signing a consent form

Signing a consent form - make sure you do it in front of a witness!

Sign the form that is.

• BBC Woman's Hour continue to push there abnormal views of all things perverse.

Consent

With an hour's drive ahead of me last Tuesday, I switched on the car radio to see if I could find something interesting to listen to. What I found was Radio 4's Woman's Hour, and specifically a two-person discussion (interviewer and interviewee) on the subject of consent. Consent, that is, to sexual activity, this having recently become a rather sensitive topic as many men have been accused by women (and maybe by other men, who knows?) of rape or sexual assault; while the accused men themselves claim that although they had sex, the activity was consensual.

The interviewee's age was not given, but she sounded like a young woman, maybe in her twenties. She told the interviewer (also female, probably older) how she had gone with a man whom she described as “a friend” to his home, where they had agreed to have sex (they had had sex before, she said, though only once or twice) and he had then produced a consent form for her to sign. This was so that if she subsequently tried to accuse him of rape or sexual assault, he could prove that she had agreed to the activity. She had never come across such a thing before, and was a bit surprised; but signed anyway (after which, presumably, a good time was had by all).

The discussion which followed was about the nature of consent in such circumstances. For example, a woman might consent in general terms, and then the man might introduce some unexpected variation which she was not happy about but which he forced on her.

But I was still musing on the intial circumstances.

The man was “a friend”. This was not a love relationship.  It was not even an alcohol-fuelled spur-of-the-moment impulse.  It was a coolly-chosen decision: shall we go out for a drink, shall we watch a film, shall we wander round the streets looking at the Christmas lights, shall we have sex? The man's producing a consent form underlies still further the cold-blooded nature of the transaction, as does the woman's agreement to signing it (after her initial surprise).

Is this really how the majority of young people in the UK are living these days? Or even a sizeable minority of them?  Or have the makers of Woman's Hour found a relatively unusual case which it is presenting in matter-of-fact terms in order to “normalise” a view of sex as no more than one form of entertainment among any number of others?   (And if so, why? What's in it for them?)   

Happy Christmas 2018

Wishing you all a Happy and Blessed Christmas

Dear Prayer Crusaders remember to pray for your adopted celebrities this Christmas.

Pray also for all in the news and media, they often preach a different lifestyle to that of the Gospel, thus they put themselves in peril and lead others astray.

Pray for peace on earth, and that the media will not lead us away from it.

Jesus was born to save all from sin.

All anyone needs to do is accept Him and what He shows us.

Have a happy and TV free Christmas

Silicon Valley children have technology-free education

Protecting its own

An article – originally in the Sunday Times, reprinted in The Week of 1^st December – is headed “How Silicon Valley educates its children”. A highlighted quote states: “The same executives who have flooded the world with smartphones pay up to $40,000 a year to wall off their kids from their creations”.

The very highly-paid executives of Apple, Facebook, Google, and others ensure that their own children have a completely technology-free education at least during their primary school years. The children attend a school which is run largely according to Rudolph Steiner principles, with the emphasis on practical activities, much of it out-of-doors, particularly in the early years. When more formal lessons are introduced, it is by means of blackboard-and-chalk, paper-and-pencil. Children do not bring phones (nor any other screens) into school until they are aged at least 11, and even then are not allowed to turn them on during school hours. The Nannies who look after the children at home are required to sign contracts which include “no screen” clauses whereby they promise not to use mobile phones when they are with the children.

Again I quote from the article itself: “Alarming rates of anxiety, depression and loneliness among young people are being linked to screen time. For some parents – the very ones who are writing the code so perfectly tuned to poke our lizard brains and keep us swiping – the studies simply reinforce what they already know: modern technology is addictive by design”.

Not only is Silicone Valley enslaving a large proportion of the world's children and young people; it is well aware that it is doing so. The first message to be seen on every new phone and similar device should be Caveat emptor, - let the buyer beware.

By Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila

protect children from the media

Never give up on protecting children from the media

It's now more important than ever to give up watching the TV and at the very least keep one's children away from it. The main stream media is riddled with homosexual and LGBT manipulators, you can't trust them at all. It's the children they want and with so many reports of little children wanting gender change drugs and operations, one wonders where is all this coming from, who is influencing them? The influence is coming from many sources, it's coming from politicians, it's coming from teachers, it's coming from the health service and it's all backed-up and manipulated by the media particularly the socialist media, the BBC. We all know in CUT how the TV works and how it has been weaponized by Satan. It's all the more dangerous because the people who are in powerful positions in the media and particularly TV and film really know how to use it. If you are on holiday with your family do not let the children have access to a TV; there are some evil shows, some with explicit nudity even with same-sex angles and storylines.

The media and Gun Control

A Conversation with the Enemies of Freedom

Benedictus Dominus, Deus meus, qui docet manus meas ad praelium, et digitos meos ad bellum (Ps. CXL iii).

Blessed be the Lord, my God, who traineth my hands to the battle, and my fingers to the fight.

            The media are calling for 'a conversation' about gun control in the wake of the Parkland

shootings or, to be more precise, media types the world over are calling for America to have such a conversation. The trouble is that, whenever one attempts to converse with them, they just shout louder and louder to drown out anything and everything anybody else might have to say on the subject i.e. they use the tactic they use on all manner of subjects where they have a collective view and want to rule all other positions inadmissible – try having a conversation with them about stengthening laws against homosexual practice or abortion.  They are, however, right in telling us that it is time to reconsider the firearms question.

            The problem, which has been highly visible since the Parkland shootings, is that generations have grown up having been fed nothing but gun control propaganda from birth leaving young people, at least, unable to imagine that the alternative is preferable.  The generation of telegenic teens now protesting in front of the cameras in favour of gun control in America is at the younger end of the same generation in which over half say they would prefer socialism or communism to capitalism.  The situation in Britain and Europe where there is an even narrower range of opinion across the media, and we are accustomed to an even broader scope of State action, is naturally far worse as there are no longer any societal forces pushing back against the siren voices of statism on our side of the Atlantic.  People have forgotten what a free society looks like; and, when we present them with the argument that to have the choice to bear arms is the natural state of affairs, and that to affirm it as a natural right is a necessary safeguard to secure freedom against its enemies within as well as without the country, they reply, as they have been conditioned to reply, that they trust the State to look after them, and they want it to, and think it should have a monopoly of force and all the means it finds necessary to accomplish its beneficent ends.

            Hence we need to reconsider the guns issue, and have as much of a conversation as we can before we are silenced, not because we are wrong in principle, but because the simple arguments of old have been rendered ineffective by the force of statist propaganda pumped out by our would-be rulers in the media (as described in the earlier post Enemies of Freedom).  The time has come to put forward a more positive view of the matter, a more explicitly Catholic view, starting from first principles.

            The essential difference between the modern socialist State and the natural law State is that the modern socialist State begins at the top, with the State and its institutions, and then imposes itself upon the people as an external power regulating their lives as individuals, members of families, and members of any groups to which they might belong; such a State does things to, with or for the people, but it is not of the people, and does not provide government by the people, it provides only a politics of us and them. The natural law State, on the other hand, proceeds 'from the ground up', starting with the people as it finds them in their natural condition, as individuals born into families who form families themselves, and come together with others for various purposes.  The Catholic State then builds upon the foundation of the natural law State, and informs it at the political level  by the union it creates between Church and State, enabling the State to benefit from the infallible guidance of Church teaching in all that pertains to faith and morality. 

            The family is, in the words of Pius XII, “the primary cell of society” which means that society begins there, and any attempt to give a society a political identity as a people or nation should also begin there, and so must any attempt to give a nation a political expression, any attempt to embody it for collective action, as a State if such attempts are to respect the divine order of natural law, by which I mean to respect the fundamental truths of human nature.  All the institutions of a State that is ordered towards integral human development must respect human nature so that every individual can flourish in both the natural and the supernatural orders.  They must all, therefore, begin with families and their individual members, giving people the opportunity to exercise their abilities, capacities and virtues to the fullest extent.  That means every aspect of life in society begins with families and their members: health and welfare, education, policing, defence, food production and procurement, business, energy, transport, culture and the arts, religion, everything.  The right to bear arms is an integral element of several aspects of building and living in such a free society (in forming, for instance, a posse and a militia, or even simply choosing to eat meat), and establishing it as the basis of a Catholic State.  It is intrinsic to the rights to found a family and to hold private property as the final guaranty of those rights.  That is the positive vision we need to promote, so “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free”.  

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.

full text of Archbishop Vigano third letter

Archbishop Vigano's 3rd Letter

On the Feast of the North American Martyrs

To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so.  But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved.  Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge -- "How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?" -- what answer could I give?

I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed.   I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed.  I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives.  Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop's charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty.  Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own.  Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier.  If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that.  This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.

I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony.  To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible.  Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine.  When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Therefore I spoke.  For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church -- harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large.  With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope.

Let me restate the key points of my testimony.

• In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
• In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual behavior with yet another priest.
• In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal.  This memo received no response.
• In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick's sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him.  This second memo also received no response.
• In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance.  The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope's orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
• In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope's restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
• On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy.
• On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, "il cardinale McCarrick, com'è (Cardinal McCarrick -- what do you make of him)?"-- which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick.  I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.
• Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
• McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favor with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.
• Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.  

I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false.  Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.

• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick's situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.

What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?

• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation.  But this was not my testimony.  My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony.  My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents –  irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation.  And I confirm this again.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of "audience memos" imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned.  But this was not my testimony.  My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as "sanctions" decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically "sanctions" but provisions, "conditions and restrictions." To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.

In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.

There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote.  The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of "rumors," which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.

In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy.  As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel.  This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers.  It is not a matter of politics.  It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy.  This is about souls.  Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons.  It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality.  It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large.  But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved.  Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.  

It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage.  But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry.  It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.

Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church.  I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion.  Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy.  I am urging no such thing.  I pray every day for Pope Francis -- more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross.  Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).

In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt.  You too are faced with a choice.  You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption.  You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning.  You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.

On the other hand, you can choose to speak.  You can trust Him who told us, "the truth will set you free."  I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking.  I urge you to consider which choice-- on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge -- you will not regret having made.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana
Nunzio Apostolico
19 Ottobre 2018, Feast of the North American Martyrs

Part Four - Pope St Uriah Heep

The Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy

Part four - The Judas Pope.

With all the recent exposés and scandals one would think the media would really be on the back of the Church and especially the pope now. After all when Benedict was pope they did just that, relentless programming on anything to attack the Catholic Church. From condoms to abortion and our "uncharitable hateful" teachings on homosexual acts to our hateful history re the Crusades, the Inquisition etc and how bad these events were (never talking about how both these events saved Christendom). But No! Even though we are now finding out about just how many homosexual child abusers there are in the priesthood and epically post-pubescent boys, not a peep, why? The answer is very simple: why attack your own, this pope is one of them, a homo-friendly media personality, just like nearly all in the media and the vast majority of the population at large.  Remember what Francis said on the plane back from Ireland when asked about Archbishop Carlo Vigano's revelation that even though Pope Benedict sanctioned the homosexual predator Cardinal McCarrick – he, Pope Francis, let him back. Here is the question and answer:

Anna Matranga, CBS: Good evening, Holy Father.  I’ll return to the subject of sex abuse about which you’ve already spoken. This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behaviour of and the sexual abuse by former-Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true.  I also wanted to ask something else: the Archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church.  May I ask you whether these two things are true?

Pope Francis:  I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last first we speak about the trip, and then other topics.  I was distracted by Stefania, but I will respond.
I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested.  Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment.  I will not say a single word about this.  I believe the statement speaks for itself.  And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions.  It’s an act of faith.  When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak.  But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good. (inaudible)

It is clear that Francis is saying that he is relying on the media not to make too much of a fuss about this. And of course because this is homosexual in nature - they will not! This is because there is a Babylonian captivity of the papacy. A captain of the Babylonian media empire recently visited the pope. He is Bono, the leader of Irish rock band U2 (who came out strongly in favour of abortion during the Irish referendum, did the pope talk to him about that as he should have?). Nothing wrong with the pope meeting celebrities of course, but when this Babylonian infiltrator who had done much to corrupt Ireland comes out of the meeting with Francis talking about his "One" foundation uniting with Francis' Church you know something else is going to go wrong with the papacy. One what? One world government, One Religion etc etc. Is One's mission to deal with extreme poverty a front as so little of its funds actually goes to its cause? Bono during a U2 concert last year dedicated a song to his "old friend" Cardinal McCarrick! Just how close was Bono and the Cardinal?

One - Bono and Pope St Uriah Heep
"Hey...Judas!!!" 

I firmly believe that the acceptance and continued growth in all things homo-centric and LGBT will bring Western Civilisation down; maybe not now, but in a few decades. How long did Rome take to fall? A century or so? It took Christianity to resurrect Western civilisation, but it took centuries.

The media itself is full of course of post-pubescent boy abusing predator homosexuals and they pass it off as love - "Boy Love" as they call it in the "Gay" mags (you see for yourself if you're unfortunate enough to come across them on line). However this is where the Church needs to step up to the mark, tell the truth, even if we are called the dreaded word  homophobic. You know what? I don't care, being labelled thus its a badge of honour.

How to spot a corrupted or bad priest or Bishop.

It's really quite simple. Has your priest or bishop been talking about the loss of family values in society, using the gospel sermon to give  every day advice and logic when confronted with the vast wasteland that modern society has become, has he spoken out against homosexual acts, or abortion and contraception? Or has your priest talked relentlessly about mercy but has never spoken about justice? You can't have one without the other. Therefore you only have a half Christian priest or bishop not a full one.