Skip to content


“Allah est grand”: Muslims laugh, celebrate as blaze destroys Notre Dame cathedral during Holy Week



Jihadists may not have set the fire, but they’re certainly celebrating it. Many Muslims believe that the ruins and destruction of non-Muslim structures testifies to the truth of Islam, as the Qur’an suggests that the destroyed remnants of ancient non-Muslim civilizations are a sign of Allah’s punishment of those who rejected his truth: “Many were the Ways of Life that have passed away before you: travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth.” (3:137)

 photo notradame_burning.jpg


“‘ALLAH EST GRAND’: Muslims laugh as blaze destroys Notre Dame cathedral during Holy Week,” by Kyle Olson, American Mirror, April 15, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A whole lot of people with Arab names are finding the historic Notre Dame ablaze very funny.

Twitter user Damien Rieu posted a video showing the amount of people responding to a video of the Paris church with a “laughing” face emoji.

A sampling of the Facebook users taking delight in the tragedy…see if you notice anything in common:

  • Wahid Hadji
  • Oubbad Jsk
  • Yusuf Mohammedzai
  • Hessam Massa
  • Mohamed Hiadi
  • Mohamed Bensalem
  • Alaa Atfeh
  • Raidh Khaled
  • Ammar Sofiane
  • Abdelhakim Noui Oua
  • Mohamed Amin

You get the picture.

Witnesses say the fire broke out at the 850-year-old cathedral earlier today.

The roof and spire have collapsed and officials believe “nothing will remain”.

Rieu posted other examples of Muslims cheering the demise of the Christian relic during Holy Week.

“Allah est grand,” Mohamed Mouara commented at the sight.


Article Website Comments


The Church and Islam: Dangerous Illusions



When I first began writing about the Church and Islam, I devoted a lot of space to describing ways that Church leaders could resist the spread of Islam. It seemed only a matter of time until they would wake up to the need to resist. As it turned out, however, that assessment was overly optimistic.

The immediate task, as I soon learned, was not to find ways to counter Islam, but to convince the Church’s hierarchy that Islam ought to be resisted. There’s no use talking battle strategies to people who won’t admit that they have an ideological enemy.

The enemy is not Muslims per se, but a belief system adhered to by the majority of Muslims, albeit with varying degrees of commitment. Although Islam does not easily lend itself to moderation, many Muslims manage to practice their faith in peaceful ways. Others merely give it lip service, and still others are on fire with a passionate zeal to spread it—by fire and the sword if necessary.

The idea of opposing dangerous ideologies is not foreign to Americans, but the idea of opposing an ideology that is also a religion is more problematic. It has become increasingly problematic now that we live in an era in which merely disagreeing with another’s opinions is tantamount to a hate crime. So, just for the record, critiquing Islam does not mean that one hates Muslims. Criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing Muslims, any more than criticizing communism is equivalent to criticizing Soviet-era Russians. One can acknowledge the humanity and good intentions of others without having to endorse their ideology. And if their ideology or belief system presents a grave danger to others, it would be wrong not to criticize it. Of course, one should employ tact and prudence when offering such criticism.

The distinction between Citizen X and his beliefs is a simple one. You do not have to respect his beliefs, but you should try to respect him as a fellow human being. Many Catholic leaders, however, have difficulty making this distinction. Rather than try, they have, in the case of Islam, simply declared it to be an upstanding fellow religion with many similarities to Christianity. That way, no one’s feelings are hurt. The problem of Islamic terrorists and extremists is handled in the same way: they are assumed to be a small minority who have misunderstood the peaceful nature of their religion.

By the same token, it stands to reason that critics of Islam have also misunderstood Islam, and need to be set straight. If they persist in their obstinacy, they are dismissed as bigots and “Islamophobes.” Likewise, Church officials assume that opponents of Muslim immigration must be poorly informed, or else racist and xenophobes. If they loved their neighbor, they would not challenge his beliefs or question his religious practices

Under Pope Benedict XVI there were signs—such as his Regensburg Address—that the Church was developing a more realistic view of Islam. But whatever ground was gained by Benedict was given up by Francis. Indeed, it seems fair to say that under Francis, the Church’s understanding of Islam regressed. Perhaps the most glaring example of this regression can be found in the Pope’s assertion that “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” It’s hard to imagine any of his predecessors or any of their advisors making a similar claim.

Unfortunately, very few churchmen have taken issue with Francis’s profoundly flawed view of Islam. Instead, many have joined the chorus—some out of naiveté, some out of misplaced sensitivity, and some, perhaps, out of cowardice.

Several decades have passed since the emergence of worldwide Islamic terrorist networks, and Church leaders are still clinging to a fantasy-based view of Islam. In their defense, it must be admitted that other world leaders have also been in thrall to the cult of sensitivity, and have been equally slow in giving up their dreamy narratives. For a long time, Western leaders kept repeating the mantra that Islamic terror had nothing to do with Islam. But now their tune is beginning to change. The Austrian prime minister has threatened to close one of Vienna’s largest mosques, the French have shut down numerous mosques and deported several radical imams, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have effectively closed their borders to Muslim migrants, and Hungary’s prime minister has unapologetically defended the Christian identity of his country.

It’s strange that the Church which, because of its history, ought to be the first to know, appears to be among the last institutions to grasp that Islam is not really a religion of peace.

Or, perhaps, Church leaders do understand the dangers of Islam and have adopted a strategy of silence to protect potential victims of Islam. That’s one plausible defense of their inaction. Perhaps they fear that any criticism of Islam will bring harsh reprisals against Christians living in Muslim lands. During World War II, Catholic leaders quickly learned that denunciations of Nazism brought swift and deadly reprisals against both Jews and Christians. As Nazi power increased, the Vatican developed more covert tactics for helping Jews to escape, and Catholics to resist.

One might argue that today’s Catholic leaders are following a similar strategy in the hopes of mitigating the persecution of Christians and other minorities. But there’s a difference. If the Church simply maintained a prudential silence about Islamic aggressions, that argument might make sense. But Church leaders have not simply refrained from criticizing Islam. Instead, they have taken every opportunity to praise Islam, to declare their solidarity with it, and to join in various Islamic initiatives, such as the campaign against “Islamophobia.” Judging by the Church’s great solicitude for Islam, one would think it was the most persecuted faith on earth, rather than one of the chief persecutors.

The Church’s current Islam policy does not look like the cautious approach of one who is dealing with a dangerous enemy. It looks more like the trusting innocence of one who thinks he has no enemies. Pius XII may have maintained a prudential silence about Nazi evils once it became apparent that many innocent people would pay the price, but he never praised Nazism as a force for peace, and he certainly never declared the Church’s solidarity with it.

By contrast, Church leaders and Pope Francis in particular, have become, in effect, enablers of Islam. Pope Francis has denied that Islam sanctions violence, has drawn a moral equivalence between Islam and Catholicism (“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence”), and has campaigned for the admittance of millions of Muslim migrants into Europe. Moreover, he has criticized those who oppose his open borders policy as hard-hearted xenophobes. In return for his efforts, he has been publicly thanked by several Muslim leaders for his “defense of Islam.”

One might be tempted to use the word “collaborator” instead of “enabler.” But collaborator is too strong a word. In its World War II context, it implies a knowing consent to and cooperation with an evil enterprise. It seems clear to me that the pope and others in the hierarchy are enabling the spread of an evil ideology; however, it’s not at all clear that they understand what they’re doing. Francis, for instance, seems to sincerely believe that all religions are roughly equal in goodness. Thus for him, the spread of any religion must seem like a good thing. It’s an exceedingly naïve view, but one that seems honestly held.

But one can’t plead ignorance forever. Eventually, the reality of the situation will become plain to all but the most obtuse. At that point—at the point the threat is undeniable—we assume that the people in power will wake up and take the appropriate actions. But what if the awakening comes too late? The pope, for one, has shown little evidence that he will change his views on the subject. If anything, he has doubled down—recently going so far as to say that the rights of migrants trump national security. We should not look to the pope to lead the way on this issue. He seems constitutionally incapable of entertaining doubts about his Islam policy. It looks like the impetus to change course will have to come from bishops, priests and Catholic laity. They had better get busy. There is no time to waste.

Originally posted at

Professor William Kilpatrick, who taught for many years at Boston College, is the author of several books on cultural and religious issues, including Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles on Islam have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, JihadWatch, Crisis, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, and other publications. He is also the founder of Turning Point Project, an initiative dedicated to educating Catholics and other Americans about the threat from Islam.

Invade Syria? Please, Mr. Trump, Don’t Feed the Hawks!


Written by 


Please, God… not again!





    I’m hoping that Trump is just playing the deep state/war hawks and doesn’t do anything stupid. If anything, Russia should be one of our greatest allies, not our enemy.



    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes !


    Good for Tucker.


    The track record of Western powers in the Middle East should give any ruler pause. Trump argues that Iraq was a huge mistake but he’s willing to get involved in a similar situation that has even less bearing on the United States and which has the very real possibility of expanding the conflict to our ostensible allies like Egypt and Turkey (although they are allies in name only), not to mention drawing Russia into it deeper.

    If our country can’t learn from Iraq, what will it take?


    Western ‘initiatives’ in the Near East have accomplished what Islam in centuries failed to do, decimate the ancient Christian communities.
    The Russians, historically, have attempted to protect them.
    Why do people with supposed professed Christian beliefs eg Bush, Blair inter alia, cause such misery and destruction?
    It is totemic of this tendency that the atombomb that destroyed Nagasaki exploded above the Catholic cathedral.


    Which unnamed Mideast “trouble-maker” may be involved in gas attacks in Syria? The repeated occurrence of these gas attacks raises the suspicion that supposed Syrian guilt may be a contrived case of an “agent-provocateur”?—so useful in stirring up excuses for American and Israeli military involvement, in pursuit of Zionist domination of the Mideast?—and with Russia also in the mix? Syria and Russia have stocks of gas-weaponry? Yes, and so does the USA, and Israel too, possess gas-weaponry (along with Atomic weapons)—which Israel steadfastly refuses any international inspection—the regular inspection required of all other nations? This continual anti-Syrian propaganda, seems a cover-up of real evidence, with use of “fake news”?


    Recipe for catastrophe:

    One ignorant, blustering President whose governance of the country consists of ridiculous Tweets.

    One vast collection of corrupt elites possessed of a rabid hatred of the ignorant President — though their own collective failure of leadership and character led directly to his election in the first place.

    One lunatic conspiracy theory, stoked fanatically by the corrupt elites, that the election of the ignorant President was due to the machinations of a nuclear-armed foreign power, a country suddenly transformed into the locus of all evil in the universe.

    One manufactured international crisis with the corrupt elites taunting and manipulating the ignorant President into an insane military confrontation with the nuclear-armed foreign power.

    Mix ingredients well.

    Set nuclear oven to 30,000 degrees and leave town immediately.


    We are already fighting everywhere, and winning nowhere. Syria contains all the necessary tinder to set the world ablaze. Mr. President, do you really want to strike that match?


    Of course, all the wars of the past 20 years have been prosecuted by the neocons in the interests of their First Loyalty, which is not the US — to the point of fabricating false flag attacks to scare and galvanize a gullible populace into supporting the madly destructive agenda of a supposed ally that exploits our military for its own ends and is thus really Enemy Number One.


    The Neo-Cons, Globalists and Christian Zionists, while being strange bedfellows, make a formidable triumvirate. The United States, Israel, Britain, France and Saudi Arabia seem to be forming an alliance against Russia, Syria and Iran with China looming quietly in the background. I’m not normally an alarmist but the signs of the times (Including The Fatima Messages) certainly appear apocalyptic.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

    Virgin Most Powerful, wrap us under the protection of thy Heavenly Mantle.

    Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.


    WHY do I have the sick feeling that the Moussad in Israel is involved in this? Commentary Magazine is part of the Amen Corner for Israel.



      Amen to that – and why do I have the sicker feeling that Mr. Trump is either incapable (or unwilling) to figure that out? Assad gains nothing from what he’s being accused of, so who else does?
      May Our Lord and Our Lady have mercy upon our country.



      Respectfully; plausible at best understanding Isreal hates Syria vice-versa. I hate the thought of another “Big Whore” Global spun media sources driving U.S. involvement into another propaganda fueled war. Russia and China are pushing the West like a moth to a flame into an all out staged WWIII. Is Mr. Trump really buying all this strictly on the basis of a military humanitarian response to really gain nothing at all in the end but bloodshed? The stench of tyranny wreaks havoc everywhere with governmental children playing with matches boasting who’s king of the hill. Good Grief.



    Michael Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.


    When the Pope is now entering mosques and praying towards Mecca……….


    When the Pope is now entering mosques and praying towards Mecca, is it official that the world has lost its mind?



    Pope Francis entered the Blue Mosque in Istanbul Turkey, where he took off his shoes, and bowed toward Mecca and made his prayer, as he stood next to Istanbul’s Grand Mufti Rahmi Yaran. I did a whole video on this:


    One report states:

    Francis took off his shoes as he entered the huge mosque, before bowing his head in prayer for several minutes, facing Mecca and standing next to Istanbul’s Grand Mufti Rahmi Yaran, in what a Vatican spokesman described as a joint “moment of silent adoration” of God.


    What is amazing is that this happened in Turkey’s capital Istanbul; how did this city become Muslim? It was conquered! By who? By Muslims! The Hagia Sophia, the holy church of Christendom and the Eastern Orthodox Church, was violently seized in 1453 by the Ottoman empire, whose soldiers stripped it of all its holy icons and its Crosses, and the sultan, Mehmet II, had an imam make the very same prayer to which Pope Francis prayed to. What shame! I do not understand how the Pope could be acting like this, when his predecessors in the Middle Ages and in the wonderful Renaissance era fought with Islam in much harsher times than now!

    Pope Gregory VII, ignited by his mourning for the persecuted Christians of the eastern church, felt himself behooved to begin a crusade against the Muslim powers and to finally extinguish this principality of Satan which had so tormented the saints. In 1074, he wrote:

    We hereby inform you that the bearer of this letter, on his recent return from across the sea [from Palestine], came to Rome to visit us. He repeated what we had heard from many others, that a pagan race had overcome the Christians and with horrible cruelty had devastated everything almost to the walls of Constantinople, and were now governing the conquered lands with tyrannical violence, and that they had slain many thousands of Christians as if they were but sheep. If we love God and wish to be recognized as Christians, we should be filled with grief at the misfortune of this great empire [the Greek] and the murder of so many Christians. But simply to grieve is not our whole duty. The example of our Redeemer and the bond of fraternal love demand that we should lay down our lives to liberate them. “Because he has laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren,” [1 John 3:16]. Know, therefore, that we are trusting in the mercy of God and in the power of his might and that we are striving in all possible ways and making preparations to render aid to the Christian empire [the Greek] as quickly as possible. Therefore we beseech you by the faith in which you are united through Christ in the adoption of the sons of God, and by the authority of St. Peter, prince of apostles, we admonish you that you be moved to proper compassion by the wounds and blood of your brethren and the danger of the aforesaid empire and that, for the sake of Christ, you undertake the difficult task of bearing aid to your brethren [the Greeks]. Send messengers to us at once inform us of what God may inspire you to do in this matter. (Gregory VII: Call for a “Crusade”, This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book, found in the Fordham University website)

    Pope Pius XII was silent on criticizing Hitler, but that is because he was stealthily rescuing Jews from destruction, but even in this situation he did not appease the Nazi ideology.

    Why is there so much corruption in the Catholic Church? Look at all the sodomites who are inside the Vatican and that will answer your question! These appeasers disobey the words of their own pope, Pope Pius V, who said that sodomite priests are to be put to death:

    So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

    Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.

    There is a very dangerous homosexual supporting ring deeply entrenched in the Vatican, which is helping enable it when it conducts mass with such a depraved heretic.

    I have myself experienced, to some measure, this homosexual supporting ring in the Catholic Church, in a conversation I had with one priest and Catholic canon law judge, named Robert L. Kincl (also known as Fr. Bob Kincl), who was ordained in Rome. Kincl had befriended us as a fan of acting as conservative, yet referred to homosexual fondling as permissible in the conversation. Having been shocked at his remarks, I told Kincl:

    How can you, as a priest, be so liberal toward such a sick evil as two men fondling each other, or as two men having a “relationship” just as long as they are not going with other men. It is evil and it is reprobate.

    I also told him:

    It is not tolerable for you, as both a priest and a canon law judge, to be permissive to somebody having a homosexual relationship just as long as they are not being promiscuous with other men. It is deplorable, and in the words of St. Paul, “worthy of death” (Romans 1:32).

    Kincl defended his position and responded with a rejection of the Old Testament and a twisting of St. Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans, stating

    We do not follow the Hebrew Scriptures. We follow Jesus Christ who never mentioned gay relationships.When St. Paul mentioned such a relationship he was referring to the promiscuousness of the Romans using sodomy. decided to investigate Kincl and found that he has a dark past. In 1993, Kincl worked as a Commander in charge of clergy at the U.S. Navy, and while he was in the service he defended another chaplain confirmed to be guilty of child molestation, named Robert Hrdlicka.

    The investigation revealed that Robert L. Kincl had even written the authorities, not to charge the pedophile who molested the young boys, but urged them to send him back to serve as a chaplain:

    For more click LINK








    SPECIAL REPORT: Papal Cover-up Alleged, Pope Accused in International Sex Abuse Case


    No more “humble pope”

    Hey, remember five minutes ago when Pope Francis shouted at a reporter in Chile that there was “no evidence” supporting complaints against his good friend Bishop Juan Barros? And, just for good measure he accused the people accusing him – victims of sexual abuse by Barros’ mentor, the convicted sex-predator Karadima – of committing “calumny”?[1] And remember when Cardinal O’Malley told the pope off in public over the “pain” these accusations had caused the victims of sexual abuse? And then remember how the pope had apologised-except-not-really because the accusations are, after all, still lies, and that there’s still “no evidence” against Barros…?

    The press, secular as well as Catholic, is full this week of the story that the pope did indeed see evidence of Barros’ complicity in Karadima’s sexual abuse – not only that Barros had helped to cover it up but that he had been present and a direct witness at the time and therefore a passive participant. Nicole Winfield and the Associated Press dropped the bomb that the information came directly from the victims, whom Francis had dismissed and refused to meet with on his trip, and delivered through his own Commission on sexual abuse:

    Pope Francis received a victim’s letter in 2015 that graphically detailed how a priest sexually abused him and how other Chilean clergy ignored it, contradicting the pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward to denounce the cover-up, the letter’s author and members of Francis’ own sex- abuse commission have told The Associated Press.
    The fact that Francis received the eight-page letter, obtained by the AP, challenges his insistence that he has “zero tolerance” for sex abuse and cover-ups. It also calls into question his stated empathy with abuse survivors, compounding the most serious crisis of his five-year papacy.

    Now it appears that Francis had also overruled a 2015 warning from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Barros should not be made a bishop. The Italian Catholic daily La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana reports that not only did the pope see a letter from victims, but that the CDF, under Muller, “had already conducted an preliminary investigation into Barros and the other bishops close to Karadima which had led to the decision to relieve them of their duties.

    “But with a letter signed by the Pope in January 2015 and sent to the Chilean bishops, the request for exemption is blocked and shortly thereafter Barros is promoted to…Osorno.”

    The article points out that while Karadima was convicted by a Vatican tribunal on the testimony of the victims, it is the same testimony of the same victim-witnesses that Francis now dismisses in the accusations against Barros. The accusations that stood against Karadima come from the same sources as those against Barros, who the victims said was in the room watching at the time.

    While the specifics are still not known, readers may be reminded by this of a peculiar incident about a year later in which Pope Francis summarily ordered the dismissal of three priests of the CDF, whose remit was investigations of clerics accused of sexual abuse. The website One Peter Five reports, via Marco Tosatti, that the pope ordered their removal without offering any explanation to then-cardinal prefect Gerhard Muller. When, after several attempts and three months later[2], Muller was able to get an audience with the pope to ask the reason, he received the response, “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.”

    Marco Tosatti reports the CDF incident, but it follows an odd story of a meeting of curial officials to discuss certain bishop appointments. Without naming names, (or, frustratingly, giving dates[3]) Tosatti relates:

    “It was some time ago to make a bishop, not in Italy. The nuncio has prepared the triad [the “terna” or list of three candidates]. A cardinal, head of the dicastery, perhaps the same holder of the Congregation for Bishops, during the ordinary assembly took the floor, saying: ‘The first candidate indicated is excellent, the second is good. But I would like to warn of the third, whom I know well, since he was a seminarian, and who presents problems both on the level of doctrine and morality. He responds little to the necessary criteria. But the third was a friend of someone and another cardinal, of the circle currently in power, has flung himself at his colleague, accusing him of impropriety.’ The meeting ended without further decisions.”

    Whatever the details of these strange incidents, what is clear in Chile is that no amount of eyewitness testimony was going to make the slightest difference. Bergoglio wanted Barros as a bishop and that was that. Even while “apologising” the pope had doubled down when questioned about it by journalists, saying, “You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward.”

    “In the case of Barros it’s been observed, it’s been studied; there’s no evidence. The best thing to do if someone believes it’s the case is to come forward quickly with evidence.”

    The AP report, however, says exactly the opposite; that members of his own (now defunct[4]) abuse Commission had approached Cardinal O’Malley, the pope’s “top abuse advisor,” with the letter to deliver to the pope. 

    Marie Collins, the Irish abuse survivor and Commission member who resigned, citing the Vatican’s refusal to take meaningful action, told AP, “When we gave him [O’Malley] the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns. And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done.” Juan Carlos Cruz, the Karadima victim whose membership on the Commission the Vatican had blocked, told AP, “Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope – in his hands.”

    On the face of it, there are only a few logical possibilities here. In fact, unless Cardinal O’Malley – who has, as of this writing, remained silent – comes forward and says that he didn’t hand the letter over pope, there is really only one; that the pope lied. And this is what is now being said quite openly by a vast array of voices, secular and Catholic, left and right.

    As Winfield writes,

    “The revelation could be costly for Francis, whose track record on the abuse crisis was already shaky after a botched Italian abuse case he intervened in became public[5]. More recently, he let the abuse commission lapse at the end of last year. Vatican analysts now openly question whether he ‘gets it,’ and some of his own advisers privately acknowledge that maybe he doesn’t.”

    “No evidence…” Lie big, lie often, and when caught, keep lying.

    One of the many things these secular reporters seem not to be paying attention to is that “no evidence” is in fact a well-rehearsed, stock response for Bergoglio. He said almost exactly the same in 2013 when confronted about another predatory homosexual he was sheltering. The hoopla surrounding the “Who am I to judge” comment tends to obscure the context of the comment.

    It was made in response to a question by a journalist about Monsignore Battista Ricca – a prelate whose promiscuous homosexuality is so well known it was covered by the Telegraph as early as July 2013. Ilze Scamparini asked the pope about Ricca, saying, “What you intend to do about this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?”

    What reply did Bergoglio give? His standard one: “No evidence.”

    About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response.”

    He added, “In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything.”

    But Ricca’s activities, for which the pope claimed there was no evidence, were notorious. They include being caught in flagrante in an elevator with a teenaged male prostitute, and his sexual relationship with a captain in the Swiss army. So flagrant was Ricca’s behaviour that it took intervention by Uruguay’s nuncio to have him removed. It was reported in 1999 and 2000 by L’Espresso, who said the information was confirmed by “numerous bishops, priests, religious and laity” in Uruguay[6].

    In fact, the evidence shows that Ricca is completely in line with Bergoglio’s normal procedures. As “Marcantonio Colonna” wrote in the Dictator Pope, “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.”

    It was at this early “no evidence” comment on the plane home from Rio that some of those paying attention started to understand that Bergoglio’s policy is in line with that of certain leaders of the past who recommended that if a politician was going to lie, he should lie big and lie brazenly. And in case anyone was wondering what will happen next, the same advice said to keep on lying after you’re caught.

    The pattern of silence and, when pressed, flat-out denial has been Bergoglio’s policy since long before he came on the international scene. He has a long record in Argentina of shaving close to scandals and vociferously denying involvement, and relying heavily on the broad good will of Catholics towards bishops to pull it off. Perhaps his biggest error with Barros was failing to understand just how little of that capital of trust there is left in the Catholic world as a whole. Indeed, on the subject of priests sexually abusing young people, it could only be measured in the negative numbers.

    “Argentine Victims Who Tried to Meet with Pope Francis…”

    Though the website Bishop Accountability is blatantly anti-clerical, their data is unassailable since most of it comes from information that is already public. On their Argentina page is a long list of accusations that Bergoglio/Francis simply isn’t interested in hearing from victims.

    “In Pope Francis’s 21 years as bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Wall Street Journal reports, including the years when he headed the Argentine bishops’ conference, he declined to meet with victims of sexual abuse.”

    “All of them tried to contact the cardinal archbishop in 2002 or later,” the same period when Pope Benedict and other bishops were striving to meet with victims and demonstrate an interest in the problem. The site says that “in addition to Bergoglio’s failure to respond to victims, the public record contains no evidence that he released any information about abusers.”

    In fact, he went so far as to flatly deny there had been any instances of abuse in his archdiocese. Weeks after his election to the papacy, he was quoted by his close friend, Rabbi Abraham Skorka, “In my diocese it never happened to me, but a bishop called me once by phone to ask me what to do in a situation like this.” Francis added that he agreed with the “zero tolerance” attitude of the Irish episcopate and admired Pope Benedict’s reforms – most of which he was later to quietly reverse.

    It was at exactly this time, however, that victims from Argentina were attempting to get the new pope’s attention. One, known to the press only as “Gabriel,” wanted to talk to Francis about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Julio César Grassi, accused of molesting at least five boys, “who has been avoidingthe sentences of the justice of Morón and the Court of Cassation. So far, judges and prosecutors at all instances found him guilty.”

    In case anyone thinks the Grassi-Gabriel case was not serious enough for the pope’s attention, Bishop Accountability summarises, “A year after Gabriel had filed criminal charges [2003] but before the start of Grassi’s trial, three men ransacked the survivor’s apartment and beat him.” These men threatened to kill him if he did not retract his testimony and quit the case.

    Ten years [after Gabriel filed criminal charges], in May 2013, with Grassi still free despite his conviction in 2009, “Gabriel and his attorney, Juan Pablo Gallego, brought a two-page letter addressed to Pope Francis to the office of the papal nuncio in Buenos Aires. An employee refused to accept the letter after learning of its topic and threatened to call security if Gabriel and Gallego did not leave the premises.”

    The group surmises that it was Bergoglio’s direct intervention with judges in the case that prevented a conviction against Grassi for so long and delayed his sentencing through multiple appeals. In 2006, then-Archbishop Bergoglio complained of a “media campaign” and claimed that the Grassi case was “different” from other accusations. During his criminal trial Grassi said Bergoglio “never let go” of his hand. In 2009, Grassi was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and corruption in the case of “Gabriel,” who was aged 13 at the time of the abuse, but the appeals dragged on until he was finally sent to prison in September 2013.

    Several more similar cases, all of whom were rebuffed in their attempts to meet with Bergoglio, are detailed here, for the strong-of-stomach.

    A virtuoso performance-liar

    Looking back and carefully examining his record, Jorge Bergoglio’s mastery of using the weaknesses of morally compromised men is becoming evident. It is arguable that even the members of the so-called “San Gallen Mafia” who apparently conspired to put him on Peter’s throne were used by him. But he is also a master of judging an audience and telling them what they expect to hear; a key skill for all grifters and confidence tricksters.

    Looking carefully at the infamous “Who am I to judge” comment, this was clear early on. The first part of that interview is a blatant and enormous lie, and it was from there that the pope moved on to his apology for homosexuality in general. Recall that this was the very first airplane interview, on the trip back to Rome from World Youth Day in Rio, a matter of weeks after his election. At the time, the papal apologists sprang instantly into action and we heard all about how the pope was talking strictly within the boundaries of Catholic doctrine.

    But perhaps in hindsight, we are ready to examine the full implications of his little speech, one that was clearly well-rehearsed. (Don’t forget, no question is asked in a papal interview without being thoroughly vetted ahead of time. Journalists must submit their questions well in advance.) This was the pope laying out his policy regarding homosexuality, a policy for which he was duly rewarded by being lauded on the cover of the homosexualist lobby’s US trade magazine.

    Read his full answer carefully:

    I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins.
    But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger.
    This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that.
    But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there.
    I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.
    If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks.

    One of the pope’s favourite rhetorical techniques is a combination of Begging the Question and conspiracy. He starts by assuming, without any effort at defence or explanation, a point that concedes the whole issue. This was the first time a pope had ever used the political term “gay”. Not “homosexual,” not “same-sex attracted,” but “gay,” meaning that he started by adopting the entirety of the homosexualist movement’s linguistic manipulations. Language counts in politics, and a pope using that term means he is by implication starting the discussion – and his pontificate – by aligning himself with the basic tenets of a movement that is violently opposed to Catholic moral teaching, and in direct opposition to his immediate, and still living, predecessor.

    In this case too, he was addressing a plane load of journalists who were either secular themselves, or for the most part are the kind of Catholic who believes it is fine to “disagree” with Catholic teaching on sexuality. There are very few “conservative” Catholics in the Vatican journalist pool. This means that his use of this language was a conspiratorial wink and nod to his immediate audience, a sly message to say, “People talk all the time about a gay lobby, but you and I both know this is mostly nonsense, propaganda from those people… those conservatives…We cool and hip people don’t hate gays, do we?”

    This astonishing departure follows an implied but very clear assertion that Ricca has repented and given up his activity, an assertion that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. We are simply asked to take the pope’s word for it, but given that it follows his astoundingly brazen lie that there was no evidence for Ricca’s homosexual activity in the first place, we can take the assurance for what it seems to be worth.

    Next, after another little inside nudge-nudge-wink-wink joke about the “gay lobby” – implying (but of course never outright saying) that the whole thing is hysterical nonsense – we hear a direct contradiction to Catholic teaching from no less a source than his predecessor, Pope Benedict Ratzinger. “The problem is not having this tendency.” Well, actually, your holiness, yes it is, particularly in the case of priests. The “tendency” is called in the same catechism you quote “intrinsically disordered” and Ratzinger was very clear that this “tendency” is a sign of a serious emotional dysfunction that “must” preclude a man from being ordained.

    Squandering the capital of trust

    A few months ago in a piece for the Remnant, I talked about why the Church (and nearly all human societies) regard lying as a sin:

    A mistake many make about lying is to understand it only in terms of morality. But Thomas makes the point that it is first a matter of metaphysics. Lying is an act at variance in its essence with the nature of reality.

    Thomistic theology teaches that it is by lying that we become most like the devil, and most unlike God, because we are trying to change the nature of reality to suit our own purposes. Habitual lying in effect changes you into a different kind of being, one that is by nature an opponent of Truth, ordered against Truth. This of course means that a person whose “orientation,” as we might say, is towards falsehood, even when he is at any given moment saying something true, is still servicing his lies. He tells the truth only to continue to control and manipulate reality. It was not by violence, but by lying and manipulation, by issuing half-truths and pretending to be the kind of man he was not, that Shakespeare’s character Iago earned the title of most evil character in English literature.

    Human beings are naturally ordered towards the truth, and we have to work at assuming a lie. This is why confidence tricksters can be successful, why lying works for getting what you want; people don’t see it coming. The first natural assumption is trust, at least at the basic level of expecting truth most of the time. We therefore instinctively see lying as a betrayal of trust.

    Considering how much trust the Catholic faithful had in the papacy until about 1965, how much un-earned trust Francis started with just by being elected, this pontificate should be remembered as one of the great confidence scams in history. Believing Catholics have watched aghast as this pope has habitually trampled on every aspect of Catholic teaching. Sandro Magister recently published a piece on his website that listed in dizzying detail the many times, in only the last few months, that pope Francis has falsified with obvious intention, the words of Christ in Scripture and the teaching of the Church.

    Of course this would be of little interest to secular journalists, who have paid no mind to his habit of rewriting Catholicism, but the sex abuse crisis is something secular journalists are very interested in, a fact Bergoglio seems not to have understood. It is now irrefutable that Pope Bergoglio is a habitual liar – that in fact truth, like reality, seems to mean nothing to him except as a tool.

    Sociologists talk about the concept of the “high trust society,” one in which citizens believe what they are told by the elites and trust them to govern and protect them adequately. They warn that the general loss of trust in institutions leads to a general state of chaos, in which laws on the books matter little as citizens turn to their last resort of protecting themselves and their own families. This is the way societies disintegrate. It has been said many times that the sex abuse crisis has created a massive loss of trust in prelates among the Catholic faithful, and this is true.

    With a professional confidence trickster on the papal throne, blatantly using lies and manipulation to maintain power and ram through an agenda at radical variance with Catholic doctrine, how long before that predictable disintegration occurs? Are we seeing it already? Are we seeing it in the declarations of this or that episcopate on Amoris Laetitia and Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics? With Cardinal Marx and others promoting “blessings” for “same-sex unions” are we going to be seeing an escalation of it? I have seen a veritable chorus of Catholics on social media declaring that if Paul VI is canonised, their loss of faith in the Church as an institution will be complete.

    I am told from contacts inside the Vatican that after the trip to Chile Bergoglio’s support has completely dried up. He has no more resources of trust even among the people he has chosen to surround himself with and after the reports of Cardinal Sandri going toe-to-toe with him in a shouting match, it seems that perhaps even his legendary vicious temper tantrums are failing to have the desired effect of terrorising his subordinates into submission.

    Marie Collins, by no stretch even a “conservative” Catholic, echoed this concern, saying the Barros affair has “definitely undermined credibility, trust, and hope” in Francis.

    “All I can say is that people who had a lot of hope in this particular pope, and I am talking about just ordinary Catholics that I know in my own parish, would find it very difficult now…and cannot understand and cannot believe that this particular pope has said the things he has said in the last few weeks,” she told the National Catholic Reporter.

    It may seem like a moment to enjoy, seeing the apparently unbreachable shell of papal teflon finally cracking, but in reality this situation is potentially very harmful for souls in the long run. There is a multitude of problems this pontificate has created or made worse that we will be dealing with for a long time after Bergoglio is gone, but perhaps one of the bigger ones will be the destruction of trust. Already fractured since the collapse of all Catholic institutions after Vatican II and the horrors of the sex abuse crisis, how much will there be to repair of the once-steadfast trust Catholics instinctively had in the Church after this?


    [1] “Not one victim has come forward in Chile; show me the proof. This is slander and calumny. Is that clear?”

    [2] The book “The Dictator Pope” relates that regular meetings between the pope and dicastery heads have been abolished and even high-ranking curia prefects are often unable to see the pope, whose appointments are now completely controlled by the Secretariat of State. It is certainly clear that no one sees the pope unless Cardinal Parolin approves, which may be the reason Cardinal Zen, in his efforts to warn Francis of the dangers of a Vatican deal with the communist Chinese government had to wait in the rain at a Wednesday general audience.

    [3] This is common in Italian journalism that has somewhat different standards from that of the Anglo world… and drives the rest of us spare. Italians care about getting a general picture of what’s going on, where Anglo-Saxons are considered weirdly obsessed with trivial details.

    [4] Though she never blamed the pope, Marie Collins complained that Vatican officialdom had simply not implemented the Commission’s recommendations. The time limit of the Commission’s members was allowed to lapse without renewal and though it was not dissolved formally the Commission has ceased to function with no word of any plan to revive it.

    [5] Probably a reference to the Inzoli case in which Francis overturned a previous sentence of a Vatican tribunal after the priest – now laicised – approached some of the pope’s close advisors for help, including Cardinal Coccopalmerio.

    [6] Not that anyone in Rome was trying very hard. Sandro Magister reported after the “Who am I to judge” comment, “Before the appointment, Francis had been shown, as is customary, the personal file on Ricca, in which he had not found anything unseemly. He had also heard from various personalities of the curia, and none of them had raised objections.”

    Published in Remnant Articles

    • DNBon2 hours ago

      Oh, the absurd silence.

      Thinking on the idea of a powerful man using morally compromised men to install them in key positions, it clicked for me just now. It’s something I never thought about.

      Think about this from the morally compromised, or in some other way very unqualified, person’s point of view. They know if they accept the “promotion” from the powerful person, they know they are accepting almost a kind of bribe. In their conscience, they know they are unqualified for any number of reasons. They get a letter from the boss and think perhaps, it must be some kind of mistake. No, it’s not a mistake after re-reading. Then they read between the lines. They know their own condition, they know that the powerful party knows their condition, otherwise they would not be given the promotion, and they know there is no other possible explanation.

      It’s an unspoken ask for obedience they know that if they accept, they will be called on some day to do this or that.

      It’s a proxy form of control. So they accept, go along to get along, and wait and do their job incompetently or not, until they are asked to do this or that. This favor may also come in the same form as their promotion, with a silent but unspoken understanding. This must be how there is no paper trail, no “evidence”, etc, for all manner of corruption. If this is how the current occupant of Peter’s chair operates, God save him and us all.

    • Reply
    • Share ›
    • Avatar

      Al The Silent Crusader2 hours ago

      Ms. White, I am a former major seminarian and a survivor of priest sex abuse. You lay everything out simple and plain- as usual. If not the bishops and priests of the SSPX, who will stand up and confront Peter to his face? Not Cardinal Burke. Not Cardinal Sarah. Who, I ask? The College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops need to get their act together and do something. And, for the record, the Eparchs of the Catholic Eastern rites need to stand up as well. Their silence in all of this is damnable! I am not looking for a coup inside the Church to remove a sitting pope, but, if not now, then when? This whole post-Vatican II situation is far worse than the Arian heresy crisis. I am left speechless and exhausted at this point. I pray, but to seemingly no avail. I know God hears our prayers, but I wish He would act and rid the Bride of Christ of all of these evil wolves in sheep’s clothing. The floor of Hell will have the skulls of all these prelates and clerics- and, YES, the current occupant of the Throne of Saint Peter- in eternal torment for eternity. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

    • 1

    • Reply
    • Share ›

    More Comments on the website.

    Click Here and scroll to the bottom of the article..

    Hilary White

    Our Italy correspondent is known throughout the English-speaking world as a champion of family and cultural issues. First introduced by our allies and friends at the incomparable, Miss While lives in Norcia, Italy.

    Latest from Hilary White


    British politician backs Hungary’s right to reject Muslim Migrants to protect its Christian culture




    Have you ever wondered why there are no terrorist attacks in Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary?

    When the immigration crisis broke out in Europe, these countries immediately closed their borders with security fences and walls to stop the mass illegal immigration.

    Hungary announced that it would not accept Muslim immigrants to preserve the “Christian” culture and identity of Hungary.

    Slovakia declared that it would accept only Christian refugees on the grounds that the state had no mosques.

    Austria Poland and Czech Republic did the same thing.
    Do you support the right of these countries to defend their borders? Share your thoughts in the comments below and please watch and share this video.


    Here is why Western countries should adopt Trump’s Travel Ban:
    Trump, as a candidate, called in 2015 for a ban on refugees from terror-laden countries.
    Trump is correct, Just look at what has been happening to Europe in recent years since the beginning of the immigration crisis.



    Here are only few examples:
    3 June 2017 – London: Eight people were killed when three Muslim terrorists drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge.

    22 May 2017 – Manchester: Suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena as fans were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing himself and 22 others.
    7 April 2017 – Stockholm: Muslim terrorist drove stolen truck into a crowd in the Swedish capital, killing four people and wounding 15 others.

    19 December 2016 – Berlin: Muslim terrorist drove a truck into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56 others.

    Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France, Germany, Britain, Finland and even Sweden.

    After Millions of illegal immigrants and refugees have infiltrated into Europe thanks to the EU’s open borders policy.

    According to British media, London is now more dangerous than New York City. According to crime statistics, crime across the U.K. was up 13%, with much of it in London.
    Rape, robbery, Acid attacks, honor killings and violent offenses have surged dramatically.

    Figures like these have risen in many European countries, with Sweden becoming “Europe’s rape capital,” Germany’s steep rise in violent and crimes, and Paris’s frequent terror attacks.


    EU, Australia, US, UK, and even Canada must close their borders. A country without borders is a country without security. If you support Travel Ban, Share this post! Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Most people are unaware of the consequences of the illegal mass immigration into Europe that lead to the changing face of Europe.
    The British have become a minority in their Own capital city.

    In Sweden the situation is even worse, Swedish majority will live long enough to see themselves becoming a minority in their own country.
    More and more countries are taking steps against the immigrants’ culture.
    France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria have banned the burqa.

    Switzerland passed an anti-mosque law which bans preaching in Arabic and mosque’s minarets.
    Austrian passed a law which restricts foreign funding for Austrian mosques and Islamic communities

    All these measures were taken by these countries to force immigrants to integrate into Western society.

    But there are Western countries that do not even acknowledge that there is a lack of integration within the immigrant communities.

    The Western world must close the borders before it is too late.






    Turkey’s Erdogan to meet with Pope, thank him for opposing Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

    FEB 4, 2018 9:29 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER


    This is not the first time a Muslim leader has thanked Pope Francis for being so very useful to the global jihad. Last September, the Pope met in the Vatican with Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a group that has been linked to the financing of jihad terror. During the meeting, al-Issa thanked the Pope for his “fair positions” on what he called the “false claims that link extremism and violence to Islam.” Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, has also thanked Francis for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.”

    Pope Francis has proclaimed that “authentic Islam and the proper understanding of the Koran reject every form of violence,” doing his bit to ensure that as many Christians as possible would remain ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat that his precious “dialogue” does nothing to mitigate.

    And now this. Pope Francis is a disgrace to the Church, to Judeo-Christian civilization, and to the free world.

    “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

    “Jerusalem to dominate Erdoğan’s meeting with Pope Francis,” Daily Sabah, February 2, 2018:

    The United States’ controversial recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is expected to dominate talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pope Francis on the president’s first trip to the Vatican on Sunday.

    According to presidential sources, Erdoğan will thank Pope Francis for his stance against U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision and his efforts to protect the status quo in the holy city.

    The Turkish president previously expressed his appreciation to Pope Francis who strongly opposed the bitterly-contested move announced by Trump at the end of last year. The two leaders held several phone calls regarding the issue and voiced their determination to follow developments regarding Jerusalem.

    The current humanitarian crisis in Syria, regional developments, terror, cooperation against Islamophobia and xenophobia are also among the topics which the two leaders are set to discuss during their meeting.

    The Argentine pope met Erdoğan during his trip to Turkey in November 2014 as the first world leader to visit the Turkish presidential complex in Ankara. The return visit will be the first by a Turkish president since 1959.

    Francis has repeatedly praised Turkey’s efforts to welcome Syrian refugees and has said the country could be a “great peacemaker.”…



    Andy says

    Feb 4, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    Muslim leader has thanked Pope Francis, I also think the Muslim leader will thank Globalist Pope Francis for the Judeo-Christian Symbols that are Vanishing across the western world.

    Crescent is a symbol of Paganism


    Andy says

    Feb 4, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    Islam Hijacking the UN Human

    Rights Council and Invented “Islamophobia”


    Click Here For Website Article Comments:


    POPE SOROS & the Novus Ordo Seclorum


      Written by  Michael Matt | Editor

      New from RTV: When the ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes the reality.

      Pro-abort overpopulation guru, Paul Ehrlich, speaks at the Vatican, after 10,000 petitioned Pope Francis to stop the scandal. One Vatican cardinal and dozens of U.S. Bishops call for ‘Catholic action’ against President Donald Trump. Catholic League’s Bill Donohue finally admits to the Soros-sponsored infiltration of the Catholic Church. God help us, who is Pope Francis and what’s he doing to the Catholic Church? 

      Michael J. Matt comments from the Remnant Underground.

      Please Subscribe to The Remnant YouTube Channel

      Please SHARE this Video


      • Avatar

        lyn4722 hours ago

        The Pope is selling out the Catholic Church for “thirty pieces of silver” God won’t be mocked. Jesus, Mary and Joseph Pray for us!

        • 1

        • Reply


              Gary Cummings3 hours ago

              Soros is not behind it all, he is in front of it all.

              • 2

              • Reply


                    phranthie4 hours ago

                    This is a deeply troubling situation crying out for resolution. Can the Successor of Peter actually be endorsing and promoting the truly evil mindset of these persons? Are the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church? Is it not yet time for the intervention of Christ in saving His Church, as He promised?

                    • 3

                    • Reply


                        The Interrogator5 hours ago

                        So Michael, what do we do to resist Bergoglio? Do we stand by a continual change for the worst in our Catholic Churches with horrible, more and more non-Catholic homilies? Continuing on and on, degrading ever worse into the pits? I don’t know how to resist, other than talking about it.

                        I will pray for Cardinal Burke to be given the wings of Heaven and the Might of the Angels to turn over the evil Money Changer tables bent on destroying HIS Church. For this is all about a grab world-wide for the ULTIMATE POWER over all people, an unbelievable totalitarian power like we’ve never seen before.

                        I will continue praying for poor POPE BENEDICT XVI. He told SSPX Bishop Lefay that he felt he was in a “cell”. No wonder he has to get “permission from Francis” to leave and go anywhere. I feel so sorry for him, because he can’t even see his brother.

                        • 2

                        • Reply

                        • One other person is typing…


                              JohnAU The Interrogator2 hours ago

                              Your concerns would be shared by most, if not all, traditionally minded Catholics. What can be done about it? In terms of any direct intervention – probably very little in the short term apart from an active prayer life and recourse to the sacraments.

                              Saint John Paul II was once asked ” Holy Father, why don’t you renew the Church? He replied: I can’t until the Virgin comes again”. Then holding up his Rosary he said: “This is your weapon”. Here we have an insight as to why the status quo remains unchanged, if Pope John Paul II was constrained in 1989, it logically follows so would his successor; Pope Benedict 16 in 2017 for the same reason.The restoration hoped and prayed for by so many good catholic people must await the return of the Holy Virgin – Fatima; the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and Garabandal; the Great Miracle – to be sent by God for the conversion of the World and with it the long awaited Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

                              We need not despair but rather hope in the Lord who in His own good time will intervene to rescue us. Saint Pio’s recommendation: “Pray Hope and don’t Worry”. I commend his instruction to you and all readers of this blog.


                              • 1

                              • Reply


                                    Marija The Interrogator3 hours ago

                                    I really wonder what Pope Benedict XVI knows; remember, he said:”Pray

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

                                    • 1

                                    • Reply


                                          Remnant Moderator . The Interrogator4 hours ago

                                          Just FYI, Mr. Matt doesn’t moderate the com box, but this is a good question to address to other friends in this thread.

                                          • Reply


                                              The Interrogator5 hours ago

                                              That’s why we don’t know anything about Francis’ family background, just like Obama. Their history is all shrouded in secrecy!

                                              • 2

                                              • Reply


                                                    Patrick O’Brien6 hours ago

                                                    Third Secret of Fatima: The Church will become the agent of international Communism. True? Might as well be.

                                                    • Reply


                                                          TF Patrick O’Brien2 hours ago

                                                          It seems to me that the Communists that have hidden themselves in the Western democracies and the Church for all these decades had decided that 2017 was the year to finally achieve their goal of a world socialist tyranny (or perhaps their master knew time was about to run out). This is why they have gone completely bonkers since Trump was unexpectedly (for them) elected. Madame Hillary was going to be the one to finish off the U.S.A., which is the last material bulwark against them, despite all its flaws.

                                                          The parallels between 2017 and 1917 in Russia are striking. They are following almost the exact same Hegelian plan. This time, though, they got a Commie on the Chair of Peter. I almost wonder if Trump isn’t the Great Monarch prophesied for so long. I don’t recall the prophecies specifying the monarch would be Catholic — and anyways, Trump is surrounded by Catholics, and could convert — who knows?

                                                          Whatever the case may be, pray that the Communists will be defeated — nay, vanquished. There is a huge battle going on behind the scenes that the Fakestream Media try to distract you from. Everybody that isn’t a Communist is suddenly a Russian? What? You can’t make this stuff up. It belies their desperation.

                                                          Join Fr. Ripperger’s Auxilium Christianorum if you haven’t already.http://www.auxiliumchristia… It’s a simple and powerful way to put the fight to these Principalities and Powers. We’re the Church Militant: get fighting!

                                                          • Reply


                                                              Red White and Blue Proud6 hours ago

                                                              The Vatican needs an exorcism.

                                                              • 4

                                                              • Reply


                                                                  Luis Osio7 hours ago

                                                                  Michael Matt, where is my comment? You are shameless!

                                                                  • Reply


                                                                      Luis Osio7 hours ago

                                                                      Finally! I’ve run the decades asking you NOT to call those devils popes! Freedom of religion is blasphemy, a sin against the Holy Ghost as it equates the church of Satan with the Church of Christ! NO DISTINCTION IS MADE! And that is Vatican II 64 years AGO! POPES???

                                                                      Where do you buy your alarm clocks?

                                                                      • Reply


                                                                            Remnant Moderator . Luis Osio6 hours ago

                                                                            So, you didn’t notice that Michael Matt calls Francis “Pope” and “Holy Father” all throughout the video? You missed the point. The easy way out is to become judge and jury to the pope, and tell the world he’s not the pope. The precedent set by Scripture, however, has Christians following Christ all the way to the cross, even after Peter’s apostasy. We’ve had terrible popes in the past, and we have a terrible one right now. Pray for him.

                                                                            • 11

                                                                            • Reply


                                                                                James Cunningham8 hours ago

                                                                                Clearly, Mr. Matt, you have presented the real facts and clearly they indicate that the Catholic Church is not being led as Christ would have it. Apologizing to sodomites and welcoming fornicators is demonic in nature and disgustingly evil; this is vengeful and hateful and must be rejected as an attack on Jesus Christ Himself. Is Pope Francis an Anti-Christ? It certainly looks like it.

                                                                                • 7

                                                                                • Reply


                                                                                      KELLY8 hours ago

                                                                                      At this point, all we can do is pray, pray, pray and pray some more!

                                                                                      Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallow be Thy name,

                                                                                      Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

                                                                                      Give us this day, our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses

                                                                                      as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not

                                                                                      into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen

                                                                                      Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!

                                                                                      Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,


                                                                                      Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour

                                                                                      of our death. Amen

                                                                                      Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit;

                                                                                      As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world

                                                                                      without end. Amen

                                                                                      • 6

                                                                                      • Reply


                                                                                            Iowa10 KELLY3 hours ago

                                                                                            Great reply!

                                                                                            • Reply


                                                                                                  Marty Dancy KELLY4 hours ago

                                                                                                  We also need to take action, too, along with prayer. Taking action against heresy seals the prayers. We need to set up a force telling the world that this Francis pope is an imposter and that Benedict was forced out of his position. It is not normal to have two men sitting with papal outfits on and being on Vatican grounds. One has to be invalid so I think that Francis is invalid or at least heretical. Oh, he says some good things to make people think he is OK but he cancels out the good with saying bad things like cozying up to the homosexual lifestyle and allowing fornicators to blaspheme the Eucharist while they are in mortal sin. That dulls their sense of sin and makes them continue bad communions and a further dulling of the conscience. It also gives bad example to other Catholics making them think they can get away with fudging on the faith.

                                                                                                  • Reply


                                                                                                        cs Marty Dancy2 hours ago

                                                                                                        One of the many, many beautiful aspects of our faith, is Apostolic Succession.

                                                                                                        Unfortunately, it does not always work out the way the Holy Spirit may want or how we may want. The nature of man and his free will seems to mess things up pretty badly, even regarding those who are selected by cardinals to become pope. Our Church is being tested like never before, or at least in my lifetime.

                                                                                                        This is our opportunity to grow in our faith, to stand with Christ, no matter the cost.

                                                                                                        Even if you are correct regarding Benedict and Pope Francis, what good will that do, by letting the world know it? What is done is done. Benedict XVl abdicated, he left us. Pope Francis sits on the Chair of Peter. It is a scourge, a suffering that perhaps our Lord permits for His greater glory. Good will come of this, no matter what.

                                                                                                        • Reply


                                                                                                              Remnant Moderator . csan hour ago

                                                                                                              Agreed. And once it is clear that Pope Francis’s errors can and must be resisted, it will be easier for faithful Catholics to pray and wait for God to correct the course of his Church…which He surely will. Remember, we’re only the Church Militant. The rest of the Church is either reigning gloriously with God in heaven, or already on their way–suffering in purgatory. We’re a very small percentage of the Church, in other words, and we have powerful advocates in our Church who are in the position to help the Church Militant more, perhaps, than the Church Militant themselves…if we remember to go to them for help. All is not lost. Mary Magdalene’s faith was not shaken by Peter’s denial of Christ. It was not shaken at the foot of the Cross. Her faith was not drowned by her tears, and it takes her all the way from the Cross to the tomb….where she’s first to look the Risen Christ in the eyes. Man, what a great story! And how cool it is to be Catholic! It’s difficult for the enemy to destroy our faith when we have such massive examples of perseverance going all the way back to the Cross. Francis will not last forever, but Christ always was and always will be.

                                                                                                              • 1

                                                                                                              • Reply


                                                                                                                goldie KELLY7 hours ago

                                                                                                                The Rosary, the Rosary, the Rosary!

                                                                                                                • 5

                                                                                                                • Reply

                                                                                                              Michael Matt | Editor

                                                                                                                More in this category: « A Little Ash Wednesday Reminder

                                                                                                                  Pope Francis To Cleanse Far-right Rot from Catholic Church?


                                                                                                                  Pope Francis To Cleanse Far-right Rot from Catholic Church?

                                                                                                                  Written by  Michael Matt | Editor

                                                                                                                  This just in from The Washington Post:
                                                                                                                  How Pope Francis can cleanse the far-right rot from the Catholic Church:  “Pope Francis needs to take tougher action against the United States’ most influential Catholic in Rome, Cardinal Raymond “Breitbart” Burke. The renegade cleric is not only undermining Francis’s reformist, compassionate papacy, and gospel teaching as it applies to refugees and Muslims, but the rebel prince of the church is also using his position within the walls of the Vatican to legitimize extremist forces that want to bring down Western liberal democracy, Stephen K. Bannon-style. Simply put, the Vatican is facing a political war between the modernizing Pope Francis and a conservative wing that wants to reassert white Christian dominance.


                                                                                                                  Cardinal Raymond Burke takes part in an antiabortion march in Rome in 2012. (Riccardo De Luca/Associated Press)

                                                                                                                  Emma-Kate Symons is a Washington-based journalist and former Paris correspondent. Her work has been published in Foreign Policy, Women in the World in association with the New York Times, Quartz, the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and the Australian Financial Review.

                                                                                                                  Pope Francis needs to take tougher action against the United States’ most influential Catholic in Rome, Cardinal Raymond “Breitbart” Burke. The renegade cleric is not only undermining Francis’s reformist, compassionate papacy, and gospel teaching as it applies to refugees and Muslims, but the rebel prince of the church is also using his position within the walls of the Vatican to legitimize extremist forces that want to bring down Western liberal democracy, Stephen K. Bannon-style. Simply put, the Vatican is facing a political war between the modernizing Pope Francis and a conservative wing that wants to reassert white Christian dominance.

                                                                                                                  Burke was reduced to a ceremonial patron role at the Knights of Malta after a power struggle at the ancient chivalric order, won by the pope last month, following a spat over its humanitarian wing’s alleged distribution of condoms. Losing the leadership battle and prestige at the secretive society headquartered in Rome — Francis is appointing his own special delegate above Burke — was seen as a papal rap on the knuckles for the cardinal leading the charge against Francis’s writings on communion for divorcees.  But the virulently anti-Islam (“capitulating to Islam would be the death of Christianity”), migrant-phobic,  Donald Trump-defending, Vladimir Putin-excusing Burke is unrepentant and even defiant, continuing to preside over a far-right, neo-fascist-normalizing cheer squad out of the Holy See.

                                                                                                                  This Vatican operation, called Dignitatis Humanae, or the Institute for Human Dignity, whose advisory board includes two of the four cardinals openly challenging Francis on marriage and sexuality, is slavishly promoting Burke’s favorite American white Catholic nationalist, Bannon, with star billing on its home page. The institute’s top office-bearers, Burke and his henchman, the media-savvy Breitbart contributor Benjamin Harnwell, are also encouraging Benito Mussolini fan Matteo Salvini, of Italy’s Northern League, and Muslim-baiting far-right Catholic poster girl Marion Le Pen, the National Front “rising star” niece of party leader Marine Le Pen in France.

                                                                                                                  As the Italian press first revealed, Burke held a long meeting last week at his Vatican home with Salvini, a fierce critic of the pope who wants to push refugees back into the sea and close all mosques in Italy. It was a flagrant political intervention on the side of the extreme-right racist grouping ahead of the Italian elections. Mysterious posters also appeared around the Vatican decrying a sinister-looking pope’s “decapitation” of the Malta Knights order.

                                                                                                                  The situation facing the Catholic Church raises alarming parallels with the ideological warfare that split the Vatican in the 1930s when ethnic nationalism was sweeping Europe under Mussolini and Hitler and when fascist forces infiltrated the highest echelons of the church. In 1937, Pope Pius XI published an encyclical in German denouncing the Nazi regime and its racism. The diatribe infuriated Hitler, but the focus was more on Nazi persecution of Catholics than laws targeting Jews.

                                                                                                                  In Italy, the Vatican had long made accommodations with Mussolini for its own geopolitical gains, and Pius XI failed to quell widespread institutional anti-Semitism in the church before it was too late. When Mussolini decreed in 1938 that Italian Jews were to suffer a legal fate similar to those in Germany, Pius XI tried to prepare a fresh encyclical deploring anti-Semitism and racism, as revealed in historian David Kertzer’s book “The Pope and Mussolini,” he was double-crossed by pro-fascist forces in the Vatican working in tandem with Il Duce. Senior figures in the French Catholic Church also collaborated with fascism in France, where the Vichy regime aided the Nazis in deporting about 80,000 Jews to the death camps.

                                                                                                                  The lesson of history has not been lost on Francis. After President Trump’s inauguration, he warned that rising populism could produce a new Hitler. But now, as Europe faces historic elections that could bring extreme-right nationalists back into power across the continent for the first time since World War II, he must act. The bellicose anti-Islam invective being marshaled by figures such as Burke shares much in common with the vicious anti-Semitism many Catholic clerics adhered to in the 1930s, when they saw Jews as a danger to the Christian West whose rights must be restricted.

                                                                                                                  Burke, like Bannon, who says Islam is “the most radical” religion in the world, makes no distinction in his clash-of-civilizations frenzy between the Muslim faith’s diverse currents and interpretations, and violent jihadist movements derived mostly from Saudi-style Salafism. Unsurprisingly, Burke says he is “very satisfied” with Russian autocrat Putin’s “defense of life and family” and believes he may have “converted” since his KGB days. Yet, just as godless Communism posed an existential threat in the past, the Catholic Church has nothing to gain and everything to lose from cozying up to far-right extremists from the United States to Europe. They distort Christianity into an exclusionary ideology in defense of nation and race, and unite a new support base of Muslim-haters with historically anti-Semitic movements such as the National Front that are anything but Christian, and often neo-pagan.

                                                                                                                  The options open to the pope in dealing with Burke are limited. Excommunication isn’t in the cards; Burke is not a heretic denying the Catholic faith. Nor is Burke refusing to submit to the pontiff like French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was cast out by John Paul II after his ultra-conservative Society of Saint Pius X ordained its own bishops rather than take directions from the Vatican.

                                                                                                                  However, Francis, who has full authority over his cardinals, could fully remove Burke from his remaining sinecure with Knights of Malta, call him in for a pastoral correction on the issue of his unacceptable political interventions, investigate Dignitatis Humanae with a view to shutting it down for its subversive politicking, and send the rebel cardinal back home to the United States. As Burke tries to run an insurgency and rebukes the pope for his doctrinal “ambiguities,” with the backing of thousands of priests, Francis could seize the agenda. In time-honored papal tradition, he could write an encyclical on the burning questions of populism and nationalism, with specific reference to migrants, Muslims and Jews, so priests including Burke know they are in breach of church teaching when they try to act as power brokers for the international extreme right.

                                                                                                                  The stakes could hardly be higher, especially as the pope seems on a collision course with a Trump-Bannon White House that has imposed a form of a Muslim ban and disparaged him during the election campaign for daring to suggest that building a wall on the United States’ southern border was un-Christian. If the pope doesn’t put the reactionary elements such as Burke and his cronies back in their place, they could force a real schism during his papacy and leave the church open to justifiable accusations it failed to stand up to enablers of extremism and neo-fascism within its ranks.

                                                                                                                  Click Here For Article Comments and more Information

                                                                                                                  REMNANT COMMENT: The author of this Catholic-bashing rant is Emma-Kate Symons — a Washington-based journalist and former Paris correspondent. Her work has been published in Foreign Policy, Women in the World in association with the New York Times, Quartz, the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and the Australian Financial Review. 

                                                                                                                  In other words, she’s a person of some influence. Mark well how she concludes her article: “If the pope doesn’t put the reactionary elements such as Burke and his cronies back in their place, they could force a real schism during his papacy and leave the church open to justifiable accusations that it failed to stand up to enablers of extremism and neo-fascism within its ranks.”

                                                                                                                  Smells a bit like blackmail, doesn’t it?

                                                                                                                  “Extremism,” “neo-fascism” and “white dominance” are terms not bandied about by journalists these days unless there is deliberate intent to vilify and intimidate a certain demographic. They immediately conjure up (at least in the minds of the undereducated) flickering black-and-white images of mass murderers on the History Channel — e.g., Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot.  But surely when a “responsible” journalist employs such terms, it’s not without good cause.  It can only mean that the person (or group) at whom such vitriol is directed must present a real threat to homeland security—someone that governments and police departments alike would be wise to monitor.

                                                                                                                  This inflammatory rhetoric (some might call it hate speech) is, ironically enough, the stock-in-trade of far-Left hate hunters. And, by and large, it works. And it’s guaranteed to work in this case, when Francis comes blundering in with his weekly caricatures of faithful Catholics as “rigorists” and “extremists” in his own Church — thus making the rhetoric seem that much more warranted.   “It must be true if the Pope thinks so too!” 

                                                                                                                  In other words, Pope Francis is becoming key to the success of a radically anti-Catholic agenda. 

                                                                                                                  The takeaway? Pope Francis is not merely a liberal-leaning pope with whom faithful Catholics are permitted to respectfully disagree. No, not anymore. His is the voice of reason against unreasonable Catholic “extremism” (read: orthodoxy). He’s the liberator who will rescue the modern world from a vengeful return of the Church of the Dark Ages, the Church of the Inquisition, the Church of a Repressive Moral Code that ushered millions into hopelessness and despair, lives cut short by Catholic Guilt.  And if you don’t go along with the Pope’s new and improved Church of Inclusion, Church of Accompaniment — well, obviously, you’re a hater who wants people to die or at least live in misery.

                                                                                                                  If you’re opposed to ‘gay marriage,’ for example, you have only a few years to publicly air those views. Francis is shifting the Church so far to the Left that those Catholics who do not go along with him (and, let’s face it, we’re already to the point where Catholics are bound in conscience not to) will be easily vilified as “dangerous extremists”, so filled with hate that even their own Church finds them deplorable.

                                                                                                                  You see how it works? This is no longer about a mere theological or philosophical divide in the Catholic Church, with progressives on one side and conservatives on the other. No, it’s part of a purging, whereby radical Leftists will declare open season on faithful Catholics — loners who have “broken away” from the Pope of Toleration in order to make common cause with the radicalized descendants of Tim McVey and Dave Koresh.

                                                                                                                  One little problem now, of course: ‘Hate groups’ were always and forever supposedly motivated by a paranoid anti-government fear factor — the veritable meat and potatoes of “domestic terrorists”. So with Donald Trump in the White House, the radical Left’s go-to narrative becomes obsolete, and a new challenge presents itself: Link the “vast right-wing Christian conspiracy” to the White House this time around, and then condemn the entire “basket of deplorables” in one fell swoop.

                                                                                                                  It’ll be interesting to see how this works out for them down the road. But, clearly, the Washington Post is trotting it out already with its paranoid call for Pope Francis  to crush some scaaaaaary Cardinal Burke-Steve Bannon cartel.  Depending on how this all plays out, Francis may turn out to be not only the most humble pope in history but also the most dangerous.

                                                                                                                  Perhaps this is why the Left is love-bombing him to death.


                                                                                                                  Published in Headline News Articles

                                                                                                                  Michael Matt | Editor

                                                                                                                  Michael Matt | Editor

                                                                                                                  Michael Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000.  Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.

                                                                                                                  Latest from Michael Matt | Editor

                                                                                                                  More in this category: « SNL and the Real Reason for the Hate Against Donald Trump

                                                                                                                  See Website for additional information and article comments.

                                                                                                                  Know-Nothing Catholics on Muslim Immigration


                                                                                                                  In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” ∼ Executive order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United  States

                                                                                                                  It can be expected that Catholic bishops will respond with dismay to President Trump’s order banning immigration from seven Muslim nations. When Trump first proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S., Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, the president of the USCCB issued a statement repudiating “the hatred and suspicion that leads to policies of discrimination.” At about the same time, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore said Catholics could “not possibly countenance” restricting entry to the U.S. solely on the basis of religious affiliation. It can also be expected that bishops will employ an argument they have long used against opponents of Muslim immigration—namely, that Catholic immigrants were once treated with similar suspicion.

                                                                                                                  Catholics and non-Catholics alike now laugh at the anti-Catholic prejudice of the Know-Nothings (aka The American Party) and other groups who were opposed to immigration from Catholic countries in Europe. The anti-Catholics based their objection on the belief that Catholics owed allegiance to a foreign power (the Vatican), and thus, Catholics could never be truly loyal to America and its Constitution. More than that, there were dark rumors about a papist plot to take over America, and about an undersea tunnel that connected the Vatican to New York. This view—that Catholics could never assimilate to America’s democratic culture—persisted in some quarters up until the election of John F. Kennedy.

                                                                                                                  The fact that some Americans once mistakenly considered Catholicism a menace is now used as an argument against critics of Muslim immigration. Just as the Know-Nothings of days gone by were wrong about Catholicism, so also will today’s “Know-Nothings” be proven wrong about Islam. Or, so it is claimed. The open-borders advocates within the Church assure us that Islam will turn out to be as Americans as apple pie: give Islam a chance, and you will discover that the local Iman is just Bing Crosby’s Father O’Malley with a beard—a mellow fellow whose biggest concern is to pay off the mortgage on the mosque.

                                                                                                                  But what if all the things that were once falsely charged against Catholicism are actually true of Islam? The nineteenth century anti-Catholics mistakenly thought that Catholicism was a theocracy, but Islam really is a theocracy. The anti-Catholics wrongly questioned the loyalty of American Catholics, but numerous polls show that a majority of Muslims consider their primary allegiance to be to the ummah (the worldwide community of Muslim believers), and not to whatever nation they happen to reside in. A Pew Research survey of Muslim-Americans under thirty revealed that sixty percent of them felt more loyalty to Islam than to America. The Know-Nothings worried needlessly that Catholics would be subject to foreign influence, but when you consider that 85 percent of fulltime, paid imams in the U.S. are foreign born, then foreign influence on American Muslims does seem a legitimate concern.

                                                                                                                  What about the anti-Catholic fear that Catholics would be bound by Canon Law not Constitutional Law? There was, of course, little need for worry. The scope of Cannon Law is largely restricted to internal Church affairs, and most Catholics have only the vaguest acquaintance with its requirements. On the other hand, sharia law governs almost every aspect of daily life for Muslims. Moreover, many tenets of sharia law directly contradict the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Sharia law permits cruel and unusual punishments; the open-ended sharia blasphemy laws makes free speech highly problematic; and the apostasy and dhimmitude laws more or less cancel out religious freedom.

                                                                                                                  How seriously is sharia regarded in Muslim lands? In many Muslim nations sharia law (or Islamic law) is the law of the land. For example, it is written into the constitutions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­and Iraq. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam which is the Islamic response to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by all 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Article 24 of the Declaration states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” Article 25 states “The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” All of which sounds a bit like the fine print in a warranty which tells you that your product is completely covered for 10 years except for labor and all the working parts.

                                                                                                                  But how about Muslims in America? You may think that American Muslims pay no attention to the thousand-year-old requirements of sharia law, but polls show otherwise. A nationwide survey conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy reveals that 51 percent of Muslims agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia.” In addition, 51 percent of those polled believed that they should have the choice of American or sharia courts. Only 39 percent agreed that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

                                                                                                                  Take over the country? That’s what some of the anti-Catholic nativists thought that the Catholics were planning to do. There is no evidence, however, that any Catholic groups, whether lay or clerical, ever entertained notions about subjugating America. On the other hand, numerous Islamist leaders have, in no uncertain terms, expressed a desire to conquer America. And the crazy talk is not confined to terrorist chiefs hiding out in the deserts of Libya or Iraq. “Death to America” is now the unofficial motto of one large and well-armed Islamic nation (Iran). Moreover, subjugating nations to Islam is not simply something that Muslims like to talk about. It’s what they have done throughout history. The spread of Islam is the raison d’être of Islam.

                                                                                                                  How should it be spread? Not necessarily with bullets and bombs. Prominent Islamic spiritual leaders such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi have expressed confidence that Islam can conquer Europe through immigration and through higher birth rates. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed has expressed similar sentiments about the defeat of the U.S. Although not at all adverse to the use of violence, KSM revealed that al-Qaeda’s plan to crush America was more subtle than that. According to James Mitchell, the CIA contractor who interrogated him, KSM told him:

                                                                                                                  The “practical” way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non-Muslims. He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of Sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose Sharia from within.

                                                                                                                  It is that possibility, and not a D-Day type invasion that worries serious critics of Islamic immigration, and it is that possibility that the new executive order is meant to forestall. More to the point, the ban on Muslim immigration is not based in bigotry, but on a realistic assessment of Islam. If, as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Islamists have said, the plan is to conquer the West through immigration, then putting restrictions on Muslim immigration is the logical thing to do.

                                                                                                                  Last February, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy gave a speech which rehashed all the old clichés about “anti-Islamic prejudice.” He reminded his audience about the anti-Catholic bigotry of the past; he cautioned them about a “new nativism”; he advised them that they should view with repugnance the “repeated falsehoods” that Islam is inherently violent or that Muslims seek to replace the Constitution with sharia law; and he told them that Catholics must speak out against “distortions of Muslim theology … because these distortions are just as devastating in the present day as the distortions of Catholic teaching … which were disseminated in American society in the nineteenth century.”

                                                                                                                  Except that the “distortions” of Islam that McElroy talks about are not distortions at all. They are established facts. And the fears that many in the U.S have about Muslim immigration are well-founded fears. Rational discrimination against Muslim immigration in the twenty-first century is not the same as irrational discrimination against Catholic immigration in the nineteenth century. Unless, of course, you are naïve enough to believe that all religions are basically of the same peace-loving sort.

                                                                                                                  The term “Know-Nothings” originally referred to its members’ habit of responding to every question about its activities with the reply “I know nothing.” The moniker also captured the ignorance of its nativist members. Their opposition to Catholic immigrants was largely based on misinformation. Today, however, the situation is reversed. It’s not the opponents of immigration that are ill-informed, but its proponents. Today’s equivalent of the Know-Nothings are not those who have fears about Muslim immigration. In general, their fears are based on facts about Islamic beliefs and Islamic history—facts which are easily accessible to anyone who bothers to look. The “Know-Nothings” of today are those who think Muslim immigration can only be a good thing—those who are so ignorant of Islam that they proudly proclaim their solidarity with it. The Know-Nothings of today are all those willfully blind groups and individuals who refuse to look at the facts about Islam, and prefer instead to cling to the fantasy Islam of their own imaginations.

                                                                                                                  Today’s Know-Nothings are smug in their assurance that they hold the moral high ground. Hence they absolve themselves from examining the evidence on which moral judgments should be based. They are sure that the conventional wisdom of yesterday is adequate to understand today’s radically different situation. In their own way, they are as much of a threat to American society as the terrorists who plan to take advantage of their ignorance.

                                                                                                                  Tagged as Anti-Catholicism, immigration / migration / refugees, Islamization, Sharia Islamic law, Terrorism

                                                                                                                  William Kilpatrick

                                                                                                                  By William Kilpatrick

                                                                                                                  William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website,