sexual activity by, among and between clerics in
positions of authority and control, and the abuse of children.
When men in authority—cardinals, bishops, rectors, abbots, confessors,
professors—are having or have had an unacknowledged-secret-active-sexlife
under the guise of celibacy an atmosphere of tolerance of behaviors
within the system is made operative.
Many of the sexual patterns are set up during seminary years or in early
years after ordination when sexual experimentation is initiated or sustained.
The 2009 Vatican Report (in English) on American seminaries invented a
new term—transitional homosexuality. I believe this is due to the
awareness of the frequent activity in the homosocial structure of seminary
and religious life.
I was on the staff of three major seminaries, one Pontifical, from 1967 to
1984. I served as a consultant for seminaries from 1966 to 1996. That gave
me a broad contact with several other seminaries, their Rectors and staffs.
I was aware, from information shared by their partners, that a number of
rectors (at least three) and also some staff members, were having periodic
sex with students.
At one seminary fully one-fourth of the professors had ongoing sexual
contacts with men or women in more or less consensual arrangements.
It is credibly established that thirty percent (30%) of U.S. bishops have a
homosexual orientation. This is not a condemnation nor an allegation of
malfeasance. The list of homosexual Popes and saints is long and
illustrious. [This is obviously false.  Homosexuality, even the inclination, is diametrically opposed to sanctity in every sense. -AB]
A serious conflict arises when bishops who have had or are having sexually
active lives with men or women defend their behavior with denial, cover up,
and public pronouncements against those same behaviors in others.
Their own behavior threatens scandal of exposure when they try to curtail
or discipline other clerics about their behavior even when it is criminal as in
the case with rape and abuse of minors, rape, or power plays against the
vulnerable. (Archbishops Harry Flynn, Eugene Marino, Robert Sanchez,
Manuel Moreno, Francis Green, etc.)
I will record instances that demonstrate the systemic dynamic that forms
and fosters sexual violations among the clerical culture. All of this
information is culled from records (civil or church). In addition, I have 50
years’ participation or contact with the clerical culture of the RCC.
I have reviewed several hundred thousands of pages of records of clerical
sexual activity and been involved as a consultant or expert witness in 250
civil legal actions against clergy offenders.
None of the following information is secret. It is reviewed here in an effort to
demonstrate how the sexual system works in the clerical culture.
Archbishop John Neinstedt (1947—) I reviewed the 138-page report of
the Ramsay County MN Attorney’s report on the sexual activity of
I have interviewed priests from the Detroit Archdiocese who had personal
contact there with Neinstedt and had first-hand knowledge of his presence
at gay bars. The affidavits in the report speak for themselves.
Bishop Thomas Lyons (1923-88) priest of Baltimore and auxiliary bishop
of Washington, D.C. I have personally interviewed adult men who claim that
they were sexually abused by Lyons when he was a priest in Baltimore and
a monsignor and pastor in D.C.
One of the reporters was on probation for abusing minor members of his
own family. He claimed that Lyons abused him from the time he was seven
to seventeen years old. Also Lyons himself said that this happened to him
(by a priest) when he was growing up and that “it was natural.”
One important element in this behavior is the three generational pattern of
sexual abuse of minors involved: Priest abuser of child who becomes a
priest and child abuser. Behavior is justified as natural. This is a pattern
seen often and termed the genealogy of clerical sexual abuse.
Bishop Raymond J. Boland (1932-2014) was a priest and pastor also in
Washington, D.C. until 1988 when he was appointed bishop of Birmingham
AL, and subsequently, in1993 bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
I was involved for several years in advocating for several victims that
Boland violated when he was a pastor. The accounts of the victims are
among the most horrendous from the point of view that exemplifies how
deeply sex even with minors is integrated within the clerical culture.
Cardinal James Hickey and bishop William Lori fought with particular fury
the allegations that ended in the suspension of several priests and a
financial settlement with some victims.
The victim quoted here from his report to the Archdiocese refused the
settlement offered by the Archdiocese. The whole process from 1994 to
2004 spanned the reigns of Hickey, Mc Carrick and Wuerl.
Fr. Frank Swift (+1974) and Fr. Aldo PetrinI (+late 1980s) were named as
Msgr. Paul Lavin was named as an abuser of several minor victims and
was finally removed from the ministry by Cardinal McCarrick in 2002.
These D.C. priests formed a coterie of sexually active clerics from the
seminary to connections with officials in Vatican offices.
Some of the victims were assaulted together. Two victims refused financial
settlements. Others were constricted by confidentiality clauses.
This tangle of clerical sexual abusers demonstrates the operation that
infests the systemic operation of sexual activity from top to bottom.
Many more facts about this group are on record.
Following are quotes from the reports in files submitted to the offices of the
D.C. Archbishops and their lawyers:
A 10-year-old boy at Mount Calvary Catholic Church in Forestville, MD in
1967 was sodomized by Fr. Raymond J. Boland and then deacon Paul
The boy asked Boland why they were doing this and he responded, “God
makes special boys and girls for pleasure, and you are certainly one of
them.” When he saw the erect penises of his abusers he was told, “See
what you have done”.
They said they were going to make him a “big boy” and show him how
much God loved him. And breathlessly told him that it was, “the ultimate
sign of love when a man ‘came’ with a special boy; that gave him, “the seed
of life”.
Lavin said, “when I was 12-years-old that I would be taken on retreats were
spiritual bonding between older men and younger boys took place.”
They assured him the pain would go away, gave warnings to keep secret
and delivered threats of dire consequences if he told anyone. (He did tell
his mother who slapped him and told him never to talk that way about a
priest or nun.)
He made a first suicide attempt with aspirin.
Three weeks after the assault by Boland this boy contacted a priest in his
home parish—Fr. Perkinson. (who was ultimately a patient at St. Luke’s
Institute Suitland, MD.)
When he told the priest his name Fr. Perkinson said, “Oh, you’re the
special little boy Fr. Boland told me about.” He said he had been in the
military and “sex between two guys was normal”.
The priest then proceeded to expose his penis and forced it into the boy’s
mouth. “He told me to lick it like a popsicle and swallow the precious gift he
was going to give me.” He added later how special a boy I was and
encouraged me to swallow the semen that was “the seed of Christ and the
source of all life-—and a sin” to refuse. “God loves you and so do I.”
[This victim spent several years in the major seminary where he
experienced and recorded the sexual connections between seminary,
parish priests, chancery and Rome. The string of abusers was reported to
Cardinal Hickey. Some were retired or left the area.]
While this assault was in progress the pastor opened the door, simply
looked and closed it. (this behavior by other priests is reported in other
instances—e.g. Gaboury, litigated in Fall River, MA; in a case litigated in
D.C. the pastor seeing the boy bound and being sodomized simply said,
“you will have to repair that wall”. (The victim had punched a hole in the
wall while bound and thrashing around.)
Boland’s victim made a second suicidal attempt and was treated in a
This is by no means the most horrendous of the records I have reviewed,
but its elements of seduction, assault, sexualizing spirituality, and selfjustification
under a “celibate” mantle and cover up are paradigmatic of a
system of behaviors in the Catholic clerical culture.
The record of one priest abuser relates how he anointed the foreheads of
his boy victims with his semen.
Another priest who was having sex with a13-yer-old of girl touched her
genitals with what he said was a consecrated host to show her “how much
God loves you”.
The credibility of the documents is unquestionable and recorded in church
and legal documents. The reporter in Boland’s case is a respected
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been reported by numerous
seminarians and priests of sexual advances and activity. A settlement with
one priest was effected by Stephen Rubino, Esq.
In that record the operation of McCarrick in sexual activity with three priests
is described. Correspondence from “Uncle Ted” as he asked to be called, is
included. One of the principals is now a lawyer who left the priesthood, two
men remain in the priesthood, but refuse to speak publicly despite the fact
that the settlement document is open. One priest was told by the chancery
office, “if you speak with the press we will crush you”.
Priests or seminarians who speak up about a sexually active superior are
threatened with the loss of everything—employment, status, etc. Those
who report are greeted with disbelief or even derision if they know but were
not personally involved. If they were a partner in the sexual activity and
“come out” they become a pariah and labeled a traitor.
I have interviewed twelve seminarians and priests who attest to
propositions, harassment, or sex with McCarrick, who has stated, “I do not
like to sleep alone”.
One priest incardinated in McCarrick’s Archdiocese of Newark was taken to
bed for sex and was told, “this is how priests do it in the U.S.”. None so far
has found the ability to speak openly at the risk of reputation and
The system protects its impenetrability with intimidation, secrecy and
threat. Clergy and laity are complicit.
Abbot John Eidenschink, O.S.B. (1914-2004) I knew John Eidenschink
from the time I was a student in Prep school (1946) until the time of his
death. He served me as a theology professor, confessor for six years,
superior, and traveling companion in Europe (summer 1956), and principal
speaker at my first mass in 1959. I served with him as an assistant master
of ceremonies.
It was only in 1970 that monks and former monks came forward to tell me
about how Fr. John, under the guise of offering instructions how to make
them more comfortable with their body, and that during spiritual guidance,
had them stretch out nude on his bed while he touched them; he
penetrated some.
At least two of these men sought legal advice and received substantial
financial settlements from the abbey. At least five men reported this
behavior. Others who remained in the monastery did not publicize their
I have heard this manner and mode of relationship described in other
religious houses and seminaries.
Like many other members of dioceses and religious communities I was
blind to these and other sexual activities among the group. This is not an
excuse. Lack of vigilance, adequate sexual education and simple ignorance
contributed to the blindness instilled by institutional absorption and
On record maintained by a former victim of the system recorded sixty
members of the St. John’s community who were sexual violators and 260
“known victims”. (Patrick Marker [])
John Eidenschink was a prominent and productive member of the
community. He influenced every segment of this large institution. His
sexual conditioning was formed and fostered in the two years of his
novitiate under the tutelage of Fr. Basil Stegmann, O.S.B. who repeatedly
took novice John on his lap while instructing him.
John was an orphan and lived with relatives near the campus of the abbey.
His sexual identity and his remarkable talents were conditioned and
fostered by the total institution. The homosocial structure of the abbey and
schools influenced his adjustment.
The homoerotic component in Roman Catholic theology and in the social
construct of training and in the power associations fosters sexual
expression as “natural” in ordinary male relationships. This is in direct
contradiction to the official teaching that homosexuality is “unnatural” and
“intrinsically disordered”.
I observed similar constructs in Vatican contacts with confreres when I was
a student in Rome. I could only register facts that I could not put together at
the time.
Students with some ambition would make contact with secretaries of
various Vatican officials, usually a Monsignore. This could assure them an
invitation to “tea” or some reception. Those who made the cut had social
access to a certain group of minor officials with prospects of wider and
more exalted contacts. (The book I Millinari written by 5 Vatican officials
also records variations on this pattern.)
Sexual liaisons become common for men conditioned to homosexually in
the system when women become available for social contact usually after
ordination. The Vatican term “transitional homosexuality” (2009) I
believe is based on the observation that a portion of priests pass through a
phase of sexual bonding with men (or even boys) before setting into
heterosexual behaviors.
Bishop Robert H. Brom: I have talked with the man who made allegations
of misconduct against Brom and with whom he made a $120,000
settlement. The history is well recorded by several responsible reporters.
Significant here is the operation of the National Conference of Bishops who
in their 2002 Dallas Charter made provision for “zero tolerance” of clergy
abusing minors but neglected to address violations by bishops. Instead
they appointed Brom, when allegations were known, to make “Fraternal
Correction” to other bishops accused.
This type of operation is typical of the pattern of cover up from the top of
the institution. (Reflected in the destruction of documents by the Papal
Nuncio in the Neinstedt case. Cf. Documentation provided by the Ramsey
County District Attorney)
Cardinal Roger Mahony. I have served as an expert witness in a sufficient
number of abuse cases in the LA Archdiocese to conclude it is not
outlandish to ask if Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is a criminal for
“knowingly endangering the children he was supposed to defend.”
There is ample evidence already in the public forum that Mahony has
known of priests who abused minors, reassigned them and allowed them to
minister only to abuse other minors. He has not informed parishioners or
even parish staffs, that the priests he was assigning had a record of abuse.
Mahony who has a Masters in Social Work did not report known priest
abusers to social services even though he was obligated to do so by civil
law and by reason of the profession’s Code of Ethics. All of this vast
evidence is recorded in countless depositions on record from litigations1 of
abuse cases and from Mahony’s own testimony under oath.2
1 Depositions by Bishop Curry and Judge Byrne are illustrative of how priests were assigned and the
oversight board operated.
2 Mahony depositions, January 25, 2010; November 23, 2004; also Cf. Mahony trial testimony Fresno,
CA March 17, 2009.
I received reports from two men about Mahony’s sexual life and orientation;
one a former (St. John, Camarillo) seminarian who was dying of HIV
related complications; the other a long time LA church employee. The men
were credible reporters unwilling to go public or draw on corroboration.
I have served as an expert on a number of cases of confirmed sexual
abuse by priests of the LA Archdiocese from 2002 onward. Several are
remarkable: (i.e. the case of Lopez y Lopez and the controversy between
Mahony and the Cardinal of Mexico City. One of the principals in the latter
had to be lying.)
Judge Jim Byrne touted by the cardinal as a poster boy for the integrity of
the sexual abuse review board said in deposition that in all the years he
served on the Board he “never thought” of helping the victims.
Lawyer, Larry Drivon, who has litigated many California cases of clergy
abuse stated that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mahony with
perjury after letters he signed when he was bishop of Stockton, were
produced in his 2004 deposition and showed—black on white—that he had
clear knowledge of events that he denied under oath in deposition and on
the witness stand in the 1998 trial of Fr. Oliver O’Grady.3
I attended the Nov. 2004 deposition of Mahony and know the history of the
O’Grady trial. I saw Mahony’s signed letters. As a layperson I witnessed the
cardinal lying. His lawyer claimed, as did the cardinal that “he forgot.” (in 2
depositions and on the witness stand)
Three Los Angeles Grand Juries have been impaneled over nine years to
determine the real picture of abusing priests in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles. Their problem is not the lack of evidence, but the monumental
legal impediments and roadblocks the cardinal has sponsored to obstruct
the investigation and the release of documents needed to pinpoint facts of
the cardinal’s knowledge and involvement in complicity and obstruction.
California law does not allow Grand Jury reports to be made public unless
indictments result.
3 Don Lattin. December 11, 2004. The San Francisco Chronicle.
Mahony claimed that communications between him and his priests have a
special privilege, not unlike that of confessional secrets. His claim was
included as the central argument advanced by his attorneys for refusing to
disclose files ordered by the courts. His arguments were rejected by the
appeal court, the California Supreme Court. Not deterred he had his
lawyers even try to have the case reversed by the United States Supreme
Court. The highest court in the land could not swallow his theory. His
obstructionism seems unbounded.
He claimed that he was a member of the therapeutic team treating priest
abusers and therefore documents involving him enjoyed a privilege of
medical confidentiality. In actuality he was never a member of any
therapeutic teams for several reasons not the least of which is the fact that
he is not qualified.
It has not yet been revealed how many millions the cardinal spent in
pursuing facetious claims. He has employed for his defense not merely
several lawyers but several law firms as well as Sitrick and Company, a
public relation firm used by Enron, the Tobacco industry and the Keating
Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s. Fortune magazine called the
company’s founder “one of the most accomplished practitioners of the
dark arts of public relations. The Financial Times called him, “The spin
doctor’s spin doctor.” Should any Catholic entity much less an
archdiocese take any pride in resorting to the services of such an
organization? Truth and transparency seem secondary if important at all.
These and myriad other stories are to be told from documents and records.
These records show Mahony’s, and other bishops pattern and practice that
reflect institutional defenses of its ministers’ sexual behaviors.
I will not belabor the more than 250 abuse cases of clergy abuse I have
served on as an expert witness or consultant.
I served the Attorney General of Massachusetts in the formation of their
Grand Jury investigation of clergy abuse in that State (2002). And I was an
expert witness to the first of three Grand Juries empaneled in Philadelphia
and I reviewed 135 clergy abuse files then. Since that time I have been
able to follow the working and operation of the Archdiocesan offices’
dealing with victims of clergy abuse. That is a paradigm of the malfunction
of the American church in response to clergy.
You are well aware that your diocese has settled with many victims (144 in
2007 alone).
I have tried to help the Church understand and heal the wounds of sexual
abuse by clergy. My services have not been welcomed.
My appeal to you has been for pastoral attention to victims of abuse and
the long term consequences of that violation. This includes the effects of
suicidal attempts.
Only a bishop can minister to these wounds.
Enclosed you will find a list of bishops who have been found wanting in
their duties to the people of God.
A.W.Richard Sipe
August 30, 2016
(Hand Delivered)


Wolves in Jacquard and Lace: On Sodomites in Traddyland – Liturgical Fetishists

It is essential that orthodox, “Traddy” Catholics face with manful virility the problems within their own ranks – specifically the presence of homosexual men that are attracted to the Traditional Mass not from any genuine religious belief, but due to Liturgical Fetishism. These men, nearly all of them homosexually oriented, are a massive scandal and are incredibly destructive – driving away heterosexual men and attracting more homosexual liturgical fetishists like themselves.

This problem is, as far as I can tell, a far greater problem in Europe than it is in North America.  Traddyland in Europe is largely an ARISTOCRATIC, UPPER-CLASS phenomenon.  In North America, it is exactly the opposite – American Traddyland skews decidedly to the “peasant” culture.  In many American trad parishes, the women are often mistaken for Mennonites out in the world, with their ankle-length jumpers, long hair, veils worn in the “babushka” way,and non-use of cosmetics.   The point is that precisely because the American Trad paradigm is more grounded in a “peasant” culture, the men are more manly, on average, and thus the priests and seminarians are manly too.  In Europe, there is more of a problem with a spirit of effeteness amongst the men.

There was a bishop in the North of Italy that would take pretty much any priest or seminarian that was “traddy”, thinking in good faith but extreme naiveté that all trads are solid, orthodox, believing Catholics, and that these poor priests and seminarians had been driven out of their respective dioceses or seminaries SOLELY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRADS.  Alas, what ended up happening was this bishop’s diocese turned into a hotbed of these homosexual liturgical fetishists, and just as with Novus Ordo or secular homosexual men, the molestation of pubescent boys ensued.  Because remember, all sex perverts are Diabolical Narcissists, and DNs, by definition, are vampiric and seek to create more DNs by hurting, scandalizing and abusing victims.  Homosexuals especially look to groom, recruit and create more DN sex perverts in order to keep the whole sordid paradigm alive. And so, Bergoglio jumped at this chance, replaced the bishop by installing a liberal Auxiliary, and then basically stripped the bishop of all authority.  But make no mistake, the primary agenda was to suppress the Trad Catholic culture – not to protect children.

Another way to think of this is like the example of a bar owner.  Bar owners have to be incredibly careful about letting homosexuals come into their bar and carry on.  Why?  Because the sight of homosexuals kissing, dancing and acting out is utterly repellant and nauseating to normal people.  It makes a decent person sick to behold it.  So, a barkeeper, if he permits such behavior, can lose his entire established clientele in ONE WEEKEND, to have it replaced with the sodomites, who tell all of their friends that they have just “acquired new territory”.

A situation just like this was recounted to me in a trad parish in Europe.  There was an extremely competent liturgist in the parish, but this man was a raging queen. He was horrifically cruel to both the laymen and the clergy, and was grossly irreverent in the sacristy. He was tolerated solely because he had such a high level of expertise.  Then, one day, after there was some failure to comply with his demands, he threw what can only be described as a “fag fit” and swished out in a haughty huff.  The parish was delighted and relieved to see him go, despite the loss of his expertise.  Why?  Because they were a young parish and they were terrified that this one raging queen was going to drive away every heterosexual man – both lay and clergy – and attract in more homosexuals, thus turning the parish into a veritable bathhouse. Straight men do not want to be around, much less be verbally and emotionally abused by, fags. Period. Straight men will flee from fags even faster than they flee from domineering, nagging women, for obvious reasons.

I am starting to hear more about these sorts of concerns in North America.  I have received more than one email from concerned mothers of children in trad parishes who simply do not feel comfortable leaving their sons alone with the “choir director” or “altar server organizer” – always “confirmed bachelors” who, let’s be honest, lay the needle on the old gaydar on the peg and then break the spring.

We all need to start speaking up about these things, specifically calling out and ostracizing men who act like this.  Folks, the “queeny” affectation is 100% voluntary.  I have personally witnessed men turn it on and off like a switch. Even if a homosexual man is not acting out and engaging in homosexual sex “behind closed doors”, men who ACT like queens, and do everything they can to telegraph to those around them that they are homosexually oriented ARE A SCANDAL, and their behavior is nothing less than OBSCENE.  It is also a massively reliable indicator of Diabolical Narcissism. To behave in such a way that implies even a winking approval of, much less a prideful wallowing in sin that cries out to heaven for God’s vengeance is simply beyond the pale.

So, for you Trads, especially those in North America who might not know exactly what this “liturgical fetishim” looks like, here are some key traits to look out for and guard against:

  • Contempt for genuine Catholic piety, especially simple piety
  • Contempt for the Rosary
  • Contempt for rank-and-file Trads as “stupid”
  • Contempt for Trads because they “don’t understand Catholicism and take it (the actual religion) all way too seriously”, hurling the word “rigorist” as a pejorative (you think I’m kidding on this one – so many people have been told this it is stunning)
  • Accusing Trads who have a full and proper understanding of the 6th Commandment of being “Jansenists” or “Calvinists”.
  • Rejection of the notion that the Novus Ordo must be abolished – because the idea that the waiter or janitor or blue-collar rabble have and know the same Mass as the “elite” is repellant, and defeats the entire purpose of their liturgical fetish
  • Hyper-criticality, haughtily luxuriating in running down everything – music, ceremonies, vestments, flowers, architecture, regardless of the financial or personnel resources of the parish. Every Mass is “yet another abomination”, the choir is “grotesque”, the servers are “retarded”, vestments are “rags”. Often, the objectively better the liturgy is, the more vicious the criticism will become, because the liturgical fetishist derives intense narcissistic satisfaction from criticizing things that are actually very good – thus proving how vastly superior they believe themselves to be
  • Irreverence, impiousness and even “camp” behavior in the sacristy and even in the sanctuary – using extreme profanity, sometimes mere feet from the Blessed Sacrament
  • Resenting being asked to help do anything, always acting put-upon and put-out
  • Resenting NOT being asked to help do anything
  • Never saying “please or “thank you” to anyone – general rudeness
  • Effete, queeny comportment – screeching, hooting, feminine raging and fit-throwing

These are all, it seems to me, pretty common-sense things to look out for.  The key is overcoming the pathological effeminacy that has been inculcated into every one of us and to start doing again what people used to do to these types of people before our culture was destroyed: ostracize them. Cast them out.  Make it clear that there is no place for this sort of scandalous behavior in a Catholic Culture.  DO NOT fall for the lie that “there will always be queer types hanging around the sacristy.”  No, there won’t, if we do the right thing and drive any and all “queer types” OUT.

The summation is simply this:

One cannot be an aberrosexual (physically active or not) or aberrosexual sympathizer, and an orthodox Catholic, and expect to survive as a cleric and especially as a prelate – and that’s as it should be. We Trads MUST be diligent about self-policing on this point, because as was explained above, satan has set the chessboard such that his agents will use ANY aberrosexual presence against us, completely irrespective of the massive, massive hypocrisy of it all.  Satan doesn’t care that he is a hypocrite, and, in fact, derives intense satisfaction in his hypocrisy precisely because it is a function of mendacity (lying) and manifest injustice. The Rule of Law, and specifically the notion of EQUAL PROTECTION and UNIVERSAL REDRESS is under an intense, and perhaps final attack both in the secular realm and in the Church.  We have an ideological tyrant Antipope who is eager to capitalize on the corruption from top-to-bottom in order to gather ever-more power to himself.  Thus, we must be “wise as serpents” and do everything we can to make certain that we give him, and any nefarious actors that come after him, as little as possible to work with. A good place to start is driving out homosexual liturgical fetishists from among us, both clerics and laymen, and making sure that our garden is kept thoroughly weeded.

St. Peter Damian, pray for us

#TOLDYA – Called It Two Years Ago: EVERY Bishop on earth COULD be removed for having child abusers in his diocese

(This was originally penned and posted on 6 July, ARSH 2016.  I am reposting this, along with its companion piece because Rod Dreher has given a heads-up that he has some incredibly bad news coming out of the most “conservative” and Trad-friendly” diocese in the U.S. – Lincoln, NE.  Brace yourselves, folks.)

Only days removed from saying that he really, really doesn’t enjoy beheading his “archconservative” enemies, Antipope Bergoglio today fired a young, healthy, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage conservative archbishop in Brazil, Archbishop Aldo di Cillo Pagotto, who also has been an outspoken anti-Communist.

But wait! Before we all go crazy, it is absolutely essential to know that there were problems in this archdiocese with sodomite priests and seminarians, including the abuse of minors (read “teenaged boys”).  This is what is being cited as the reason for the firing of this archbishop.

Given this, I feel it is an opportune moment to explain several things to you all out there, so that there is a genuine comprehension of the chessboard as it now sets, and of the gameplan and tactics of the enemy.  It isn’t difficult to comprehend, but it is one of those things that needs to be clearly explained in order to be easily understood.

First, it is essential to state that any tolerance of aberrosexuals within the clergy and seminaries is, of course, a horrible malfeasance on the part of the bishop which should warrant drastic action, up to and including the bishop’s removal. Yes. Absolutely. No question.

HOWEVER, literally every diocese and archdiocese on the planet has sodomites and aberrosexuals who have infiltrated or are trying to infiltrate The Church, some of them are already ordained, and some are still in seminary.  EVERY DIOCESE AND ARCHDIOCESE HAS SODOMITE INFILTRATION.

So, if you think about this, what it means is that Antipope Bergoglio and his henchmen can use the UNIVERSALLY PRESENT PRETEXT OF SODOMITE INFILTRATION to justify the firing of ANY BISHOP.

Do you see this?  This is EXACTLY what has been going on for the past 3 years.  Bergoglio surrounds himself, and in fact was installed as Antipope by a cadre of flagrant, horrific sodomites, including protectors of incestuous child rapists, Card. Gottfried Daneels first among them.  Bergoglio caused enormous outrage in Chile just last spring – outrage which the media has refused to publicize – by appointing the odious sodomite Juan Barros as Archbishop of Osorno.  Barros is neck-deep in a massive ongoing investigation of child rape, in which Barros is repeatedly and credibly reported to not only have covered-up for his child-raping priest buddies, but to have actually, physically observed some of the child rapes as an, ahem,  enthusiastic spectator.

Bergoglio immediately installed one Msgr. Battista Ricca as the head of his residence (Casa Santa Marta) AND as the overseer of… wait for it… the Vatican Bank, a position for which the odious sodomite Ricca had exactly zero qualification, experience or competence.  Ricca was well-known to Bergoglio from South America.  Ricca was a Vatican diplomat posted in Montevideo, Uruguay, just across the bay from Buenos Aires, and Ricca was a flagrant, notorious and scandalous presence, shacking up and carrying on OPENLY with his sodomite sex partner – a former Swiss Guard named Patrick Haari.  Further, Ricca was caught in flagrante delicto in an elevator with a boy child prostitute in Montevideo, and got the crap beat out of him at least once cruising for sex in a public park notorious for such evil activity.  The people of Montevideo were so outraged that they rose up and demanded Ricca’s expulsion, whereupon Ricca was sent back to Rome, to resume his place in the Vatican Bathhouse. Ricca and Haari’s luggage was initially sent by Haari to the Vatican as diplomatic baggage – and the Vatican refused delivery.  This luggage, when later found and opened, was found to contain a pistol, enormous quantities of sodomite pornography, and dozens of condoms.

When Bergoglio was installed, he reunited with his old neighbor, and Ricca was instantly made a de facto prince(ss). Why? Because Bergoglio is all about power and loyalty to his regime, and as a diabolical narcissist and fairly unintelligent man, is highly, highly susceptible to flattery and outward displays of loyalty.  Ricca, as is true with most sodomite men, most especially those of the queeny variety, can be sickening, shameless flatterers.  Sodomites also tend to be of above-average intelligence.  I can almost promise you that the cadre of sodomites that Bergoglio surrounds himself with are considered by Bergoglio to be “smart”, “witty” and “intelligent” – and thus Bergoglio derives tremendous narcissistic satisfaction from “holding court” around the dining table in the back corner of the dining hall at Casa Santa Marta and being flattered and told how “brilliant” he is by these sodomites. And so, Bergoglio is happy to surround and ally himself with them, even though I strongly suspect that Bergoglio himself is not a sodomite.  Bergoglio just doesn’t ping my gaydar. (After having received new info, I have changed my mind – I think Bergoglio IS a sodomite. -AB)

"Do you think I'm smart, Battista?"

“Do you think I’m smart, Battista?”  — “Yes, dear. We ALL do. And, darling, you’re the only one with the humility and ambition to do this….”

Meanwhile, conservative bishops, such as Bishop Finn, formerly of St. Joseph, Missouri, and Archbishop John Nienstedt, formerly of Minneapolis/St. Paul, are fired.  Look folks, this is really easy to understand.  The Enemy has infiltrated the Church with so many sodomites over the past 50+ years that they are present in every diocese and archdiocese.  Further, sodomite men are almost always attracted to TEENAGED BOYS, which are legally children.  Thus, what you have is a situation whereby EVERY BISHOP could be removed for having priests in his diocese that are guilty of misconduct with minor children and/or seminarians.  And so, Antipope Bergoglio uses this satanic set-up to prosecute his ideological agenda.

Now stop and sit in stillness with that until the full, demonic evil of it sets in.  Antipope Bergoglio is using the sexual abuse of minor children and seminarians as the means to SELECTIVELY PURGE, THAT IS, “BEHEAD”, HIS IDEOLOGICAL ENEMIES. Since the sodomite infiltration is everywhere, his simply goes after bishops who are “conservative”, “orthodox”, and/or “anti-Marxist” and leaves totally unmolested (NPI) his ideological fellow-travelers, no matter how horrific and egregious their crimes.

So back to the Archbishop in Brazil that Antipope Bergoglio fired today.  Not only has this man been a strong voice against the Culture of Death, a signatory of the Filial Appeal to “Pope Francis” on the Future of the Family, friendly toward priests and faithful who celebrate and attend the Tridentine Mass, but also an outspoken… wait for it… ANTI-COMMUNIST in Brazil. Well, no wonder.  This guy has had a bullseye on his back, and even willingly made himself a target by signing documents specifically critical of the Bergoglian agenda and contrary to Bergoglio’s Marxist political ideology.  Remember this?


Novena For the Feast of the Assumption: August 6-14

This Novena is obviously for one and all, but in particular we are praying for all good and holy priests, whom satan has under special attack in these dark, dark days.  Satan wants to convince the world that there are no good priests, and that the priesthood is a lost cause.  This Novena, along with any additional penances one may take on leading up to the Feast of the Assumption on August 15th, can’t but be salutary.

CLICK HERE for more info.

Mary, Queen Assumed into Heaven, I rejoice that after years of heroic martyrdom on earth, you have at last been taken to the throne prepared for you in heaven by the Holy Trinity.

Lift my heart with you in the glory of your Assumption above the dreadful touch of sin and impurity. Teach me how small earth becomes when viewed from heaven. Make me realize that death is the triumphant gate through which I shall pass to your Son, and that someday my body shall rejoin my soul in the unending bliss of heaven.

From this earth, over which I tread as a pilgrim, I look to you for help. I ask for this favor: (Mention your request).

When my hour of death has come, lead me safely to the presence of Jesus to enjoy the vision of my God for all eternity together with you.

The Assumption, Guido Reni

Oh Daniel Prayed the Divine Office Every Day, Noon and Night.

The great lesson of my life so far was to have had the Divine Office available, then taken away.  What one wouldn’t give to have it available again!

Git after it, y’all.

I heard about a man one day
He wasted not his time away
He prayed to God
Every morning noon and night
He cared not for the things of Bel
But trusted One who never fails
Oh, Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night

They locked him in the lions’ den
Because he would not honor men
But he prayed to God
Every morning, noon and night
The jaws were locked, it made him shout
And God soon brought him safely out
Oh Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night

Now brother let us watch and pray
Like Daniel did from day to day
He prayed to God
Every morning, noon and night
We too can gladly dare and do
And pray to God He’ll see us through
Oh, Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night.

Daniel 7: 25

And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time.

Et sermones contra Excelsum loquetur, et sanctos Altissimi conteret : et putabit quod possit mutare tempora, et leges : et tradentur in manu ejus usque ad tempus, et tempora, et dimidium temporis.