Glenn Reynolds: Fetal Organ Farms

Glenn Reynolds, professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, frequent contributor to USA Today and Popular Mechanics, and popular blogger at Instapundit (Pajama Media), has just publicly admitted that he supports women acting as baby organ farms.

From his point of view, a woman can conceive, abort, then sell the baby's hair to stuff pillows, the baby's skin to make lampshades, the baby's fat to make soap and (since they lack gold teeth) the baby's organs to fill bank accounts. This policy got men tried and hung at Nuremburg. But it's now just another legitimate opinion at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

He has admitted to it in the comments to one of his posted articles.
Here's the screen snip of the relevant portions.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/316894/

Were the Holy Family Refugees?

Comment: The Holy Family were NOT refugees! They went to Bethlehem to pay taxes!

Answer: Sure, the trip to Bethlehem was to pay taxes. But the trip to Egypt was as a refugee family fleeing a violent persecution that threatened to kill their son, as it had already killed all the male children under the age of 5.

The Holy Family were ABSOLUTELY refugees before the second chapter of Matthew's Gospel ended.

Comment: No, they were NOT refugees! They didn't cross a national border! It's like fleeing Illinois for Texas! That's not a refugee move!

Answer: While it is true the refugees remained in the Roman Empire, it is not at all like the move from Illinois to Texas. The Roman provinces held different legal statuses depending on their relationship with Rome. We aren't used to this kind of thought, but it was commonplace in the Roman Empire.

For instance, we have only two levels of citizenship: you are or you aren't. In the Roman Empire, it wasn't so simple. There were all kinds of different rights and degrees of citizenship, governing even whom you could marry. These rights and degrees of citizenship were often bound to specific geographic regions, so you had "citizen's right X" if you lived in one city or region, but you lost it if you moved to another (Ius migrationis).

Judea was a client state, with Herod as its Roman-chosen ruler. Rome's relationship to the Judean province was a client-state relationship, rather like the relationship between the US and Cuba after the Spanish-American war, when the US ambassador held more power in Cuba than the Cuban president did.

As the ruler of a client-state province, Herod had a relatively free hand to slaughter whom he liked. And he had already demonstrated a serious malevolent intent to slaughter the Holy Family's child. We know this because he had slaughtered every child that even looked like his target (note: I am publishing this on Childermas, the Feast of the Slaughter of the Holy Innocents).

Egypt, on the other hand, was considered the personal property of the Emperor. The Holy Family fled the Judean client state to enter the personal property of the Emperor, i.e., Egypt, where Augustus was considered pharaoh. By this flight, they were thus placing themselves under the personal protection of Augustus. That is, they were refugees in EVERY modern sense of the word.

Again, Egypt was the personal property of the pharaoh, i.e., the personal property of Emperor Augustus. Judea wasn't.

By moving from Judea to Egypt, they removed themselves from the authority of a man trying to kill their child and placed themselves under the personal protection of the Roman Emperor. That's a refugee move.

Conclusion: Yes, the Holy Family were refugees. And, yes, if Egypt were ruled by Trump, Mary and Joseph would likely be denied entry, perhaps they would even be sent back to suffer the execution of their child, God.

Why We Hate Illegals

For those who like to post news stories about the crimes of illegals.

It is fact that illegals commit fewer crimes, in every category, than US citizens do. So, for every "illegal commits dastardly crime!" story you post, anyone with sense can find a dozen similar crimes committed by American citizens. (Google "illegal immigrants crime" to verify)

If you consistently highlight stories about illegals who commit crimes,  you are cherry-picking anecdotal incidents in order to paint illegals as something the numbers tell us is simply not true. You're trying to show that illegal immigrants are a major cause of crime, when they aren't.

If I wanted to paint Catholics as career criminals, I could easily do the same thing using the same technique. In fact, the press currently does EXACTLY this kind of cherry-picking with priest sexual abuse cases: the MSM highlights priest cases and ignores or downplays sex crime committed by other faiths and sex crime committed by lay people (e.g., public school teachers, homosexuals, coaches, businessmen, etc.).

Even though statistics show that every other class of people you can think of actually commits MORE sex crime than Catholic priests do, we are being conditioned by the MSM to equate "sex crime" with "Catholic priest."

Is that fair?
Obviously not.

So, why do you do the same damned thing to illegals (many of whom are your Catholic brothers and sisters) that the MSM already does to Catholic priests? You're just stirring up hate against a class that has no way to protect itself against your false allegations.

The statistics are quite, quite clear: my children are safer being alone with a Catholic priest than they are being alone with a public school teacher, an evangelical preacher, a sports coach, a homosexual or the manager of a fast food restaurant.

You are safer being alone with illegal immigrants than you are being alone with one of your next-door neighbors.

If you want safety, deport all American citizens, bring in only illegal immigrants. Crime will drop like a rock.

According to legal experts, each American commits, on average, three felonies a day. If you REALLY wanted safety, you would be advocating for the deportation of all American citizens who commit crimes. I don't see you doing that.

You really DO NOT want safety.
What you want is the deportation of people who are not like you.

They are more law-abiding, they are Catholic, but they speak a different language and have different customs. THAT is the basis for your antipathy.

Is that fair?

The Founding Fathers and Immigration

Immigration is crossing a country’s borders with the intent to remain in that country. Naturalization is the process by which immigrants become citizens and gain access to political institutions. A naturalized person becomes a citizen and has a right to

• Hold office
• Vote in elections

A person can immigrate to a country without ever becoming naturalized, i.e., a citizen. The Founding Fathers knew this simple truth. The Founders wanted open borders, and the evidence is in the founding documents of this nation.

Declaration of Independence: One of the reasons the colonials revolted against the King and the English government was precisely over the King's regulation of immigration:

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

We see three reasons for revolt listed in this paragraph: (1) restriction on naturalization, (2) restriction on immigration and (3) not enough open land. Reason number (2) is the kicker: the Founding Fathers revolted against the King in part because the King wouldn’t allow open borders.

The Constitution says nothing about allowing the federal government to restrict immigration. This is as close as you get.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States…

The Constitution gives the federal government power to establish whatever naturalization laws it wants, but it says nothing about immigration law. 18th century Americans considered slaves and indentured servants to be “articles of commerce,” even though the indentured servants migration was voluntary. During the Founding era, the Foreign Commerce Clause was considered to give Congress power to regulate the international shipment of articles of commerce (including slaves and indentured servants), but not to forbid mere migration, as such.

Similarly, the interstate Commerce Clause was not understood to give Congress the power to forbid the migration of Americans from one state to another. The Constitution literally uses the same phrase to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” At the time of the founding, the individual states were supposed to have power to regulate themselves that was almost the equal of individual foreign nations. States were very much like "little nations."

Article I, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The word "migration" is mentioned in Section 9, but it isn't what you think. Again, the Founders explain. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

“It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison, author of the Constitution, said the phrasing of the clause was due to “scruples against admitting the term ‘slaves’ into the Instrument.” In Federalist 42, Madison decried

“[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

Congress could and did outlaw the importation of slaves by 1808, and did enforce that ban on the importation of these “goods”. Thus, it was physically possible to place a ban on immigration, if that were within Congressional authority. However, for the first century of the country’s existence, Congress passed absolutely no law restricting immigration.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Because of the 10th Amendment, any power not listed in the Constitution does not belong to the federal government. The power to restrict immigration is not listed in the Constitution. Therefore, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to restrict immigration.

Some say the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 restricted immigration, since it gave the federal government the power to deport foreigners and added restrictions to the naturalization of immigrants.  Also, it allowed fines and imprisonment against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.

Now, under the terms of this law over twenty Republican newspaper editors were arrested, some were imprisoned.  No one was deported. All but the Alien Enemies Act was repealed within four years.  The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is still in force in modified form and authorizes the President to detain, relocate, or deport enemy aliens in time of war.

The problem, of course, is that none of those acts ever actually put any restriction on immigration. They allowed for deportation, but said not a word about immigration. Worse, both Thomas Jefferson (the vice-president at the time) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) publicly condemned the Acts as "unconstitutional."

James Madison argued that the Alien Friends Act (which gave the president the power to deport aliens that he “shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” as well as any suspected of “treasonable or secret machinations against the government.”)[1] “exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government.”[2] Thomas Jefferson adopted much the same position in his October 1798 draft of the Kentucky Resolution, which stated that “ALIEN-friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the US. nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens.”

These men helped both Kentucky and Virginia pass resolutions which essentially nullified the federal laws. In summary, the Alien and Sedition Acts:

• say nothing about immigration,
• were never used to actually deport anyone,
• expired at the end of two years,
• caused two Founding Fathers to declare them unconstitutional,
• caused two states to pass resolutions which nullified the Acts, making Kentucky and Virginia "sanctuary states" from unconstitutional federal law.

For the next sixty years, the Congress passed a few laws regulating how ships carrying immigrants had to be configured, but they passed no laws restricting immigration itself. In fact, quite the contrary. President Lincoln, in his Annual Message to Congress on December 8, 1863:

“I again submit to your consideration the expediency of establishing a system for the encouragement of immigration….”

A week after Lincoln’s message a bill to encourage and protect foreign immigrants was presented in the Senate and passed, establishing the Federal Bureau to Encourage Immigration. Lincoln’s Republican Party in its 1864 convention wrote into their platform a principle stating: “That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.”

So, if the Founders intended to establish an open borders country, what changed? The answer is simple: Darwin. In 1859, only a year before the Civil War, Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (published 24 November 1859). Twelve years later, at the same time a Republican Congress was passing the first Civil Rights legislation and giving citizenship rights to black Americans, Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).

By 1883, Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, creates the term “eugenics”, which means “good genes”, and “dysgenic” or “bad genes.” Galton will go on to fund a Chair of Eugenics at University of London, 1904. America and England will become leaders in the implementation of eugenics throughout the world, teaching Europe, especially Germany, the glories of eugenic thinking. By the 1870s, educated Europeans and Americans spoke of the “German race” the “French race”, the “Italian race”, the “English race”. The American elite wanted a pure “American race”.

Riding the wave of scientific "eugenic" thought, America passed the 1875 Page Act, the first federal law restricting immigration. Like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, it and most subsequent federal immigration law was meant to prevent the diseased and the subhuman from entering the US. The first targets were the yellow Chinese, followed soon by most Asians and, then those of Mediterranean stock, whose skin was too dusky and whose religion was too Catholic to be trusted.

The educated elites were at war with the general culture. Most of America viewed itself as giving warm welcome to all immigrants. Thus, we see to this day, embossed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, The New Colossus (1903):

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But the elites would have none of it. They wanted a pure American race, unpolluted by the mongrel hordes of American citizens who welcomed those dirty, subhuman immigrants. Prior to 1906, an immigrant could be naturalized in any U.S. "court of record", but the federal government usurps that role by 1907. In that same year, Indiana passes the first law in the world empowering the government to involuntarily sterilize its own citizens. Cold Spring Harbor creates the first eugenics laboratory, and supplies advisors to Congress on what immigration laws should be passed to keep out the dysgenic riff-raff.

Money from the millionaire elite rolled in. Margaret Sanger, wife of one of those millionaires, began referring to blacks, Catholics and Jews as "human weeds" who needed to be contracepted and sterilized in order to maintain America's racial purity. Adolf Hitler studied America law and policy closely and liked what he saw. In his autobiography, Mein Kampf (1925), he explicitly praised American eugenics law, thereby demonstrating how deeply American elites had formed his own thinking.

"There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but [the US], in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigrants on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalisation, it professes in slow beginnings a view that is peculiar to the People's State."

Thirty American states followed Indiana's example and began their own involuntary sterilization programs, targeting specific subpopulations: criminals, imbeciles, Mexicans, Indians. When these laws were challenged, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  upheld the state laws: 

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. (Buck vs. Bell, 1927)

To this day, the SCOTUS ruling in Buck vs. Bell has never been overturned. Hitler will explicitly model his own laws and policies on America's example, using American lawyers and advisors to help him craft Nazi Germany's national policy.

In the years since Darwin captured the imagination of the elites, nearly every American president from Theodore Roosevelt to Donald Trump, and virtually all the moneyed interests who put those presidents in office, have championed the cause of eugenics. Thus, America no longer follows the Founding Fathers' vision of an open borders country. Instead, we implement the eugenics vision we taught the Nazis. Keep the dysgenic out! Make America Pure Again!


PS
As the Mises Institute points out, Constitutional scholars like Ilya Sommins and Judge Andrew Napolitano agree that the Constitution doesn't actually authorize the federal government to create immigration restrictions.

 ""[T]he Constitution itself — from which all federal powers derive — does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.""

The Fall of the Humanities

The self-destruction of the humanities on college campuses proves the study of the humanites was never actually a bulwark against despotism.

After all, the people who could lay a claim to being most steeped in the humanities were both:
(a) unable to teach and appoint their own worthy successors
(b) unable to keep themselves from falling into the abyss.

So, the very fact that the humanities have fallen so far provides a strong argument that study of the humanities never really brought the kind of abiding wisdom that such study claimed to provide.

That failure is worth contemplating. 

While the colleges were filled with Christians who supported the humanities, the disciplines served their purpose. When Christianity was stripped from higher education, the humanities failed.

Perhaps that is a coincidence, but I bet it ain't. 

Nightmare Number 3

We had expected everything but revolt
And I kind of wonder myself when they started thinking--
But there’s no dice in that now.
I’ve heard fellow say
They must have planned it for years and maybe they did.
Looking back, you can find little incidents here and there,
Like the concrete-mixer in Jersey eating the wop
Or the roto press that printed 'Fiddle-dee-dee!'
In a three-color process all over Senator Sloop,
Just as he was making a speech. The thing about that
Was, how could it walk upstairs? But it was upstairs,
Clicking and mumbling in the Senate Chamber.
They had to knock out the wall to take it away
And the wrecking-crew said it grinned.
It was only the best
Machines, of course, the superhuman machines,
The ones we’d built to be better than flesh and bone,
But the cars were in it, of course . . .
and they hunted us
Like rabbits through the cramped streets on that Bloody Monday,
The Madison Avenue busses leading the charge.
The busses were pretty bad--but I’ll not forget
The smash of glass when the Duesenberg left the show-room
And pinned three brokers to the Racquet Club steps
Or the long howl of the horns when they saw men run,
When they saw them looking for holes in the solid ground . . .

I guess they were tired of being ridden in
And stopped and started by pygmies for silly ends,
Of wrapping cheap cigarettes and bad chocolate bars
Collecting nickels and waving platinum hair
And letting six million people live in a town.
I guess it was that, I guess they got tired of us
And the whole smell of human hands.
But it was a shock
To climb sixteen flights of stairs to Art Zuckow’s office
(Noboby took the elevators twice)
And find him strangled to death in a nest of telephones,
The octopus-tendrils waving over his head,
And a sort of quiet humming filling the air. . . .
Do they eat? . . . There was red . . . But I did not stop to look.
I don’t know yet how I got to the roof in time
And it’s lonely, here on the roof.
For a while, I thought
That window-cleaner would make it, and keep me company.
But they got him with his own hoist at the sixteenth floor
And dragged him in, with a squeal.
You see, they coöperate. Well, we taught them that
And it’s fair enough, I suppose. You see, we built them.
We taught them to think for themselves.
It was bound to come. You can see it was bound to come.
And it won’t be so bad, in the country. I hate to think
Of the reapers, running wild in the Kansas fields,
And the transport planes like hawks on a chickenyard,
But the horses might help. We might make a deal with the horses.
At least, you’ve more chance, out there.
And they need us, too.
They’re bound to realize that when they once calm down.
They’ll need oil and spare parts and adjustments and tuning up.
Slaves? Well, in a way, you know, we were slaves before.
There won’t be so much real difference--honest, there won’t.
(I wish I hadn’t looked into the beauty-parlor
And seen what was happening there.
But those are female machines and a bit high-strung.)
Oh, we’ll settle down. We’ll arrange it. We’ll compromise.
It won’t make sense to wipe out the whole human race.
Why, I bet if I went to my old Plymouth now
(Of course you’d have to do it the tactful way)
And said, 'Look here! Who got you the swell French horn?'
He wouldn’t turn me over to those police cars;
At least I don’t think he would.
Oh, it’s going to be jake.
There won’t be so much real difference--honest, there won’t--
And I’d go down in a minute and take my chance--
I’m a good American and I always liked them--
Except for one small detail that bothers me
And that’s the food proposition. Because, you see,
The concrete-mixer may have made a mistake,
And it looks like just high spirits.
But, if it’s got so they like the flavor . . . well . . . 

Stephen Vincent Benet

A Word of Warning

Fr. RP: Let me say this, and please everyone pay attention to it for it is very real and a serious problem: Active sodomites in the clerical order often seek out a non sodomite orthodox priest for confession, with the sole intention of binding him to silence about them and their activities. They are not seeking to truly repent, they are effectively shutting him up permanently about their evil activities.

I have never seen this mentioned or reported anywhere, but it is very real. And it's one of the reasons why many 'good' priests and bishops are silent when it comes to specific clerics and their grievous sins. For they have been manipulated via the sacrament of penance to permanent silence on certain members of the clergy. And this is also how many of these deviants make it through seminary. My advice to all good priests is that if a cleric wants to come to confession to you and you have any doubts or suspicions about them that are serious, then you must refuse to hear their confession. Don't get manipulated by these vile men! If you don't know them then refer them to someone else! And I promise you, every priest who has been around for a couple of years or more, and is known to be solidly orthodox, knows by experience what I am saying is true.

Trans-Eunuchs

We now have allowed "cis-gender" and "transsexual" to enter our vocabulary. We use these words as if they actually mean something. So, we need an accurate word to describe contraception users.

I propose "trans-eunuchs", or perhaps "trans-castrati".
Either word accurately describes the intention and purpose of the contraception user.

Choose your favorite meme

America: Brave New World

"In the liberal total state, sex plays the same role as vodka did in the old Soviet Union."

That is a BRILLIANT one-sentence summary of Brave New World, and an automatic comparison to 1984's use of Victory Gin.

FSSP: Compare and Contrast

According to Vogue, Womenpriests was founded 29 June 2002:

"Today, there are approximately 145 women Catholic priests in the U.S. and about 204 worldwide, according to the Roman Catholic Womenpriests organization"

According to the Parish Priests initiative, which was founded by nine parish priests in 2006 to promote heresy concerning homosexuality:

"the initiative says it now has around 350 members from the ranks of the official Church and more than 3,000 lay supporters"

According to the FSSP, which was founded July 18 1988:

Priests: 330

Non-deacon seminarians (including postulations): 162

For people who say Traditional liturgy is our salvation

Today, Orthodox Christians represent only 4 percent of the world’s population. Additionally, Orthodox followers account for 12 percent of Christians worldwide, down 8 percentage points from the levels in 1910, according to the Pew report.

Discussion:

If the traditional liturgy were what converted people, the Eastern Orthodox would be growing like mushrooms after a rain.  Instead, they are wilting like mushrooms in the desert. The FSSP has been around twice as long as WomenPriests or the "Parish Priests Initiative", but the numbers of ordained (or, in the case of women priests, invalidly "ordained") between the three groups are comparable.

Conclusion: 

There is no serious demand for the traditional liturgy. People aren't flocking to it. The best-known and most successful group of traditional-liturgy-minded Catholics, the FSSP, are about as numerous as any other fringe group in the Catholic Church. 

Philosophical Parasites and the Cuckoo's Egg

There are two kinds of philosophies in the world:
1) those that encourage adults to have children and
2) those that discourage adults from having children.

Any cultural group that follows the second philosophy will extinguish itself. If we consider these philosophies in total, it doesn't matter deeply what the pro-life philosophy is. It could be religious, e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist. It could be economic, e.g., capitalist, socialist, communist, hunter-gatherer, whatever. It could be some philosophy based on experimental or formal science. It could even be a philosophy based on astrological symbols and homeopathy. Doesn't matter. All we care about is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to have and raise children?

Similarly, it doesn't matter deeply what the anti-life philosophy is. Again, it could be religious, economic, scientific, pagan. Doesn't matter. The question is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to avoid having children?

Natural growth cultures, if they are functioning correctly, naturally have the children necessary to carry on the next generation. Anti-life cultures naturally don't have any children. The only way they maintain themselves is by successfully converting (stealing) adults from the Natural Growth cultures.

Notice, it doesn't matter what the children think. Children, by definition, don't generate. Only adults generate. So, if children are raised in an anti-life philosophy, it doesn't matter. Only the adults matter. The adults - at some point during their fertile lives - will necessarily adopt one philosophy or the other. Converting children is a complete waste of time. Conversion of adults is the only thing that can effect outcomes. So, we might summarize these philosophical families this way:

Philosophy	Natural Growth Culture flourishes unless adults abandon it		Cuckoo’s Egg Culture must convert adults or die
Pro-life, encourages adults to have   children		X
Anti-child, discourages adults from having children			X

Now, Catholicism, and Christianity in general, has traditionally considered itself pro-life. We think of ourselves as an evangelical culture that grows by converting adults to Christian belief. Let's see how we have been doing for the last couple of centuries. TFR stands for Total Fertility Rate. It refers to the total number of children a fertile woman in the culture will have over the course of her lifetime.

So, we see that in the United States, Christianity has consistently failed to impart its ideas to the next generation of fertile adults. You can try to argue that we succeeded for 20 years out of the total 200 years in the chart, but that really doesn't work well. It means we failed for 180 years out of the total 200 on the chart. Worse, it is obvious the anti-child philosophers have been consistently successful in convincing fertile adults to follow an anti-child philosophy.

But that's just the United States.
How has the rest of the world done? Well, the numbers are clear.

The entire world has consistently lowered its TFR. Not one culture, anywhere in the world, has maintained or raised its TFR over the course of the last 200 years. Not one. This victory of anti-life philosophies is called the "demographic transition." Over the last two centuries, pro-life philosophies have failed to win converts. Anti-life philosophies have consistently won the converts necessary to flourish. People who participate in the pro-life culture are having the children and raising them to adulthood. As adults, those former children are being converted to prefer not having children.

Obviously, this cannot continue. Insofar as every fertile adult adopts in anti-life philosophy, that adult's DNA disappears from the gene pool, that adult's philosophy dies with him or her. The numbers indicate that the anti-life adults are, during their lifetimes, converting other fertile adults to their own sterile philosophy at a much, much higher rate than any of the pro-life philosophies convert adults to a fertile philosophy. This is true even when the people pushing the anti-life philosophy show a marked contradiction between what they say they believe and what they actually do to live out their purported "beliefs".

If evolutionists honestly believed that only the fittest survive, then they clearly don't consider themselves or their philosophy fit. People who teach evolution don't have children, at least not enough to replace themselves. Thus, they must believe themselves to be unfit to procreate, they must consider themselves an evolutionary dead-end. The person who accepts evolutionary theory apparently becomes evolutionarily unfit.

So, how does this apply to Catholics?

Well, obviously, we have not previously, nor are we now, successfully evangelizing any modern culture. This is not a post-Vatican II problem. This is not even a post-Vatican I problem. This problem has existed since at least the dawn of industrialization. We have had this problem ever since industrialization started making us physically rich.

Christianity, and the world's other pro-life philosophies, do not know how to evangelize the modern, wealthy industrialized world. We were quite, quite good at evangelizing the world when it was mostly agricultural. We have had no success since it has become industrial and post-industrial. Quite the reverse, in fact. The modern industrial world has a very good idea of how to spread its anti-child gospel to successfully convince fertile adults, whether Christian or not, that humankind should become extinct.

We obviously cannot yet answer their outlook or arguments because we obviously have not yet successfully answered those outlooks or arguments.

Everything we have tried in the last 200 years has failed.
The things they have tried in the last 200 years have succeeded.
We have God on our side, but we are losing.

That's worth pondering.

Pope St. Pius X on the Papacy

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.

...

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.

Saint Pius X

Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union 

November 18, 1912

“Tradition? I am tradition!”

                   - Bl. Pope Pius IX 

The American Popes

I find it fascinating that Americans get very upset when the Pope makes a statement that applies to America's political situation ("separate Church and state!"), but consider themselves fully authorized to tell the Pope how to handle events in the Catholic Church.

American outrage over the abuse problem is especially ironic, given that those same Americans chose to make their last two top presidential candidates a choice between a woman who viciously covered up her husband's rapes vs a man credibly accused of rape by his own wife and thrilled to be endorsed by the convicted rapist, Mike Tyson.

Remarkably enough, even as they pontificate to the Pope about how to handle sexual abuse, most Americans still defend their chosen rape perpetrators as excellent choices to rule over them.

It's almost like Americans are hypocrites.
Imagine that.

Update:
Hey, look, yet another newspaper points out that Vigano is a damned liar.

Conversation With A Vigano Supporter

Him: The question remains did Pope Francis know McCormick was a serial molester when he brought him back into the fold? What say you about Danneels as well? No, while this doesn't make B16 look good, McCarrick was always independent. While he flouted sanctions, he was disinvited from all seminarian events, and Wuehrl even cancelled his meetings with seminarians, They all knew. And McCarrick never showed the Bishops conference B16 letter saying no communion for pro choice politicians - in fact misrepresented it. Guy was fearless and shameless. But Danneels . . . Cardinal Coccos orgy, the Hondurans, the Msgr Ricca debacle, the $25 million request from the Papal Foundation - let alone the confusion in doctrine - this has to end. Debacle.

Me: This is where the pro-Vigano people fail to understand what they are supporting.

If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance. There's no avoiding those conclusions.

You just want to focus on Pope Francis. But Vigano implicates himself and every Pope in the last forty years.

Vigano accuses the saint of the Church who STARTED the investigations into sexual abuse, he accuses the Pope who acted as that saint's watchdog in investigating the sexual abuse, and he accuses himself, the papal nuncio who claims to have instigated McCarrick's sanctions himself. If he is correct, all of them are guilty of gross malfeasance.

Him: No, that's not a fair reading - (1) it's clear McCarrick disregarded some (but not all) of the sanctions. There is a record of Uncle Ted being told not to attend seminarian events. (2) B16 famously told a reporter "my authority stops at that door"; (3) Viganos actions, while falling short, are not really the story - this is a pattern of rehabilitating abusers. It is a deflection to rebut one small part of this story and miss the elephant in the room. The Smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.

Me: according to Vigano, Saint JP II was informed about McCarrick in the year 2000.

Read his charges.
That's what he says.

That saint elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005.

HOW in the WORLD is JP II not grossly malfeasant for having done that?

Him: He is. Probably shouldn't be a saint based on a to of this. However, the PAYMENTS were made in 2006. Follow the money. That's where Pope Francis must resign. He used a known pederast to advise him on placing Cardinals, and unlike Vigano, who gave public platitudes b/c the payouts were private and under NDA, Francis relied on this pervert. Disgrace. It's Windswepthouse.

Me: OK, well, the declaration of sainthood is an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

So, now you have just denied a dogma of the Church.
THAT is where supporting Vigano leads.

Bishops from around the world realize this.

When both Ave Maria University and National Catholic Reporter are on the same page about an event in the Church, the few Catholics who are on the other side of the debate should start to re-think their positions.

La Stampa journalists call Vigano's entire account into question

They have now produced a timeline showing how ridiculous Vigano's account is.

An additional conservative bishop support Pope Francis


Update:
Vigano is a convicted thief. Amazing.

UPDATE:

Just a reminder from canon law

Can.  1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Can. 1372— The following are to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4: 

1° those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of sacred things or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate one who has exercised ecclesiastical power or ministry; 

 2° those who hinder the freedom of an election or intimidate an elector or one who is elected.

Can. 1373— A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Canon 331 - [The Pope], by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 333.1 - By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. 

Canon 333.2 - The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner. (Canon 333  2)

Canon 333.3 - There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. 

Silence and The Papal Dilemma

The major kicker in Vigano's accusations revolve around whether Pope Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick. Without that central accusation, Vigano has nothing.

By saying Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick, Vigano has essentially charged Pope Benedict with being weak and malfeasant. Think about this. Vigano has said Benedict imposed sanctions on America's leading prelate. But even Vigano can't seem to remember when these sanctions were imposed or what they comprised. Then he says McCarrick flouted the sanctions, and Benedict didn't do anything about it because Vigano himself, as America's papal nuncio, failed to inform Benedict.

Saying you can't remember much about the sanctions placed on the Cardinal who ran Washington DC is like saying, "Yeah, I lived through that experience in New York when those terrorists blew up the WTC. The smoke and ash were horrific. But I don't remember exactly what day it happened. Heck, I don't even remember exactly what year it happened. I am also not sure exactly what happened. How many planes, and how many towers fell and who actually made them fall .... I'm kind of fuzzy on all that."

Saying you were America's papal nuncio when an American cardinal flouted papal sanctions is like adding, "But I was THERE! I was a member of Air Defense Patrol that day! I knew it was going to happen, I warned everyone several years before, but I kept absolutely silent on the day of the event and during the days leading up to it!"

And blaming Pope Francis simply adds, "This WTC terrorist disaster was all Donald Trump's fault!"

Yeah. That's a good look for both Benedict and Vigano. Vigano accuses JP II, Benedict and himself of malfeasance and then insists the situation is all Pope Francis' fault. Amazingly enough, people actually buy this.

And what, exactly, is Benedict supposed to say? Benedict can't afford to make a public statement one way or the other.

If Benedict says he did impose sanctions, he makes himself look weak and his successor look bad, which harms the office of the papacy. If he admits he didn't, then HE looks bad, which harms the office of the papacy.

Likewise, Francis won't allow Benedict to state that Benedict did not issue sanctions. If Benedict did NOT impose sanctions, then Benedict looks malfeasant, which Pope Francis simply will not allow. The two are friends, Francis won't permit Benedict to sacrifice himself that way. If Benedict DID impose sanctions, than McCarrick clearly flouted them prior to Francis taking office, and that makes Benedict and the papacy look weak, which Francis can't allow either.

Here is the irony: if Vigano's account is correct, then JP II, Benedict and Vigano himself were all malfeasant. But none of them are being attacked.

And further irony: as far as anyone can confirm, Pope Francis is the only person who DID impose sanctions on McCarrick. He is also the only person who is being attacked.

Neither the Pope Emeritus nor the Pope himself can afford to respond to these charges at all. They have to just hope that the people paying attention to the timeline put the pieces together and realize that Vigano is lying. On Vigano's part, he has intentionally posed a dilemma which will deeply undermine the papacy and the Catholic Church for years to come. Remarkably enough, Catholics throughout the United States are getting in touch with their inner Protestant and backing Vigano's play.

Sad times.

UPDATE: 
Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in creating a timeline that calls Vigano's actions in Minnesota into question. Her timelines shows that Vigano's apologia in LifeSiteNews is deeply problematic.

UPDATE 2:
You know, when you think about the Vigano-Benedict-McCarrick situation, Vigano's charges should actually clear Pope Francis of all blame. Think about it. Vigano claims (while still living in Rome, no less) to have been the watchdog who goaded Benedict into imposing sanctions on McCarrick. Benedict supposedly imposed the sanctions, then appoints Vigano America's papal nuncio. While living in America, McCarrick supposedly flouted these sanctions.

Everyone knows Ratzinger was JP II's enforcer on the sexual abuse scandal. Vigano claims to be the enforcer on McCarrick. If neither Bulldog Vigano NOR JP II's bulldog on sexual abuse, Ratzinger, were willing to enforce sanctions, or even keep one another informed about the sanctions, then why WOULD Pope Francis think the sanctions were important? The whole sanction bit is so nebulous, Vigano apparently isn't even sure what year the sanctions were imposed.

What...The...Flick? How can the man who goaded the Pope into sanctioning America's leading prelate over sex abuse charges forget the details of his victory? It isn't like this happens every day. This is HUGE! But, if you listen to the pro-Vigano crowd, neither Pope Benedict nor Vigano himself can even remember what year the sanctions were imposed, much less any of the details. Seriously?

SERIOUSLY??!?!?!

If Pope Benedict communicates that well with the papal nuncio who is supposed to oversee the American prelate he sanctioned, one can only imagine how much fun Pope Francis had trying to get any information out of Benedict. And how could anyone take seriously sanctions so poorly formulated and enforced that neither of the men responsible for their imposition can remember anything about them?

UPDATE 3:
From EWTN, one of Pope Francis' main persecutors at the moment:

"The present Code of Canon Law includes three such censures: excommunication (c. 1331), interdict (c. 1332), and suspension (c. 1333)....

Father Beal proposed that censures are unlikely to be effective punishments for priest abusers.

He explained: "Since they can only be imposed after a warning, there must be evidence of an incident of abuse or at least suspicion that a particular cleric is prone to such abuse before a censure can even be threatened. Sad experience of the recent past suggests that even the sternest warnings and threats are unlikely to be effective in deterring abusive clerics from repeating their offenses. Even when a censure has been imposed, it must be remitted once the offender evidences repentance — and, as many bishops have learned to their chagrin, sexually abusive clergy can make very convincing displays of repentance when they are confronted with evidence of their offenses."" (emphasis added)

Da Vigano Code

If what Vigano says is true, then Pope Saint John Paul II was told of McCarrick's issues in 2000, but elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005. This was at the same time that Benedict was in charge of ferreting out child abuse as head of the CDF.

When Benedict took the throne, he had just spent years ferreting out child abuse throughout the world, especially in the US, where the scandal started. He presumably would have known about McCarrick, yet Benedict allowed McCarrick to stay on for nine months past his retirement age of 75. Vigano says he warned the Vatican about McCarrick in 2006 and 2008, but Benedict - who would have known about McCarrick for at least a decade at this point, only places restrictions on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010 - that no one can seem to remember which year is itself absolutely remarkable. And why would Benedict, who was the point man on investigating sexual abuse in America under JP II, permit the sanctioned McCarrick to move to the grounds of the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE) seminary, an institution whose founder was himself convicted of sexual abuse and removed from that same seminary?  If true, this is absolutely gross malfeasance on Benedict's part, and completely out of character with how he handled sex abuse cases when he was JP II's watchdog.

Vigano gets appointed America's papal nuncio in 2011. By this time, McCarrick was supposedly flouting Benedict's one-year old sanctions (or was it two-year old sanctions??). This disobedience was, according to Vigano, being hidden by other prelates. But if McCarrick was flouting Benedict's sanctions in 2011 or later, then Vigano - as America's papal nuncio - could easily have gotten a private audience and informed Benedict himself about the misbehaviour of an American prelate. Given Vigano's uniquely powerful position, there would be absolutely no way for other prelates to hide McCarrick's disregard for Benedicts fabled sanctions. Vigano would have been there, right?

But Vigano apparently wasn't there. He never bothered to get that audience with Pope Benedict to inform the Pope about McCarrick's disobedience. This is really odd, given that Vigano insists it was his memo in 2008 that got Benedict to act in 2009 (or was it 2010?).  No, instead of warning the Pope about McCarrick's residence and activities, Vigano, as papal nuncio, gets himself involved in questionable behaviour concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Nienstadt in Minnesota. Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in showing Vigano's explanation of Minnesota simply doesn't work.

So, let's recap. According to Vigano, Pope Saint John Paul II was criminally malfeasant. Sure, he sent the future Pope Benedict after every sexual abuser in the United States, but JP II not only left McCarrick alone, he elevated the man to DC and the cardinalate. When his chief investigator, Ratzinger, becomes Pope Benedict, Ratzinger-Benedict inexplicably leaves McCarrick in the most powerful position in the American church for months past McCarrick's retirement, then allows McCarrick to retire to a seminary with extremely well-known past problems of sexual abuse. Benedict, at Vigano's urging, then imposes penalties on McCarrick, and appoints Vigano to be America's papal nuncio. One would think Vigano could keep a weather eye on McCarrick from that perch, but Vigano inexplicably neglects to inform the Pope about the malfeasance of the American prelate that Vigano himself had urged sanctions upon just a dozen (or was it two dozen?) months prior.

Now, the only person who says Benedict imposed sanctions is Vigano. Vigano essentially claims Benedict waited for YEARS before doing it. And no one, not even Benedict (according to the pro-Vigano National Catholic Register reporter claiming sources close to the Pope Emeritus) can remember exactly what those sanctions were! Imagine that! The Pope imposes sanctions on America's leading prelate during the height of the sexual abuse crisis and can't remember what the sanctions were!

In fact, Vigano apparently didn't even remember the sanctions while he was papal nuncio. La Stampa reports:

 "And even Viganò himself, in the meantime removed from the Vatican by decision of Benedict XVI who “promotes him nuncio to Washington, does not appear at all worried about the situation. His participation in public events with the harassing cardinal is documented, such as concelebrations in the United States or the attribution of an award to McCarrick (on 2 May 2012, Pierre Hotel in Manhattan), a ceremony during which Viganò appears anything but indignant or embarrassed to be photographed alongside the old cardinal harasser. "

Nor did Vigano have a problem with praising the "sanctioned" cardinal at an awards dinner: Wow - handing out awards, concelebrating Mass with a known abuser.... those were certainly some nasty sanctions the papal nuncio was enforcing on behalf of Pope Benedict, eh?

If Vigano is correct, then Pope Saint John Paul II was complicit in elevating McCarrick, Pope Benedict was complicit in waiting years before sanctioning McCarrick, and Vigano was complicit in failing to notify Pope Benedict that not only was McCarrick flouting sanctions, he, Vigano, was helping McCarrick flout the sanctions.

Now National Catholic Register would have us believe that Pope Benedict can't remember the precise nature of the sanctions he imposed on America's leading prelate during the height of the sex abuse scandal investigation that he himself had led.

Nothing in that timeline makes any sense.

In fact, we only KNOW of one person who imposed sanctions on McCarrick: Pope Francis. And, oddly enough, within two months of doing it, Pope Francis is the only person everyone is attacking.

It sure looks like a mafia hit on Pope Francis.
And NCR sure looks like it wants its hands in any papal blood that is spilled.
These certainly are remarkable times.

Addendum:

When you look at the dates and how Vigano has handled himself in the years since, it all becomes clear. Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to resign July 27, 2018. Vigano began attacking Pope Francis August 25, 2018.

We already know Vigano publicly praised McCarrick in 2012, when Vigano himself testified that he knew McCarrick was not supposed to even be present at the dinner. it's on videotape, on Youtube. 

What's going on? Well, Vigano is trying to undermine Pope Francis because Vigano is the point man for the homosexual lobby. When Pope Francis stripped McCarrick of his cardinal title, the Pope demonstrated that Vigano was incapable of protecting the homosexual clique. Vigano couldn't stand to be outed like that, so he has attacked Pope Francis ever since.

Update 2020:

“Viganò wrote to Cardinal [Marc] Ouellet, the new prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, about this in 2012 and Ouellet instructed Viganò to take certain steps, including an inquiry with specific diocesan officials and Priest 3, to determine if the allegations were credible.” The report states that “Viganò did not take those steps (emphasis added) and therefore never placed himself in the position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3.” As for McCarrick, he “continued to remain active, traveling nationally and internationally....

... Nuncio Viganò first claimed in 2018 that he had mentioned McCarrick in meetings with the Holy Father in June and October 2013, but no records support Viganò’s account (emphasis added) and evidence as to what he said is sharply divided...

...“Until 2017, no one—including Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop Becciu, or Archbishop Viganò (emphasis added)—provided Pope Francis with any documentation regarding allegations against McCarrick, including the anonymous letters dating back to the early 1990s, or documents relating to Priest 1 or Priest 3.” 

.

”

Vigano's Vinegar

Vinegar is wine gone bad, the drink Christ was given as He hung on the Cross. Now we have a papal nuncio named Vigano who is saying some extremely nasty things about Pope Francis. What is going on?

I have not worked in the Vatican, and I am currently far removed from the rumor mills of the chancery offices. However, I have worked in a chancery office, and I have worked for three different bishops. I have a small inkling of how politics is played in the Catholic Church. The first and foremost rule you must learn is the rule of romanita:

Romanita, that particular brand of power is called. It is axiomatic that any Pope who hopes to succeed must be at least two things: iron-willed, and skilled in romanita. Romanita rests upon one basic principle: Cunctando regitur mundus. If you can outwait all, you can rule all. The hallmark of romanita is understatement in action and in all forms of expression. It is, in a way, power in whispers. Essential to it are a sense of timing reamed with patience, a ruthlessness that excludes the hesitation of emotions, and an almost messianic conviction of ultimate success. Few are born with it. Most genuine "Romans" who flourish must learn it over time. 

 All chancery offices, all ordained men, operate on this principle. Quiet patience is not just a virtue, but a necessity. No one offers himself up as a target, rather, the wise man provides some stalking horse, some paper cut-out, to take whatever hits are necessary.

If Vigano, a former papal nuncio, is speaking out, he is speaking out in order to advance someone else's agenda. Ordained men, especially a papal nuncio who undoubtedly got his position precisely because he is skilled in romanita, do not speak out as Vigano has unless that man has very powerful protection. Never.

So, by the very fact that we hear his voice, we know Vigano is not the man who came up with the idea to speak out and we know that there is a hidden agenda to speaking out. This is especially true if the ordained man vociferously denies he has any agenda, as Vigano has already denied it.

What is that agenda?  Look at what he says. Vigano is careful to absolve both Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict of all blame. This is directly at odds with the rest of his message.

After all, Vigano claims Pope Saint John Paul II was apprised of McCarrick's problems in 2000. But JP II was precisely the man who elevated McCarrick to New Jersey (1986), Washington DC (Nov, 2000) and the cardinalate (Feb 2001).  According to Vigano's timeline, a saint of the Church put McCarrick into the most powerful position in the American church, Washington DC, just weeks after being told McCarrick was a homosexual abuser. Keep in mind, this is the same saint JP II who took years to deal with Maciel and the Legion of Christ scandal in the 1990s, but Vigano mentions none of this.

From the timelines, we know Pope Benedict followed JP II's example. After all, Benedict was elected April 2005, but didn't accept McCarrick's resignation (May 16, 2006) until McCarrick was almost 76  (he was born July 7, 1930), that is, almost a year longer than the customary retirement age of 75. Vigano claims Benedict put restrictions on McCarrick, and is thus not to blame. But, since Benedict was the head of the CDF, wouldn't Benedict have been just as much at fault for allowing McCarrick to continue in his post for another year? And McCarrick was known to have retired to the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE), during Benedict's pontificate. IVE not only had a seminary on the grounds, the founder of IVE was a known homosexual abuser who was actually forbidden by Rome from associating with his own organization. Obviously, all of this would have been known to Benedict.

But Vigano barely mentions either Pope Saint JP II or Pope Benedict. In fact, Vigano holds up Pope Benedict - the Pope who resigned precisely because he felt he could not handle the homosexual cabal in the Vatican - as a shining example.  Vigano lauds Benedict's (in)action and pours all of his venom out on the head of Pope Francis, the one man who clearly DID put restrictions on McCarrick. You see, as of 20 June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York

Vigano, who is conveniently retired, and thus nearly untouchable, decides to step forward and attack Pope Francis scant weeks after McCarrick is publicly humiliated.

Hmmmm....

This is classic romanita, folks. If the romanita script is being followed, then Vigano is McCarrick's stalking horse, put up to the task of tearing down the Pope for daring to publicly humiliate Cardinal Theodore McCarrick by either McCarrick supporters or McCarrick himself.

Don't buy into this caca.


UPDATE:
It is as I thought. Source:

Regardless of the truth of his claims, Vigano needs to explain his own reported complicity in covering up sexual wrongdoing by a brother bishop.  After all, this is the very accusation he is making against Francis.  In 2014, Vigano  ordered  a shut-down of an investigation of alleged sexual wrongdoing by Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese, according to an internal memo made public by local prosecutors.

And Michael Sean Winter is also calling foul on Vigano.

During the Benedict papacy, with my own eyes I witnessed McCarrick celebrate Mass in public, participate in meetings, travel, etc. More importantly, so did Pope Benedict! If Benedict imposed these penalties, he certainly did not apply them. He continued to receive McCarrick with the rest of the Papal Foundation, continued to allow him to celebrate Mass publicly at the Vatican, even concelebrating with Benedict at events like consistories. (See photo above taken in 2010.) But, as Vigano tell is, it is all Pope Francis’ fault.

...  When the Argentine bishops, under the leadership of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, refused to ordain the Incarnate Word seminarians, McCarrick stepped in to do it. 

Current speculation says Cardinal Burke is using Vigano as a mouthpiece to strike back at Pope Francis. The reasons are easy to identify:

And, under the current nuncio, Archbishop Vigano, there was a series of major appointments in the latter years of the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinals Burke and Justin Rigali were on the Congregation for Bishops, that set the culture warrior stamp on the U.S. Church. Only when Pope Francis removed both +Burke and +Rigali from that Congregation, replacing them with Cardinal Donald Wuerl, did the appointment of culture warriors to major archdioceses cease, most obviously in the appointment of +Blase Cupich to the archdiocese of Chicago.

Vigano is a damned liar, trying to take down Pope Francis for personal reasons, and he doesn't mind if the Church breaks apart as a result, since he and Burke are counting on people blaming Pope Francis instead of them.

This is Lefebvre all over again. Burke won't stop until he schisms the Church or dies trying. Using Vigano this way demonstrates that in spades.

P.S. Oh, and why is EWTN's Raymond Arroyo so negative on Pope Francis? Well, both EWTN and National Catholic Register have always had close ties to the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, the groups founded by infamous child abuser Fr. Maciel. In fact, EWTN had a long-standing Q&A forum with LC priests answering questions, while NCR was originally entirely owned by the Legion. Remember, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and a long-time star of EWTN's line-up, was on the board of the Legion’s Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA. So, yeah, there's history there was well.

UPDATE II
Oh, this just keeps getting richer. Now DiNardo is publicly defending Vigano, the man who covered up a sex abuse case in Minnesota. By purest coincidence, SNAP has long since named DiNardo (and Mahoney) as part of the "Dirty Dozen" - the nation's WORST bishops in handling sex abuse cases.

So, we are supposed to take the word of two men who are known to have covered up sex abuse, as they question the competence of the Holy Father. Yeah, who wouldn't be on-board for that?

UPDATE III
From John Paul Shimek:
Things to remember...

Vigano has participated in the Rome Life Forum, which has ties to Burke. Also, Vigano released his 11-page document at an important moment: i.e., at the conclusion of Pope Francis' World Meeting of Families, which Burke had been trying to undermine with his own shadow meeting of families. Lastly, the Missouri Attorney General was about to investigate Burke's former diocese of St. Louis. This bit of news offers Burke some deflection and cover.

N.B. In the linked picture, Vigano stands between Burke and LifeSiteNews' John Henry Westin. Westin's rag website has been notoriously anti-Catholic for the last several years.

Remember, "Viganò invited McCarrick to the nunciature to attend receptions, McCarrick takes part in the US bishops 2012 “ad limina” visit to Rome, where he concelebrates Mass at the tomb of St Peter, and in the same year, he is described by Viganò as “much loved by us all” at a gala dinner."

Update IV

Addendum:

When you look at the dates and how Vigano has handled himself in the years since, it all becomes clear. Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to resign July 27, 2018. Vigano began attacking Pope Francis August 25, 2018.

We already know Vigano publicly praised McCarrick in 2012, when Vigano himself testified that he knew McCarrick was not supposed to even be present at the dinner. it's on videotape, on Youtube. 

What's going on? Well, Vigano is trying to undermine Pope Francis because Vigano is the point man for the homosexual lobby. When Pope Francis stripped McCarrick of his cardinal title, the Pope demonstrated that Vigano was incapable of protecting the homosexual clique. Vigano couldn't stand to be outed like that, so he has attacked Pope Francis ever since.