June–July 2025
Sober Expectations
'We must seek together how to be... a Church that builds bridges, dialogue ...
to build bridges, with dialogue, with encounter, uniting us all
to be one people always at peace. [...] we want to be a synodal Church."
– LEO XIV
Oh. Dear. Same old, same old right from the off! EWTN's straight-shooting Father Gerald Murray voiced our own fears upon hearing that sadly familiar — ruinous — synodal line:
"I think he's signalling to the cardinals and others, particularly the cardinals who voted for him, that he is going to not stop this synodal process that Pope Francis began. Because it's quite clear, those who criticise the synodal path were hoping to elect a pope who would put an end to it. That certainly was my hope. Because synodality is a vague concept and it really is a change from what it originally meant.
Synodality is based on the word synod. Synod in the modern sense was created by Paul VI after Vatican II, to have a forum in which bishops throughout the world would meet periodically to advise the pope on the needs of the Church in the modern world. Pope Francis turned it into a meeting of laity, priests, deacons, nuns, and bishops, and gave everybody an equal vote. It was kind of like it was a stage post, or a weigh station on the way to what they're going to have in 2028, which is the Ecclesial Assembly in which bishops will not be the majority, in Rome. And I wrote a column in the Catholic Thing tearing into it, which it deserves. We are not a Church in which the hierarchy is an appendage. It's a hierarchical Church with synodal experiences. It's not a synodal Church with hierarchical appendages. That's what I'm very much afraid of.
So, it's not clear what Pope Leo means by "synodal Church". But, if it means the Ecclesial Assembly in 2028, well, get ready because there's going to be a lot of opposition based on the fact that this is completely at odds with the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church." (My transcription, his emphasis italicised.)
The Good and the Bad
But wait! By God's merciful grace it may not be that cut and dried. While there are bad and even ugly Modernist hints and signs at play, there are not a few good Catholic ones as well.
Quite apart from the fact that the new pope presents as a responsible adult who, both by appearance and by all accounts, is not as mean and juvenile as the old pope, there was an almighty mass exhalation of blessed relief when Leo XIV appeared on the loggia.
It spoke to the state of nervous tension (PTSD: “Pope Traumatic Stress Syndrome”) bequeathed to the Catholic remnant by Jorge's self-indulgent reign. Calm and composed in traditional vestments, blessing the crowd in customary Latin, he exuded due gravitas — restoring at a stroke the dignity of the papal office debased by his predecessor. Moreover, his first homily, reprinted herein, was Christocentric — re-orienting the disoriented practice of a dozen years that frequently (incredibly) airbrushed the name of Jesus from papal discourses.
Also greeted with satisfaction was the news that he will reside in the Apostolic Palace — despite the grandiose name a far more austere and modest dwelling than Francis' thoroughly modern Santa Marta hotel, where he occupied several expensive floors.
Yes, small things. Yet we pray that these kinds of positive seedlings are portents of a flourishing papacy; indicators that the grace of office will find sufficient fertile Catholic ground to effect a wholesale uprooting and abandonment of the post-conciliar Modernist plantation on which Leo XIV, like all his conclave supporters, has long laboured to dangerous effect.
What degree of diabolic disorientation took root in his mind and soul through his studies at the ultra-Modernist Chicago Theological Union, for instance?
And does that malformation account for the social justice warrior persona that occupies his social media accounts?
His old posts include relinks to notoriously subversive outlets like the Jesuits' America magazine. Also Francis-like anti-Trump comments with a facile focus on the dignity and rights of illegal migrants instead of the dignity and rights of the citizens and legal immigrants who suffer the catastrophic fallout of sinister mass migration invasions.
Nor was support lacking for the just as sinister and equally contrived BLM-bandwagon. — "Let us stand against racism with our brothers and sisters," Prevost naively posted as Soros-sponsored George Floyd-riots ravaged his country.
Should grace remove these and whatever other Liberal blinders need removing, à la Blessed Pius IX, the urgent tasks at hand will weigh upon Leo — whether rolling back the Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia supplicans abominations, burying the synodal agenda, shunting Traditionis custodes into a siding, rehabilitating Bishop Strickland, Archbishop Vigano and other casualties of the Terror, or breaking the False Mercy mantras that underpin the 'universal salvation' scam.
Apropos the latter, his loggia appeal to "unconditional love" underlined the Pius IX-like about-turn required. A phrase weaponised by his predecessor to corrode Catholic doctrine and the unity of the Church, let us address this particular disorientation immediately by way of the following emphatic response of mainstream French traditionalists Pax Liturgique, issued on 14 May (my bold emphases):
Unknown to the crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square, the new pope uttered words meant to express his debt. It is not the Hail Mary recited with everyone, nor the indulgent blessing, that we find fault with. But with an obviously false statement, which threatens to ruin the Mission of the entire Catholic Church. Here it is: God loves every man with an unconditional love. If the aphorism is correct, it is contrary to the words of Christ himself, and especially as Saint Mark and Saint Matthew restore them without ambiguity.
Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia declared divine mercy "gratuitous, undeserved, unconditional." This chapter of continual sophistry has caused widespread scandal, for various reasons.
Since marriage is well and good, it must be protected; HOWEVER, (in the face of concubinages) "it will be possible to highlight those signs of love which, in one way or another, reflect God's love. ( …) It is a matter of welcoming them and accompanying them with patience and sensitivity." Fine, but why are patience and sensitivity reserved for transgressors? And the foul beatings for loyal confessors? For a simple reason [par. 311]: "All theological notions which, ultimately, call into question the omnipotence of God, and in particular his mercy, are inadequate." No less!
Let's summarise: all those who, based on inadequate theological notions, dispute that everything is forgiven a priori in the discourse of the One Saviour, call into question the omnipotence of God. Such is the Bergoglian gnosis that seeks to shame the faithful for their very fidelity, curiously unforgivable... Can we finally turn the fatal page of a Church that is all the more mistreated for being more faithful?
It should also be noted that Mercy posits a sin to be forgiven, limits to be excused. If God loves all people with unconditional love, as the new pontiff, with the help of emotion, ventures to affirm, it must be deduced that the executioner is as dear to Him as the victim, the aggressor as the attacked, the rapist as the raped, the abuser as the abused. That God loves Hitler, Stalin, Mao as much as the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is absurd to conceive.
The corollary is easily stated, namely that the existential paths of all are indifferent to Him, which distorts the words of Christ. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father knowing. And you? Even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore, do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows” (Mt 10 29/31).
God is therefore present in our lives, and in what we make of them.
Saint Matthew continues:
“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 10:32/33) Thus, the Just Judge will know how to probe the minds and hearts, and evaluate the use of the talents received.
Against the reality of authentic evangelical demands, God's supposedly unconditional love proclaims the universality of Salvation. The Church's redemptive mission, extending that of the Saviour Himself, is discredited, and the world is inexorably becoming indescribable chaos.
Holy Father, if you wish to spread Peace to all, put the Church back in good working order, rendering to God the duties due to Him, restoring to priests their dignity, trampled by the most nebulous "synodality," and recalling the societal pre-requisites that build the city of God. Get rid of the Bergoglian trappings, by having, like Saint Augustine, the vital courage to write your retractions[1]. ... What better guide could you suggest?
Having pointed out and corrected this negative tendency, the following words from then-Cardinal Prevost in the press hall of the Synod on Synodality evoke more positive vibes:
"Clericalising women doesn't necessarily solve a problem, and it might make a new problem. And that perhaps we need to look at a new understanding or a different understanding of both leadership, power, authority and service, above all service, in the Church, from the different perspectives that can be, if you will, brought to the life of the Church, by women and men."
[..] "But I think that one of the things that has become clear even during this month, but in the time leading up to this, is, it's not just a given that because in society women are recognised, you know, well a woman can be president or a woman can have many different kinds of roles of leadership in the world, it's not like there's an immediate parallel to say 'in the Church therefore...' And that our categories, I think, and the life of the Church are different, need to be different, and so, some of those questions will continue to be there to be reflected upon, but it isn't as simple as saying, you know, at this stage we're going to change, if you will, the tradition of the Church, after two-thousand years. [My transcript; original emphases.]
Is that the faint sound of Catholic reorientation breaking through the hitherto sealed vacuum of diabolical disorientation? The ruminating of a man who might kick priestesses and deaconesses into the long grass?
Not according to an ex-nun who says Cardinal Prevost had once expressed support for her desire to become a priest. Of course a woman sufficiently disoriented and deluded to covet the priesthood would say that, wouldn't she? Regardless, the Prevost line above certainly opposes the schismatic stance of the German hierarchy, the head of which episcopal conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing, recently declared: "I advocate for the ordination of women. I wish for it and I will do everything for it."
Might Bätzing and his ilk formally part ways with the Church under a pontiff who sounds disinclined to run roughshod over Tradition and traditionalists; who may well, quietly and diplomatically, shelve Traditionis custodes, freeing up the TLM? That's what it sounds like. It also helps that, as Cardinal, he once reaffirmed that “We must be careful not to make the Church a mirror of the world. She is called to be a sign of contradiction.”
Of course, only robust Catholic evangelisation can restore that Catholic prototype. And we can be sure that Pope Leo understands this iron logic based on his vast missionary experience in Latin America where rapid protestantisation of that erstwhile Catholic continent remains in full swing. And so, to effect the "new evangelisation" he often promoted in New Springtime fashion as bishop and cardinal, he must emulate his namesake Leo XIII (a son of St Thomas Aquinas) and mandate rigorous Thomistic studies for all seminaries, while simultaneously making seminaries no-go zones for homosexuals, once and for all.
Very happily he has already upset the sodomites. The conclave smoke had barely dissipated before the salvific sound of papal-induced homo-angst rang out for the first time in a dozen years. "Unearthed comments from new pope alarm LGBTQ+ ... Previous negative remarks by Pope Leo XIV about 'homosexual lifestyle' at odds with papacy of Pope Francis," cried the Guardian.
Referencing a pre-Francis 2012 address delivered by Cardinal Prevost to the Synod of Bishops, in which he condemned "beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel—for example abortion, homosexual lifestyle, euthanasia," the Guardian wailed that "the cleric blamed mass media for fostering so much 'sympathy for anti-Christian lifestyle choices' that 'when people hear the Christian message it often inevitably seems ideological and emotionally cruel'." It went on to lament that "The cleric also called for a 'new evangelisation to counter these mass media-produced distortions of religious and ethical reality'."
Like demons splashed with holy water, homo activists piled on. Typically, the oxymoronic "Dignity" outfit duly noted that "this statement was made during the papacy of Benedict XVI, when doctrinal adherence appeared to be expected." (Imagine that!) "We pray," they concluded impertinently, "that Pope Leo XIV will demonstrate a willingness to listen and grow as he begins his new role as the leader of the global church [sic]."
As Cardinal he also denounced sodomitic adoptions as "unacceptable." And as a bishop in Peru he opposed government plans to teach about gender in schools, "creat[ing] genders that don't exist."
Oh joy! Oh bliss!
The pressing question, though, is whether close proximity to the 'Who am I to judge?' pontiff — who gave him a red hat, called him to Rome, and met with him regularly re episcopal appointments — has undermined his uncompromising Catholic outlook on sins that cry to heaven? Will Leo stand firm or capitulate before the wailing self-pity of the homosexual collective and its media megaphone?
The Ugly
So much for the good and the bad. What about the ugly?
For starters, it was Cardinal Prevost as head of the Dicastery for Bishops who not only oversaw the removal of the faithful Bishop Joseph Strickland from his Texas see, but compounded that ugliness with the appointment of rainbow-ringmaster Cardinal Robert McIlroy as the latest homo-advocating Archbishop of Washington: to succeed the deviant-triumvirate of McCarrick, Wuerl and Gregory, who had ruled that sodomitic see from 2001 to 2025.
One reasonably suspects that Francis was the driving force behind those actions. (In March 2023, speaking in Peru about his past relations with Jorge, then-Bishop Prevost stated that "not all meetings with Cardinal Bergoglio were mutually agreeable.") However, while reaction to Strickland's stance against Jorge ("the usurper") was inevitable, McIlroy to Washington was unspeakable.
The other darkness is all too predictable: allegations that he covered-up reports of sexual abuse in Peru, or at very least dealt with the victims' allegations unsatisfactorily. He denies the charges. As with everything else, time will tell if the smoke reveals fire. Meantime expect the media to beat the claims to death, especially if Leo employs a re-oriented papal compass to navigate the sexual and ethical issues of our degenerate day.
A New Syllabus
Our post-Francis cheer notwithstanding, barring the Miracle Pope we craved and prayed for, the three realistic outcomes on offer — Francis 2.0, FrancisLite, or John Paul IV — all guaranteed more of the same: viz., either rapid or slow decline.
If Leo XIV reveals himself as John Paul IV in all but name, the Ut unum sint line of false ecumenism that prospered under John Paul II and the circle-squaring "hermeneutic of continuity" pushed by John Paul III (aka Benedict XVI) will ensure the resumption of death by a thousand cuts; the slower-paced neo-Modernism we endured from 1978 to 2013, which masked the raw face of the revolution. Despite the 2013-25 wake-up call, a shell-shocked flock suffering Jorge-induced PTSD might readily backslide into that corrupting neo-Catholic settlement; content with dressing up the Bergoglian "mess," not redressing it.
However, should Leo moprh into FrancisLite — i.e., more amiable than the nasty Francis but with similar intent — he would accelerate rather than decelerate the demolition, albeit with a smile. This seemed the most likely scenario even before his ominous 'canonisation' of his predecessor on 18 May. "During Mass," he revealed, "I strongly felt the spiritual presence of Pope Francis accompanying us from Heaven." (And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. - 2 Cor. 11:14.)
In any event, whether we are left with JP4 or FrancisLite, at least a Francis 2.0, which loomed large in the likes of Cardinals Parolin, Tagle et. al. seems unlikely. (Unless Parolin remains Secretary of State and rules de-facto; reducing a little known cardinal—whose rapid election in lieu of Parolin was reportedly brokered by the scandalous Cardinal Dolan—to an American papal vehicle for fixing the Vatican's apocalyptic finances.)
In sum: since our papal predicament poses far more questions than answers, our expectations must not be Great but sober; based not on words, however fine. but on deeds. In which regard we pray that the Holy Spirit inspire Leo XIV to emulate Pius IX. For, as related in our March/April 2024 editions, after shaking off the Liberalism of the day to which he had succumbed, Blessed Pius faced down a furious masonic establishment with his famous encyclical Quanta cura, incorporating the Syllabus of Errors — post-Francis antidotes par excellence, and perfect Catholic refreshers for all post-conciliar popes, prelates and priests.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Retractations: St Augustine's critical review of his writings at the age of 72; clarifying and enhancing his explanations and defences of Catholic doctrines, showing humility and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. - Ed.