Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s continuing journey toward authentic Catholic tradition – one that in some ways resembles my own – took another major step forward in June as he publicly took aim at “the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II.”
In a missive dated June 9, 2020, Viganò accused the Council vis-à-vis its treatment of religious liberty of “contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.”
He said that the Council’s concept of ecumenism “was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.”
He even went so far as to identify Satan as the true author of “the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI,” saying:
Just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.
In a follow up letter dated June 14, Archbishop Viganò sharpened his criticism, charging the Council with behavior “intended and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused many evils.” He said that rather than selectively condemning its errors, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten” and to “declare its oblivion.”
These are strong words from Archbishop Viganò, and they necessarily lead to some very important questions concerning ecclesiology and the papacy.
With regard to the former, he leaves little room for confusion as he identifies the acts of the Council as “voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church.” In other words, he makes it clear enough that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the one true Church of Christ. As Our Lord said:
Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Mt 12:25)
Furthermore, the Catholic Church is a Holy Mother who always and everywhere nurtures her children in that which is good. The Council, as Archbishop Viganò stated, was “intended and conceived for its subversive value,” and it “has caused many evils.”
With this evidently in mind, Archbishop Viganò says as plainly as possible:
From Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
And yet, in spite of so much clarity, Archbishop Viganò’s conception of the papacy remains clouded and confused. For example, he refers to the Bergoglian Reign of Terror as coming from “the highest Throne” and “the present Pontificate.”
This is the same man that Archbishop Viganò excoriates for having signed and promoted the infamous Abu Dhabi Declaration, a text that he calls a “triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist!”
He even suggests that Bergoglio is little more than a Masonic puppet, referring in the same discourse to “the directions he has received.”
Are we really to believe that such a man reigns from the Throne of St. Peter, the occupants of which have been divinely endowed with the gift of truth and a never failing faith, that the entire flock of Christ may be protected from the poisonous food of error? (cf First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus)
More broadly speaking, are we to imagine that the man at the helm of the “parallel church” – the same that Archbishop Viganò correctly identified as being “diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ” – is at one and the same time the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ?
The very thought that this describes the man known as “Francis” is growing more absurd with every passing day.
But why stop there?
Bergoglio is just one of half-a-dozen men who, whilst laying claim to the papacy either presided over or promoted the conciliar revolution, leading the parallel church in its diametric opposition to the true Church of Christ.
At this, we have arrived at the most noteworthy aspect of Archbishop Viganò’s essay.
You see, in spite of his unsustainable ideas concerning the Bergoglian “pontificate,” it appears that he isn’t stopping there in his assessment of the papacy as a whole. Rather, there are signs that he is privately exploring some of the same sedevacantist arguments that I am currently weighing.
We’ll return to those signs momentarily, but first I wish to point out that which is far more obvious; namely, the fact that Archbishop Viganò is evidently entertaining doubts as to the legitimacy of conclave 2013.
Referring to the events of 13 March 2013, he mentioned “the first appearance of the ‘newly elected’ Pope,” with the words newly elected conspicuously placed within quotation marks.
This can only mean one of two things; either he is not convinced that the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and/or he believes that the activities of the so-called St. Gallen Mafia may have nullified the outcome even if it was.
About those events, Archbishop Viganò stated:
The mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI.
The logical consequences of Vatican II were weakened by Benedict XVI? No, that dog won’t hunt; in fact, that beast won’t even get out of bed and, deep down, I think knows it.
Benedict was a staunch defender of the Council’s version of religious liberty; he was also a dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist who convened his very own Assisi abomination – the very two conciliar errors Archbishop Viganò chose to condemn by name.
So, what gives? My guess is that Archbishop Viganò is struggling to come to terms with the disastrous tenures of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI for the simple reason that he had a personal relationship with both men and genuinely liked them.
Even so, I believe that he is sincere in his efforts to find and speak the truth, whatever it may be, in preparation for the day of reckoning that awaits us all. As such, I think it is reasonable to imagine that he is privately and prayerfully applying everything that the popes, councils and theologians taught about the papacy in the centuries leading up to Vatican II to the scoundrels who laid claim to the Chair of St. Peter both during and after the event.
Sure, I may be projecting my own experience on the Archbishop, but I sense that there’s more to it than that.
For one, he mentions by name John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict and Francis (who he more often calls “Bergoglio”) – some of them multiple times. Curiously, however, he doesn’t refer to any one of them as “Pope,” nor does he refer to any of the former three as “Saint.”
One also notes the fact that when Archbishop Viganò first made a splash with his testimony of August 2018 concerning Uncle Ted McCarrick, he was very careful not to say anything that might reflect poorly on either John Paul II or Benedict XVI in spite of their obvious responsibility for allowing the predator to roam more or less freely.
Now, almost two years later, we see that the gloves are slowly coming off.
In his latest essay, Archbishop Viganò openly pointed to the example of “John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, Buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics” as that which led to “the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the Pachamama on their shoulders.”
Elsewhere in the text, he wrote about the hermeneutic of continuity that Benedict XVI invented as a means of interpreting and implementing the Council, openly admitting that it had “shipwrecked miserably.”
In August of last year, I wrote in this space: It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to admit that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not only agents in, but leaders of, the gigantic subversive operation that was launched at Vatican Council II.
Now that there is evidence that this moment is at hand, I will leave you with this:
It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to openly postulate whether or not any of the men who served at the helm of the parallel church that was born at Vatican Council II have any legitimate claim to the Roman Pontificate. This is, after all, the next logical step in his journey toward tradition.
Over the past several months, Satan’s minions have scored some impressive victories in their ongoing war against Christ the King. The results are entirely evident as “the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony” (QuasPrimas 19) have become increasingly rare, with the incidence of violence, injustice and poverty steadily rising.
In recent days alone, the City of Man that godless liberals labor to construct has grown tremendously in both size and scope. The City of God, it seems, has precious little, if any, territory left.
Certainly, this battle has been raging for centuries on end, and yet, something about our day is palpably different than those that preceded it. All indications are that we have arrived at a tipping point in human history; we are teetering, it seems, on the brink. One gets the sense that the status quo simply cannot hold for very much longer; civilization is poised to topple in either one direction or the other.
On one side, the Prince of this world stands ready to welcome humanity to a virtual Hell on earth, a dreadful place where decent people, the Christian faithful in particular, can well expect to encounter horrors as yet unimagined. Should the godless liberals prevail, this is the world that awaits us, our children and our grandchildren.
On the other side is the King of kings, who draws all men to Himself and wills that every man and every nation should submit to His “sweet and saving yoke” (ibid.).
Indeed, even if the scales should tip in the right direction, this world will remain a Valley of Tears where peace is all too often elusive, at least until such time as the consecration of Russia is done and the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumphs. Still, there can be no doubt that the only way for the common good to be served in the interim is for the godless liberal left to suffer a major setback, and soon.
At this undeniably pivotal moment in time, the days of patiently tolerating those in my life who make no bones about their support for the liberal agenda – be they family members or friends – treating them as if they are anything other than avowed enemies of God, are over. The choices that lie ahead and what they entail are far too obvious. The stakes are far too high. I can no longer pretend that we have anything of value in common.
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Eph. 6:12)
I realize that we have reached a point where it is no longer enough to pray for the conversion of liberal loved ones, even though I will continue to do so until I breathe my last. As for how we should proceed, please see the following:
Otherwise known as political liberals, misery loving leftists are those who, for reasons we will examine below, give every indication of not-so-secretly yearning for human events, natural phenomena and contemporary occurrences that have the potential, however slight it may be, for visiting all manner of devastation upon the denizens of planet Earth; flora, fauna and, above all, people.
During peaceful and prosperous times – especially when the majority of the ruling class is comprised of political conservatives – liberals long for tumult, turmoil and perplexing problems that will create, or so they hope, demand for their storehouse of solutions.
Among the mediums of misery topping their wish list:
– Powerful hurricanes and other natural disasters that wreak havoc on thriving communities, especially in the United States – provided their own comfortable lives are in no way disrupted – in order to lend urgency to climate change legislation.
– Mass shootings and other gun crimes – in particular those that are carried out by, and claim the lives of, children – in order to justify efforts aimed at disarming law abiding citizens.
– Widespread unemployment, poverty and general economic depression – so long as their own pension plans and portfolios remain healthy – in order to further fatten an already bloated welfare state.
– A worldwide crisis of any sort that can be leveraged in order to dilute national sovereignties and fortify the structures of globalism.
Today, misery loving leftists are easier to spot than ever. Collectively, they are doing very little to mask (no pun intended) their voracious appetite for any datapoint whatever – be it marginally based in reality or wholly fabricated – that paints COVID-19 as an unmitigated disaster that, apart from strict draconian measures, poses an unprecedented threat to every man, woman and child the world over.
For this crowd, every episode of the nightly news is like the Super Bowl, an opportunity to sit before the television set to root for their team-of-choice to overwhelm the opposition; in the place of defensive stands, field goals and touchdowns are skyrocketing COVID cases, hospital admissions and untimely deaths. On this note, the mainstream media rarely disappoints, regardless of the actual score, offsetting anything even remotely suggesting that the China virus is in retreat with bogus statistics, blatant editorializing and apocalyptic warnings.
Why, one may wonder, are liberals so damned enamored with misery?
To arrive at an answer, it must first be acknowledged that misery, for the liberal, is not an end unto itself. Rather, it is a means to an end; namely, big government programs (the bigger and more global the better) designed to micromanage private business enterprises, redistribute wealth, and exert maximum regulatory control over the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens, and all of this, ostensibly, for the good of society.
In other words, the leftist intuitively infers that misery is necessary inasmuch as it is high octane fuel for the cause of socialism. Without it, much if not most of the citizenry will fight their agenda tooth and nail. If, however, they are able to create and sustain misery to the point of unbearable, then a considerable segment of even those on the political right will also fall in line, bringing their dreams of a New World Order ever closer to reality.
If nothing else has been learned via the COVID-19 experience it is that the liberal playbook does indeed contain a winning formula for the advancement of their agenda:
M x T = C, where M is Misery, T is Time, and C is Capitulation.
With this in mind, let us rephrase the question: Why are liberals – aka misery loving leftists – so committed to the cause of socialism?
I suppose the reasons are many and varied, but if challenged to answer in a single word, I’d say guilt. Consider: What are the bottom line, non-negotiable political agendas that define liberalism?
Two in particular stand out; Abortion-on-Demand and the LGBT movement.
Both of these sociopolitical causes – each one taken up in furtherance of an intrinsic evil – stand in such stark opposition to the most basic tenets of the Natural Law that even those leftists who have never participated in the murder of their own offspring, or personally engaged in acts of homo-deviance, simply cannot avoid the still, small voice of condemnation within, however faint it may be.
This leaves the liberal with a limited number of options.
One is to respond with humility to the conscience’s appeal, plainly taking responsibility for the undeniably putrid state of their soul. This, of course, is the right and first necessary step in sincerely seeking union with Almighty God – the Author of all that is good and beautiful and true. This is a daunting task for the liberal who, by definition, has grown rather comfortable worshiping the god-of-self, regardless of any claims to the contrary.
Needless to say, repentantly acknowledging one’s reliance upon God for forgiveness is also the first step toward leaving the leftist agenda behind altogether – as well as parting ways with certain family members, friends and perhaps even professions.
Like I said, albeit the right thing to do, it’s a daunting task indeed.
The only remaining option for the liberal is to labor to convince him or herself – in spite of all self-knowledge – that they’ve nothing whatsoever for which to feel guilty. As for the inner voice of reason that relentlessly declares otherwise; this they dismiss as being nothing more than an echo introduced from without by intolerant, judgmental, religious conservatives. In other words, their mission in life becomes reassuring themselves, and anyone else who will listen, that they really are models of loving innocence after all.
With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at just a few of the more ubiquitous of leftwing initiatives and how guilt may serve to contribute to their popularity.
To a person, liberals are very quick to pledge – and advertise – their dedication to nearly every godforsaken cause that claims to be for either “the children” or the “little guy.”
Based on the observations above, it seems entirely reasonable to presume that this is one of the ways in which liberals, even if only subconsciously, attempt to allay the deep-seated feelings of self-reproach that necessarily plague all, save for the most debased of sociopaths, who actively support abortion-on-demand, the most heinous genocidal assault ever aimed at the littlest of human persons.
Likewise, one notes how often liberals delight in virtue signaling their alleged “color blindness” by jumping on board every program claiming to combat and correct the effects of racism, regardless of how patronizing, condescending and ineffective it may be.
This perhaps make sense if viewed as the liberal’s way of seeking to offset the well-known fact that the abortion rights movement has led to the extermination of disproportionately large numbers of people of color, with this, in fact, being one of its stated goals even from the very first moments of its inception.
What can be said of the fact that liberals are so highly motivated to invest significant physical and emotional energy in the environmental movement and all things “green,” making quite a show of their abiding reverence for Mother Nature, regardless of any detrimental effects doing so may have on humanity?
When viewed through the lens of a liberal-in-denial, what comes into focus is a desperate attempt to pay some sort of restitution for their role in fomenting those open acts of rebellion against the laws of nature known as homo-deviance and transgenderism.
At this, assuming that the point has been sufficiently made, let’s return to our question:
Why are liberals so enamored with misery in all of its various forms?
The answer, it seems, is surprisingly simple.
For the guilt-ridden liberal, every occasion of misery – be it real (like the advent of a novel coronavirus) or imagined (like the make-believe global warming crisis) – represents a new opportunity to muffle the nagging voice of truth that resonates in the conscience beneath a shroud of ersatz compassion, perpetuating the lie that they’ve chosen to tell themselves and others, day in and day out:
See, I really am a good person!
Today, the conciliar church-of-man celebrates the Nativity of Karol Wojtyla. In light of this, Benedict the Abdicator has penned a letter commemorating the 100th anniversary of Wojtyla’s birth. Though the writer evidently endeavored to highlight a number of Wojtyla’s more praiseworthy traits, he ended up providing what Catholics readily perceive as a list of indictments.
Reflecting on Wojtyla’s formative years, Benedict writes:
Karol not only studied theology in books but also through his experience of the difficult situation that he and his Country found itself in. This is somewhat a characteristic of his whole life and work. He studied books but the questions that they posed became the reality that he profoundly experienced and lived.
In other words, Wojtyla was a humanist who was fully committed to personalism, placing man (and his soaring dignity) at the center of all things, with his experiences being the lens through which he perceives objective reality – a philosophy that stands in contrast to the Thomistic understanding that it is by way of the five senses and the intellect that man comes to grasp what is knowable.
As Benedict suggests, this focus on experience includes knowledge even in the area of theology. Sure, Karol Wojtyla read the works produced by the Church’s venerable popes, Saints, Doctors and theologians, but his experiences (and those of other human persons) obviously held greater sway.
At this, I am reminded of a story shared by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo: Shortly after being named Bishop of Sioux City, he found himself in Rome for an ad limina visit. At the end of the audience with John Paul II, DiNardo recalls, “He looked me straight in the eyes and said, ‘Remember bishop, it’s all about the human person.’”
And here you thought it was all about Christ!
In an article published by America Magazine in 2004, Avery Dulles shed light on Wojtyla’s philosophy, citing a paper he had written on “Thomistic Personalism” in 1961 wherein the future John Paul II declared:
When it comes to analyzing consciousness and self-consciousness—there seems to be no place for it in St. Thomas’ objectivistic view of reality. In any case, that in which the person’s subjectivity is most apparent is presented by St. Thomas in an exclusively—or almost exclusively—objective way. He shows us the particular faculties, both spiritual and sensory, thanks to which the whole of human consciousness and self-consciousness—the human personality in the psychological and moral sense—takes shape, but that is also where he stops. Thus St. Thomas gives us an excellent view of the objective existence and activity of the person, but it would be difficult to speak in his view of the lived experiences of the person.
Poor Aquinas, he evidently failed to realize, as Wojtyla concluded, that the objective must yield to the subjective!
Dulles, a Jesuit, provided an excellent example of how Wojtyla’s personalism manifested itself in contraposition to authentic Catholic tradition:
In his talks and writings, Pope John Paul II speaks frequently of Christ’s threefold office as prophet, priest and king. While he elaborates on the first two members of this triad, he has relatively less to say about Christ’s kingly office. The Feast of Christ the King was instituted by Pius XI in 1925 to make it clear that Christ “holds all nations under his sway” (Quas Primas, No. 20). “Nations,” wrote Pius XI, “will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ” (QP, No. 32, italics supplied).
John Paul II, by contrast, speaks of Christ’s lordship as a triumph of humble submission and of his kingdom as a “kingdom of love and service.” He says relatively little about Christ as lawmaker and judge, perhaps because these themes fit less well into his personalist scheme.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s no perhaps about it; Wojtyla’s personalism left little room for Our Lord’s Kingship. Dulles even made note of the degree to which this is true of the Almighty Council – the New Pentecost by which the church-of-man over which JPII presided was born:
The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” with its accent on the mutual independence of church and state, has made it more difficult to speak with the boldness of Pius XI.
To his credit, Dulles concluded, “But we should not allow ourselves to forget that Christ, who lived humbly as a servant in our midst, has been crowned with glory and that he reigns as sovereign Lord at the right hand of the Father.”
In his letter, Benedict makes no bones about the central role played by the Council in making Wojtyla the humanist that he was:
As a young Bishop – as an Auxiliary Bishop since 1958 and then Archbishop of Kraków from 1964 – the Second Vatican Council became the school of his entire life and work.
Benedict then reveals his own cozy relationship with the Council, writing:
The deliberations of the Council had been presented to the public as a dispute over the Faith itself, which seemed to deprive the Council of its infallible and unwavering sureness.
Yes, you read that correctly… Benedict XVI – the man toward whom some delusional persons are turning as if he can save us from the present ecclesial crisis – actually imagines that the Council is in possession of “infallible and unwavering sureness.”
Benedict went on to note that, upon his election, John Paul II inherited an institution that sociologists compared to “the Soviet Union under the rule of Gorbachev, during which the powerful structure of the Soviet State collapsed under the process of its reform.”
In the face of the ecclesial collapse, John Paul II, according to Benedict, “aroused new enthusiasm for Christ and his Church” from day one when he declared “Do not be afraid! Open, open wide the doors for Christ!”
“This call and tone would characterize his entire pontificate and made him a liberating restorer of the Church,” Benedict suggested.
Oh, yes, so much restoration on Wojtyla’s watch – a tenure that featured dwindling numbers of religious, a scarcity of priests, an explosion of clerical homosexual abusers, empty pews, countless closed parishes, the bankrupting of dioceses, etc.
Modernists like Benedict simply cannot bring themselves to admit that the defining experience of their entire lives – participation in that dreadful event known as Vatican Council II – was an unmitigated disaster. They choose instead to live in a fantasy world that simply does not exist.
He goes on to write:
This was conditioned by the fact that the new Pope came from a country where the Council’s reception had been positive: one of a joyful renewal of everything rather than an attitude of doubt and uncertainty in all.
So, what does the positive reception of the Council in Poland actually look like?
According to the Institute for Catholic Church Statistics (Jan. 2020), only 38 percent of self-identified Catholics in Poland attended Mass in the past year, with just 17 percent receiving Communion. So much for joyful renewal.
Setting his sights on the present day, Benedict states:
It is finally, beyond this objective historical significance, indispensable for everyone to know that in the end God’s mercy is stronger than our weakness.
These are lovely sounding words, but left unsaid is that free will is such that men can, and most certainly do, occasionally reject God and His mercy, even to their last breath, at which point they stand before His justice.
Benedict then draws the most cogent conclusion to be found in the entire letter:
Moreover, at this point [regarding God’s mercy considered apart from His justice], the inner unity of the message of John Paul II and the basic intentions of Pope Francis can also be found.
Amen to that! As has been said in this space many times, both Jorge and Karol are cut from the same cloth; the common thread that joins them, as well as Ratzinger and those who preceded all of them, from John XXIII forward, is the Council from which emerged the counterfeit church-of-man.