Imagine a man, let’s call him Michael, who is considered by many to be a trustworthy expert on produce. He even makes his living by publishing a newspaper and creating video content whereby he shares his wealth of knowledge about fruits and vegetables.
Over the past several years, Michael has developed a deeply troubling habit of publicly referring to a lemon as an apple. In the process, he has confused and misled many.
“No, Michael, you are mistaken,” a concerned observer intervenes.
Cutting a lemon into slices, the sharp aroma of citrus filling the air, he implores, “Look at its bright yellow skin! Smell its familiar fragrance! Taste its piquant flavor! See? It looks, smells, and tastes nothing like an apple!”
“Indeed, I see and smell and taste just as you do,” Michael replies.
“Even so,” he insists, “I assure you and all who will listen that this is an apple, and neither I, nor anyone else alive today, has the authority to suggest otherwise!”
The above is intended, and obviously so, as an analogy for those who look at Francis, see his behavior, and recognize his grave errors, and yet insist that the man is Catholic, and more preposterous still, that he is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ.
It also serves rather nicely as an analogy for those who look at the institution presently in occupation of the Vatican, hear its false teachings, witness its unseemly activities, and recoil at its corrupted morals, and yet insist that it is the Holy Catholic Church.
The same may be said for those who recognize the poisonous propositions set forth in the text of Vatican Council II and yet accept it as a valid exercise of the Supreme Magisterium.
For most readers, the first Michael that likely comes to mind when reading all of this is Michael J. Matt, publisher of the nation’s oldest… you know the rest. Yawn.
Today, however, I have a different Michael in mind.
Before we get to him, what might one conclude about a supposed produce expert who insists that a lemon is an apple?
Well, based upon his detachment from reality, the first thing we might conclude is that his ability to use reason and simple logic is obviously crippled, by whatever cause or for whatever reason.
It might also occur to us that perhaps he does not really believe that lemons are apples, but rather is rewarded for publicly taking that position, i.e., he is merely playing his audience for personal gain.
Either way, one thing is certain, we would do well to view his insights and commentary on other matters, even those not directly related to his alleged area of expertise, with deep suspicion as well. In fact, we should probably expect to find that many of his opinions, on a whole host of topics, reflect a similar degree of delusion, disconnect, and cognitive dissonance.
This is even more the case when it comes to those who call Bergoglio pope; the conciliar church, Catholic, and Vatican II, Magisterium, insofar as those persons are disconnected in some substantial degree not merely from a series of truths, but from Truth incarnate and the religion that He established for our salvation.
At this, let’s now turn our attention to Michael Warsaw, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the EWTN media conglomerate.
On March 1, Warsaw wrote an article for National Catholic Register about Tucker Carlson’s recent interview of Vladimir Putin.
The ostensible purpose of the article was to shine some Catholic light on the fact “that so many viewers came away with a favorable impression of the Russian autocrat.”
“This misplaced esteem speaks volumes about where we are as a country right now,” Warsaw writes.
Indeed, it seems that many Americans have been propagandized into accepting the false good guy/bad guy paradigm that is constantly being pounded into their heads by devious politicians and their mouthpieces in the media. In the present case, many appear to be operating according to the misguided belief that one must choose to support either Ukraine or Russia and, by extension, their respective leaders.
The hustle lies in the fact that whichever flag one chooses to fly innocent people will continue to suffer, even as the warmongering elite amass even greater wealth and power, which just so happens to be the point of nearly every military conflict that ever was.
The key to seeing one’s way out of such propaganda traps is precisely what Warsaw proposes, a Catholic perspective. There’s just one problem, he doesn’t have one to offer, rather, his is an exclusively conciliar viewpoint.
For example, he writes:
By feeding into the historically pervasive narrative that religion can be manipulated for political ends, Putin stands diametrically opposed to the larger truth, which we espouse as Catholics, that the state exists to serve its people, not the other way around.
To a great many of Warsaw’s readers, given their own conciliar worldview, the above likely seems perfectly plausible.
The Catholic Church, however, does not espouse the idea that “the state exists to serve its people.” In fact, rather than being a “larger truth,” as Warsaw maintains, it is actually a subtle lie.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Warsaw is deliberately telling lies, rather, it is more likely the case that he is merely demonstrating the degree to which conciliar thought is at odds with authentic Catholic teaching.
So, what does the Church actually have to say about the State’s obligations?
In short, the purpose of the State – which is nothing more than a collection of men who exercise civil authority – is the same purpose for which all of us exist as individuals. To borrow from the Baltimore Catechism, that is, “To know God, to love God, and to serve God.”
As Pope Leo XIII stated:
Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. (Immortale Dei 3)
More specifically, it is Christ the King, true God and true man – He to whom all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given (cf Matthew 20:16) – that all must serve first and foremost, as a matter of justice, and that includes the State.
Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 18)
It is only in serving Christ the King that the State can serve the people in truth, thus ensuring that “society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony” (cf ibid. 19)
The notion that “the state exists to serve its people,” with no mention whatsoever of its primary obligation toward Christ, is very much an American idea. Wherever service to objective truth is thus removed from the role of government – in particular as it concerns matters of faith and morals – as if the State must limit itself to exclusively secular concerns, the ruling class is destined to serve its own interests above all others, the common good be damned.
As such, “It is a sin for the State not to have care for religion.” (cf Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei – 6)
Moreover, “The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful for the State to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion”(ibid. no. 36).
This, however, is precisely what the U.S. Constitution demands of the State, and it is the same approach to religious liberty that was adopted by the Second Vatican Council, which Michael Warsaw, not surprisingly, saw fit to inject into his article. He writes:
Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and other religious minorities face fines for handing out literature outside their places of worship. They can be more severely punished under vaguely worded laws against terrorism and extremism.
It’s for good reason that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) cites Russia as one of 17 nations on its current list of recommended “Countries of Particular Concern” “for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.”
This is what Warsaw meant by “religion manipulated for political ends.”
In reality, a State that regulates the public activities of Protestants, Muslims and other false religions is behaving in a manner far more in keeping with authentic Catholic doctrine than a country like the United States, wherein the one true religion is ignominiously treated as just one opinion among many.
The problem with Russia isn’t that the State curtails the activities of certain false religions – something the civil authority has every right and, at times, the duty to do – but rather that it lumps the true religion in among them, its official State religion, Russian Orthodoxy, itself being false.
Warsaw went on to sneer about Putin’s “litany of grievances against NATO,” as if to suggest that its steady expansion eastward toward the Russian border, despite U.S. assurances to the contrary, is somehow a less-than-legitimate complaint.
After suggesting that Putin “may rank among the most despised (and feared) men in the world,” he casually alluded, without further comment, to the fact that Putin “shared insider details about aborted peace talks in Ukraine.”
Does not common sense alone dictate that those who took steps to undermine peace and perpetuate bloodshed are likely the ones we should fear the most?
Warsaw failed to mention altogether that Putin, as he reminded Carlson during the interview, had requested Russian membership in NATO on more than one occasion and was turned down.
Do details such as these render Putin praiseworthy, his actions in Ukraine, just?
No, of course not, but information of this sort does lend critical perspective to the conversation, and their absence in Warsaw’s treatment of the subject strikes me as tantamount to a lie of omission.
The weight of these details, if plainly addressed and duly considered, naturally leads one to ask:
Why did the U.S. renege on its pledge to limit NATO’s eastward expansion? Why would NATO fail to embrace the prospect of Russian membership? Why did western leaders conspire to take steps to scuttle a peace deal?
The answer to all of the above seems obvious enough:
Domestically speaking, military conflict is the stock and trade of both leftwing Warhawks and rightwing neo-conservatives. Globally, it is the lifeblood of the nefarious few who own the banks, print the money, sell the arms, and run every nation of note throughout the entire world, including the United States of America.
With all of this in mind, the sum total of Warsaw’s commentary causes one to wonder:
Is he just another sincere but misguided follower of the false conciliar religion, a man whose worldview is therefore distorted, or is he a man compromised, having been conscripted in some manner or another to serve as a political propagandist?
If the latter, this certainly wouldn’t be the first time a so-called independent media operation has been enlisted by the political powers that be to instill a particular message in the minds of its audience.
Adding fuel to such suspicion is an article that Warsaw wrote in November 2023, one that also features equal shares of conciliar church falsehood and political spin.
The article, entitled, Don’t Forget What the Israel-Hamas War Is About, begins: “It has been four weeks since Hamas launched a surprise attack against Israel.”
Yes, as Warsaw wrote, it had been a solid month since the referenced attack took place. Over the course of those intervening weeks, numerous observers – including former Israeli intelligence officers – publicly raised questions about the degree to which the attack was truly a surprise.
The more intimate a commentator’s knowledge of Israel’s border security protocol, the more likely that person was to suspect that the violent incursion of October 7 was allowed to proceed unencumbered, most likely in order to justify Israel’s bloody response.
Warsaw fails to mention this, rather, he doubles down, writing:
This is a good time to remember why this brutal war is happening in the first place: because Hamas, a terrorist organization, invaded Israel across internationally recognized borders to murder, rape and kidnap innocent people.
In the first place? Warsaw may be a shill for a false religion, and perhaps even a paid propagandist, but he isn’t stupid.
Surely, he knows that “the first place” in the ongoing conflict actually dates back more than four decades before Hamas was even founded, specifically, the years leading up to 1947 as Zionist terrorists were wreaking havoc on Palestine – killing countless innocent men, women, and children – in preparation for its formal occupation of the land known today as the modern state of Israel.
Since then, the Zionist occupiers have taken more innocent lives and stolen more land while ignoring, with the support of the United States, U.N. resolutions calling on them to return territory to its rightful owners.
At this, one can almost hear the chorus of Zionist defenders welling up in the background: How dare anyone justify murder, rape and kidnapping! Does not Israel have the right to defend itself? How would you react?
And, of course, there is the Zionists’ favorite rejoinder whenever its actions are questioned, to which Warsaw was pleased to refer on their behalf:
No matter what happens in the future, it is vital that we never lose sight of the fact that the current bloodshed was initiated by an act of depravity where Hamas militants killed more Jews than in any single day since the Holocaust.
Ah, yes, the Holocaust!
At long last it appears that much of the world is finally beginning to wake up to the Zionist shakedown whereby the Holocaust is leveraged as a get-out-of-jail-free card that renders Israel unaccountable for even its most egregious actions, “no matter what happens in the future.”
As Warsaw wrote, “the future” had already arrived, namely genocide, which continues unabated to this day. And yet, he was pleased to dutifully play Israel’s perpetual victimhood card.
Warsaw’s article includes all manner of pukeworthy comments about the conciliar church’s cozy relationship with self-identified Jews of “our time” (Nostra Aetate). If you have the stomach for it, feel free to read them there.
Here, I will share but one:
Our distinct perspective as Catholics — mourning for the innocent, sharing a spiritual patrimony with the Jewish people, and spiritually sharing in the suffering of our Christian brothers and sisters caught in the crossfire — gives us clarity amid the confusion.
Let’s be perfectly clear: Catholics have little spiritual patrimony with any of today’s self-described Jewish people, and precisely none with the Zionist occupiers of the Holy Land. As Pope St. Pius X told the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl:
The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.
Any suggestions to the contrary are not the thoughts of a Catholic observer.
The question remains concerning Michael Warsaw, however, are they the ravings of a man who is so immersed in the Council’s poisonous doctrines that he has lost the ability to think with the mind of the Church, or clearly even more generally speaking, or is he actually a willing tool of Zionist/neo-con propagandists?
Perhaps he is all of the above.
After all, both the Second Vatican Council and the false religion that it established owe their creation to the same bad actors.
