Friday 31 January 2020

BREXIT ~ now may the REAL work begin that Britain may return to Her ancient Catholic Faith

Jesus, Convert England
Jesus, Have Mercy On This Country.
(Dying Prayer of Blessed Henry Heath)

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Our Lady of Ransom, Pray for us
Our Lady of Walsingham, Pray for us
St Gregory the Great, Pray for us
St Augustine of Canterbury, Pray for us
St Thomas Becket, Pray for us
St John Fisher, Pray for us
St Thomas More, Pray for us
St Margaret Clitherow, Pray for us
St John Henry Newman, Pray for us
Blessed Henry Heath, Pray for us
Blessed English Martyrs, Pray for us
Jesus, Give Back The Faith To Wales
Jesus, Have Mercy On This Country.
Hail Mary...

Our Lady of Ransom, Pray for us
St David, Pray for us
St Winifred, Pray for us
St David Lewis, Pray for us
St Richard Gwyn, Pray for us
Blessed William Davies, Pray for us
Blessed Martyrs of Wales, Pray for us
Jesus convert Scotland
Our Lady of Aberdeen, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven,
we thank you for your intercession on our behalf in the past.
With renewed confidence we turn to you again,
asking that you may through your Son help to strengthen our faith
and guide us in our resolve to carry out His will

We commend to you our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and our Bishops of Scotland,
and ask that you may look favourably on their intentions
We pray for all the needs of the Church
that you may bring about unity among men in the love of your Son

Our Lady of Aberdeen
we pray for those who rule us; we pray for our neighbours,
our families and ourselves, that the peace of Christ may reign among us, always
Our Lady of Aberdeen, Our Lady of Good Success,
pray for us
Jesus convert Ireland
May the Strength of God pilot us.
May the Power of God preserve us.
May the Wisdom of God instruct us.
May the Hand of God protect us.
May the Way of God direct us.
May the Shield of God defend us.
May the Host of God guard us.
Against the snares of the evil ones.
Against temptations of the world

May Christ be with us!
May Christ be before us!
May Christ be in us,
Christ be over all!
May Thy Salvation, Lord,
Always be ours,
This day, O Lord, and evermore. Amen

Tuesday 21 January 2020

Part II: Pope Francis ~ Pope or Antipope? Is Pope Francis a heretic, schismatic?

Abbe de Nantes in Rome

Following on my previous post regarding the question of Pope Francis being  "deposed" for schism and heresy, in essence NOT being Pope Francis, but rather Cardinal Bergoglio etc., it is important to clarify for Catholics my modest claims. Firstly, the claims I make are not my own. I am merely repeating what the Church has always taught. Nothing new, nothing different. Catholics seem to be conflating two separate issues, either due to confusion, or deliberately, due to a schismatic intent. In other words, some are legitimately (and who can blame them) confused, given a Pope who is scandalizing the faithful through his words and actions, to those who already in secretum have broken Catholic unity, and are working backwards to "prove" the Pope is an Antipope, and hence justify their bad break with the Church. 

The Abbe de Nantes
Catholics should be aware that there were at least five Popes who were heretics at one time or another during their papacy. Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, Boniface IV, John XX and perhaps Alexander VI. There have also been in recent years strange and confusing statements and actions by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Bizarre and outrageous actions and words which could easily be argued were scandalous, if not heretical. However, NONE of these men were ever excluded from the List of Popes. All men mentioned remain, to this day, listed as Popes. In fact two of them have been canonized. Yes, a sinner can repent and die in the state of Grace. If you do not believe me, go and look it up. As such we historically have had heretics on the Throne of Peter, and these same heretics, remained Popes during their heresy, and these same Popes, following their deaths, were retained by their successors as legitimate Popes.  

Let us now review a possible solution to the crisis in the Church. The Abbe de Nantes, who was suspended a divinis in the mid sixties, for his opposition to the innovations at the Council, had a horror of schism and heresy. He saw no need for a Catholic to fall into these twin evils just because the Pope and most of the bishops had gone out of their Catholic minds. The Abbe fought equally against those who had entered into sedevacantism and schismatic dissent, as he fought the modernist innovators. His motto was "neither heretics nor schismatics, we remain Catholic". I reproduce the part on what Catholics can do when the Pope engages in heresy, schism or scandal.

The Abbe warned Catholics years ago:
The successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ is reiterating the perfidy of Caiaphas, with a view to perpetrating the new deicide foretold by the Scriptures, that of man dethroning Jesus Christ in his own temple to enthrone himself there instead and so receive the world’s adoration of himself as God and Saviour.
The full essay can be read here



Bellarmine put forward a solution that sounds extremely drastic, but we must remember that he regarded the possibility – and hence presumably the solution – as merely academic. “ PAPA HAERETICUS DEPOSITUS EST… A heretical Pope is deposed ”. The reason is simple. Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a Pope who should fall into it would be spiritually dead and cut off from the Church, thus ceasing to be her Head.

Such reasoning, however excellent it may be in theory, does not take into account the psychological and sociological aspects of the situation. We have seen over these past ten years that such a solution is inapplicable in practice. To be effective, it would require two preliminary conditions which are, today, inconceivable. The Pope would, in the first place, have to have a clear understanding that he was renouncing the Faith in favour of heresy, and to be doing so deliberately and in consciousness of the mortal sin involved. Secondly, the priests and faithful would have to grasp fully the heresy in the papal teaching and to be unanimously agreed that the Pope was in fact a heretic. Today, however, the heretic sees himself as one ahead of his time, not a rebel but a prophet who is to save the Church! The priests and faithful, for their part, no longer have a clear idea where lies heresy and where the true Faith, or indeed if there is any contradiction between the two...

Thus we have today a situation where a Pope can be guilty of heresy, schism and scandal while believing himself to be engaged in founding Christianity anew, and where he is able to convince the great mass of priests and people into following him, just as they followed the greatest and holiest Popes of the past!
To admit the idea of the automatic deposition of the Pope on account of heresy would entail two possible consequences, the one disastrous and the other absurd. Either we should be left without any possibility at all of ridding ourselves of such a Pope, because the masses would continue to follow him regardless, or else any Tom, Dick or Harry who happened to have some grievance against the Pope could declare, on any ground whatsoever, and claiming for himself the justification of St Robert Bellarmine, that the Pope was a heretic and deposed on this account!


The solution which we regard as a practicable one is that proposed by Cajetan, followed by John of St Thomas and others: “ PAPA HAERETICUS DEPONENDUS EST… A heretical Pope must be deposed ”. This implies not only that a heretical Pope must be deposed from his office, but equally that anyone who feels impelled to bring a charge of heresy against the Pope has an obligation to take the necessary steps towards a judicial process of deposition. He has no right to raise his personal judgement into a legal verdict.

There remain, however, unanswered questions regarding the manner of bringing about such a deposition. Who is to depose the Pope? The Church, evidently. But has the Church the competence to pass judgement on him who is the Head and Sovereign Judge of all? Cajetan maintains that in undertaking such a process of deposition the Church is not in fact passing a verdict on the offender, but only bringing before God’s own Tribunal the evidence required.

It is God Himself alone from whom the process of deposition can emanate. It is hard to see just what Cajetan had in mind and at this point his discussion becomes somewhat nebulous. We are left only with the idea that any ecclesiastical tribunal would be competent merely to institute proceedings, but not to pass sentence.

The Libellus fidei addressed by Adrian II to the Eighth Council of Constantinople gives us some further guidance. In it he reminds the faithful, in connection with Honorius, that they have the right to resist a Pope who errs against the Faith and to refuse the directives of superiors who are in heresy. He adds that even in such a case, no patriarch or bishop would have any right to pass a sentence (of anathema) except with the consent of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. “ Cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferendum sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae sedis pontificis consensus praecessisset auctoritas. ” When Adrian II said that the consent of the Pope was necessary before a condemnation could be issued in such a case, he was thinking, evidently, of a posthumous sentence. But why should we not follow a similar argument and apply it within the lifetime of the Pope concerned? When souls are in danger, there is no case for waiting until death takes its course.


The solution that we are putting forward takes account of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as it was defined by the Vatican Council over 100 years ago. Indeed, though strange at first-sight, this application of the dogma could well seem to future historians a providential one. For the dogma of Infallibility shows us that the only person able to pass judgement on a Pope guilty of heresy, schism, or scandal, is none other than the Pope himself, speaking with the authority of his infallible Magisterium.

The Church must therefore make AN APPEAL TO THE POPE CONCERNING THE POPE. This is precisely what I have been asking for over the past six years – but public opinion is as yet so little prepared for such a solution that I am constantly being accused of having “ condemned ” the Pope, or of having passed “ judgement without appeal ” on him, when I have rather been calling upon him to pass such a judgement, and limited myself to the role of accuser. For the proposed solution is the only one that would do justice to the Pope. Whether his accusers are right or wrong – whether he is guilty or innocent – a Pope whose orthodoxy has thus been called into question cannot honourably extricate himself except through a process in which everything is set out with precision.

Who is to bring the charge? We can have no doubt but that any Catholic, any member of the Church, is entitled to do so. If there should be found a Prince or Emperor to take on the task, so much the better, for his standing would give it added weight. History shows that though force may be a dangerous tool for settling an argument, it has sometimes been used in the service of the Faith. Better still would be a Saint, and we can only regret the passing of the ages of faith when there would come forward Saints who not only expressed their reprimands with the greatest boldness, but followed them up with prophecies and miracles, showing that they were indeed inspired by God. The next best would be a member of the Hierarchy – the higher his rank, the better.

But failing a Saint or a Prince, a Curial Cardinal or even a Bishop, the last and least among Catholics is entitled to bring his charge against the Pope and therefore, for want of anyone better qualified, I decided to undertake the task myself.

If the Pope’s accuser should be in the wrong, he will suffer for it, and that would only serve him right. But, as long he is inwardly convinced that the Pope is in heresy, there remains on him the moral obligation to say so openly. In remaining silent while he is in a state of inward rebellion against the Pope he puts himself into peril of damnation for, if he should be wrong, he is cutting himself off from the Pope and hence from the Church. If he is right, he fails in his obligation of charity by not warning his brethren.

Before which tribunal? The only tribunal competent in matters of Faith is the CHURCH herself, by virtue of her authority as the SPOUSE of the LORD. Her judgement is infallible. The “ believing Church ” owes her faith to and retains her “ sensus fidei ” through the constant help and support given by the “ teaching Church ”. The Process would have to be instituted before the eyes of the whole Church, either by representative members of the Hierarchy, or by a tribunal consisting of ordinary theologians, whose brief would consist merely in establishing whether or not the teaching and acts of the Pontiff were compatible with the Catholic Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Their decision would be subject to the verdict passed by the Pope himself speaking infallibly.

It would fall to the Pope himself to pick the members of the tribunal charged with instructing the Process in all freedom and impartiality. It would seem to me preferable if the members were simple theologians rather than bishops and cardinals who might be tempted to set themselves up into a Council and claim for themselves the right to pass judgement upon the Pope – thus coming back full circle to the erroneous theory of Conciliar supremacy.

Who will be the Sovereign Judge? The Church, of course, but she would have to be represented by one man – the only man – competent to speak in her name, the same who is the lawful Head of every Conciliar Assembly – the Pope himself. He would be called upon, forced, to pass judgement on himself. Here we have the updated solution of the ancient problem – the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is assured of the help of the Holy Spirit and cannot err either from ignorance or malice. Even if he were a “ demon in his very soul ”, to use the words of Cajetan, he would nevertheless be “ holy by virtue of his office ”. And everything will be saved by God!

What could be the possible outcome of such a Process?
Three alternatives spring to mind:
  1. A new definition of belief. This would be the most glorious way for the Pope to show that he had been wrongfully accused, and to rebut his accuser. The Pope would repeat, this time in the form of a solemn pronouncement, what he had said before in the ordinary way and the orthodoxy of which had been challenged. His opponent and the followers of the latter would have to submit and recant under pain of excommunication for formal heresy.Let us illustrate this by an example: Paul VI had authorised the giving of Holy Communion to a Presbyterian. The opponent claims that such an act was against the Faith and the Church’s God-given Law. The tribunal would have to establish that the facts had been correctly stated, that it was not a misunderstanding or some other accidental confusion but a genuine conflict between two different interpretations of the revealed Faith. It would be for the Pope to show that his interpretation had a sound theological basis, founded in Divine Revelation, and to make an ex cathedra pronouncement justifying intercommunion as compatible with the Faith. In that case, we should have to bow before his decision.
  2. A recantation by the Pope. “ But that is surely impossible ”, is what you may well say. In that case, you are either speaking without reflection or else you are lacking in faith. For if a Pope who has been guilty of serious error is faced with the alternatives of either affirming the Catholic teaching – which would involve admitting his own error – or denying it in order to persist in his own view, it is surely to be expected that he would recant. The five Popes who were guilty of heresy in the past all recanted!This should remind us that, while there is an obligation to take steps against a Pope guilty of heresy, it is also vital to pray for him as well as for the Church. It would be a glorious termination of such a Process against a Pope guilty of heresy, schism, and scandal, it he were to make an act of humility and submission to the will of God, for His greater glory and the inestimable benefit of the Church.
  3. The formal establishment of the Pope’s defection. The Pope might refuse to listen to his accuser. “ Does he have to present himself here? Close the doors; I will have nothing to do with him. “ So the case might drag on until others take up the charges. One day the priests of the Pope’s own diocese might come and demand a reply. “ No, I do not wish to reply ”. In such a case, the Church of Rome would have to draw up an acknowledgement of this refusal and this abuse of authority: the Pope is not willing to exercise his supreme Magistrature!But perhaps the process will commence with a series of procrastinations. The Pope shilly-shallies. He is pressed by his very own Church, the Church of Rome, which is particularly qualified to exercise this role. He is summoned to abandon his calculated inertia: “ The world is waiting for you to settle this question. You cannot stay silent, you must assume your role as Supreme Judge ”. If he again refuses to listen to his Church, further decisions will have to be envisaged.
The Church of Rome would then have to threaten the Pope with deposition. In such a summons, it would be the Pope's own act, his repeated refusal to exercise his responsibilities, that would constitute a resignation. His deposition by the Church would be only a consequence of this. The sentence of deposition would thus be the canonical conclusion of this acknowledgement of the Pope’s resignation. The Church of Rome would then declare the Apostolic See vacant and she would call a conclave for the election of his Successor. For she owes it to herself to have a Head who will teach with authority, judge and punish, and uphold the peace and unity of the Church. She cannot remain for any length of time – to use the term applied to the Republic by Marcel Sembat – “ a woman without a head ”.

Then, once again, the memory of a heretical Pope would fade from people’s minds

Saturday 18 January 2020

Letter from Archbishop Weakling to Fr. Aidan McNutty: "...keep the Cross hidden"

Gaudium synagoga Satanae

                                                                                                                             January 17, 2020 

To: Fr. Aidan McNutty
      Franciscan Flyers of the Annulment
      Holy Smoke Parish
      1717 Lenin Square

My dear Brother Aidan,

Firstly, I wish to thank-you for all the destructive work you have done at the parish, Holy Smoke. I especially wish to congratulate you for all the hard work you are doing to destroy the young people. Is it not edifying when young people come to church on Sundays, and yet, in their daily lives, live like the "Gentiles"?

Just a few key reminders: do not forget that the young people are influenced by word and deed. Repeated sins, however small, will desensitize them quickly. Keep them in a corruptive environment. It may be a simple thing such as giving someone a rap CD or a movie laced with profanity. 

We are not just targeting the young; but also, and take care here: the parents in the parish. If we can continue to lull the parents into a sense that they are "practicing Catholics" just because they turn up in a pew on Sundays, then you have as much as got them. If the parents are seduced into the "good" life, the youth naturally follow. It is human nature to take the easiest path. When the young see the parents as - in essence - nominal Christians, why would they ever not follow? Bad generals make bad foot soldiers.

If we consider Liguori's advice to parents, we can invert it and set as a general template what practical results we should be looking for in the young. Parents, schools etc. should - (indeed, must!) - be encouraged to instill in the young a lively sense of vulgarity, obscenity, licentiousness. Nothing drags a young person away from Christianity as quickly as "impurity". We have a lot to work with: even a so-called saint is only flesh and by proximate occasions, he or she may become a devil. Never give up the work! There is one doctrine of the Catholic Church I believe in: Original Sin. Aidan, make good use of fallen human nature to corrupt parish and school life! 

Some practical advice: encourage the young to turn to celebrities as their idols; encourage indulgence in social media, etc. Facebook, Snapchat, Tinder, Grindr, Badoo etc., are marvelous fantasy tools for this. How ecstatic I become, Aidan, when you send me reports of school girls barely in their teens behaving  like cheap tramps and tarts on social media! When I hear that they come from our Catholic schools "in the Catholic tradition", with the sacraments and even Mass, then I know we know that we are proceeding from triumph to triumph for the Evil One. 

What joy it brings me, to think of stupid parents spending tens of thousands on their daughter or son's "traditional" Catholic education, when the same girl will end up as a cheap, whoring little tart for a dirty little boy. This is the delicious reality! 

Now, if you can be fortunate to find a few double-faced parents, that is, active enablers of children's sin, all the better. It may come to chance that you may be blessed to strike upon a parent who perhaps has a psychological problem, or even a pathology. Here, there is a gold mine to work with. Human pride and psychological weaknesses must be exploited to the full. =

People should also be encouraged to cause scandal and so on in the local parish. The more the merrier. An old Spanish proverb, perhaps a bit colourful, is advisable here: encourage this monkey to climb his or her tree, but in doing so you keep well back, for it is only when this monkey is well up the tree that we find out what is inside of him or her! 

In closing, my dear Aidan, I am edified to hear your reports of the growing corruption of the youth in our Catholic schools. Truly I am edified. Indeed, much "work" merely entails allowing society and corrupt teachers to do their "work" undisturbed. Encourage freedom! You have so far excelled at that! Liberty, liberty! Ah, the word that brings the only joy in Hell! 

Keep wearing your cassock; but keep up soft, sentimental, pious external practices. Even say a Latin Mass or two! The key is doctrine, so no doctrine! But by all means allow a bit of extravagant theatre now and then. Make it "high church", but keep it "false church". 

Emphasize a sociological Christianity; if anything at all. Keep Man at the centre, and Christ Crucified out! Aidan, whatever you do, keep the Cross hidden from sight. 

No Cross, no Salvation!

I remain, fraternally yours, Brother Perfides

Rupert Weakling
Archbishop of Pergamum

Thursday 16 January 2020

CHRISTIANS OR PAGANS ? ~ is our Catholic Faith alive in our works, or are we "Christian charlatans"?

The Christian life is a life of belief and action, our actions are informed by our belief, our belief is reflected in our actions. They are inseparable.

St. Paul outlined for us a few identifiers of the authentic Christian.

In the Book to the Romans 12; 9-21, he wrote: 

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 
Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.
Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  

St. James stressed this in his epistle:

Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:26). 

Sunday 5 January 2020

Solemn Latin Mass for the Feast of the Epiphany for Toronto area Catholics

Dear Catholic friends who live in Toronto. Tomorrow there is a Solemn Latin Mass for the Feast of the Epiphany. Come, let us celebrate the Visit of the Three Kings. 

This great feast has been downplayed in recent years. In other countries, such as Poland, Italy this is not so. The Three Kings have and continue to have incredible importance. 

Bring friends and family if you are able, and remember to pray for all of those involved with the Toronto Traditional Latin Mass Society.

Saturday 4 January 2020

George Weigel: Has the neocon propagandist taken to trying to censor Catholics?

George Weigel is at it again. Church Militant reports that the wealthy Beltway resident, neocon Zionist, Americanist-Catholic, and self-declared "theologian" is warning Catholics to keep away from "unofficial" Catholic news sources. Naturally, Wegiel believes himself to be one of those "official" sources of news, but more importantly opinion. Let there be no mistake Weigel has some very strange opinions. For those who have been following his thought his Catholicism is very heavy on promoting the "liberal democratic political project", and not the social Kingship of Christ. 

Let us now consider this man and a bit of his strange history. Just how did George Wiegel become a "theologian" on a graduate degree (on Karl Rahner), from St. Michael's College at the University of Toronto? I'm sorry, but having a graduate degree from St. Mike's hardly qualifies one as a "theologian" of any standing.

Having disposed of Weigel's "theologian" persona, let us now examine his much more dangerous "socio-political" persona. 

George Weigel graduated in 1975 and went on to lecture at a very low-end seminary in Seattle which closed in the Fall of 1977, for lack of seminarians.  During this time it would seem he was into the proto-neocon "World without War Council" which ironically advocated war to end war! In the mid 80s Weigel made a major step forward and was recruited into the Wilson Center. By whom and for what reason was he recruited? How did Weigel, an obscure "theologian", suddenly became a person of interest in high-=powered political think tanks? 

Within a few short years, Weigel was rubbing shoulders with the political and social elite of Washington D.C. Just what talents and skills does Weigel have to be drawn into the inner circles of some of the most powerful men in America? Is Weigel "their man" to move amongst the exalted circles of the American hierarchy, advocating for Catholic support for the neocon political agenda, with the result that millions of ignorant Catholic voters will cast ballots that favour the militaristic adventurism of American imperialist foreign policy?

Weigel has been a faithful servant of his political mentors and benefactors: churning out hundreds of articles and over 50 books. He has created a cottage industry of mixing politics and his strange brand of Catholicism, and it has proven to be for Weigel, a very profitable cash cow. So profitable it has been that Weigel lives in the wealthy Rockville-North Bethesda neighbourhood in Montgomery County, Maryland, and vacations regularly in his summer cottage in the Outaouais region of western Quebec. Contrast his lifestyle to a US war veteran, disabled for life, suffering PTSD, living in poverty after fighting, and in constant danger of committing suicide. 

The question remains unanswered. Just what did Weigel have to become a: "distinguished fellow" of the neo-con "Ethics and Public Policy Center", the "Project for the New American Century", the "National Endowment for Democracy", the "Friends of Israel Initiative"? What did these recruiters see in George Weigel? Each of these organizations is intrinsically anti-Catholic. Their objectives are not in favour of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. They are all opposed to Christ's Church. 

The various signatories and leaders of these organizations have far from their thoughts, Jesus Christ and His Social Kingship over Society. Pius XI wrote in Quas Primas that Our Lord should be publicly recognized by the State, is absolutely anathema to men such as Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Aaron Friedberg, I. Lewis Libby, Carl Gershman (interestingly once an "officer" of the "Young People's Socialist League) and so on....

Just how many neo-cons hanker for state control/soc?
Neo-conservatives like socialists, 
advocate secular messianism and globalism

There is no incongruity between socialism and neo-conservatism. Both are secular and promote a materialistic messianism. As with Karl Marx and David Ricardo, so too with the socialists and neo-conservatives. The "disagreements" are an "in-house" dispute. What is not disputed is: secularism, messianism and globalism imbued with a virulent anti-Christian worldview. One would have to be a complete fool to think that (e.g.) William Kristol of the PNAC and the EPPC (both of which Wiegel belongs to) thinks in terms of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Sovereign King. What is it in Weigel these globalist neocon ideologues see? What service does he offer them? 

Assorted neo-con war mongers who are - in varying degrees -responsible
for the death of hundreds of thousands in the Iraq War and around the world

George Weigel has consistently advocated for wars of aggression, sponsored by neo-cons and the Zionist State of Israel. Weigel even had the audacity to claim that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were wrong in their assessments of the Middle East situation. The never-ending blood bath has since proved the two Popes correct. Weigel rejected the Popes and supported the criminal invasion of Iraq that led to the virtual destruction of that ancient civilization, and the deaths of over 200,000 civilians, millions living in poverty, and fear of constant violence and death. Nearly 5000 American boys have died for this disgusting foreign war, with tens of thousands suffering life-long PTSD (estimated at 30%); not too mention broken families, suicide (about 2 dozen per day) and poverty when they returned to the States. The leading war criminals who prosecuted this war are free to this day, feted by the controlled media, and live in luxury. 

America's Blood and Treasure being sacrificed in vain for foreign wars

Weigel's bizarre political positions and go back years, as a devoted exponent of the "liberal democratic project", and consistent supporter of aggression and imperialism serving the neocons. goes back many years. For example he even signed the neo-con 1997 PNAC "Statement of Principles" which included the following text:

The PNAC "Statement of Principles" 

The 1997 Signatories of the PNAC 

Friends, keep far away from the enigmatic and contradictory George Weigel who on the one hand speaks of reading the lives of the saints, yet has devoted his much of life as a propagandist for a violent political ideology that is far from the Mind of Christ. 

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God".
(Mt 5:9)