More chicanery at the usurious Vatican Bank

We continue to come under attack from Catholics who deny the undeniable: that the post-Renaissance Church of Rome legalized the mortal sin of usury. The latest attack and my response are here.

On the credit side of the ledger, First Amendment Books, a division of the American Free Press newspaper in Washington DC is selling Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not. Mark Anderson, the paper's roving reporter, has promised to invite us on his radio program to discuss papal documents such as the encyclical Vix Pervenit, cited by our opponents as an allegedly unambiguous blow to usury and a papal reaffirmation of the ancient dogmas.

In truth, Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical has a loophole permitting usury big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Vix Pervenit is a masterpiece of Vatican doubletalk: 98% eloquent fulminations against usury and then an escape clause permitting it. Those who deny this fact should consult Denzinger 1609 where they will discover a lament from the Bishop of Rheims over the confusion generated among Catholics by the ambiguous Vix Pervenit, some of whom understood it (correctly) as permission for usury.  The bishop asked for a clarification from Pius VIII who, as documented in Denzinger 1610, replies by letting stand the evolving practice of permitting usurers access to the sacraments without repentance for their mortal sin, or the promise to stop their usury operation (much less of making restitution, which is required by the true Catholic Church).

Under papal auspices, since the 1940s the Vatican has operated a usury bank which, in Mafia-plagued Italy, has been a haven for shylocks and financial chicanery of the lowest and most perverse sort, all in the name of the "Vicar of Christ."

The following article discusses attempts by the current pope and the pope emeritus to supposedly "reform" the Vatican Bank. Did Jesus Christ attempt to "reform" the money changers in the Temple, or did He drive them out with a whip?

--Michael Hoffman

Cleric and 2 Others Arrested in Vatican Bank Investigation

By Rachel Donadio

New York Times (online) June 28, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/world/europe/cleric-and-2-others-arrested-in-vatican-bank-investigation.html?hp&_r=0

ROME — The Italian police on Friday arrested a prelate, a financial broker and an agent of the Italian Secret Service on corruption charges as part of a complex plot in which the priest — who is already under investigation on suspicion of money laundering involving the Vatican Bank — is accused of trying to repatriate millions of euros from Switzerland to Italy in a private plane.

Those arrested were charged with fraud, corruption and slander as part of a broad investigation tied to the famously secretive Vatican Bank.

Prosecutors say that the broker and the Secret Service agent had been plotting to help the priest bring 20 million euros, or $26 million, into Italy from Switzerland in a private jet, the ANSA news agency reported. It said that the 20 million euros belonged to “some friends of the monsignor.” The plot never went through.

In a statement, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said that the priest, Msgr. Nunzio Scarano, had been suspended from his position at one of the Vatican’s main financial departments “more than a month ago, ever since his superiors were informed that he was under investigation.”

The Vatican spokesman said that the Holy See had not received any requests from the Italian authorities, but confirmed its “willingness for full collaboration,” and that the Vatican’s internal financial watchdog was following the matter and would take appropriate measures “if necessary.” Those would include requesting that the Vatican’s internal prosecutor open an internal investigation into the monsignor.

A Vatican official said Monsignor Scarano had been suspended from his position as an accountant at APSA, a department that oversees the Vatican’s real estate holdings, after prosecutors in Salerno opened a separate investigation into money laundering. The official indicated that the suspension was a sign that the Vatican was stepping up its internal vigilance.

Only priests, religious, Catholic institutions, employees of Vatican City State and diplomats accredited to the Holy See are allowed to have accounts at the Vatican Bank, known as the Institute for Works of Religion, but rumors have long swirled about whether accounts were used as fronts for other interests, including organized crime and Italian politicians.

In the past, the Italian prelates who controlled the Vatican Bank tended to see any inquires into possible malfeasance as an attack on its sovereignty. Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benedict XVI, have tried to make the Vatican Bank more transparent.

It was not immediately clear whether the Vatican was cooperating with Italian authorities or whether the arrests stemmed from several suspicious transactions — six in 2012 and seven in the first half of 2013 — that Vatican officials said they had flagged and brought to the attention of the Vatican’s own internal prosecutors.

The arrests Friday were the most dramatic events to emerge from the Rome prosecutors’ investigation into the Vatican Bank since 2010, when prosecutors seized 23 million euros from two external accounts used by the Vatican Bank and placed its then-president and director general under investigation.

It had been acting on a warning from the Bank of Italy urging Italian banks to be more vigilant in their dealings with the Vatican, which has not come into full compliance with European banking norms, making it costly and problematic for other banks to do business with it.

In recent years, the Vatican has been under pressure to meet European norms as a condition for using the euro. In 2010, it created an internal financial watchdog and last year appointed as its director a Swiss lawyer who had helped Liechtenstein clean up its murky banking system.

This month, Pope Francis appointed a trusted prelate to a top post at the bank and on Wednesday, the pope took a further step and created a committee of prelates and a Harvard Law School professor to report directly to him on the bank’s progress.

In an interview last month, the new president of the Vatican Bank, Ernst von Freyberg, who was appointed in February by Benedict in one of his last acts as pope, said that he was committed to making the bank more transparent and compliant.

Last year, a report by Moneyval, a monitoring agency under the Council of Europe, said that the Vatican had made progress but still needed to improve in terms of compliance and customer due diligence. The Vatican must submit a new progress report to Moneyval this fall.

Vatican officials have said that the Vatican needs a bank to help Catholic institutions operate around the world, including in politically sensitive areas. The bank had total assets of 7.1 billion euros under management in 2012, most of it invested in government bonds, and turned a net profit of 86.6 million euros. (End quote from the New York Times).

JOIN MICHAEL HOFFMAN THIS SUMMER IN SANDPOINT, IDAHO

Get an education - read "Dante: Tribune of Western Civilization and Target of Dan Brown's Falsification" in the latest issue of Revisionist History newsletter

____________________________________

Dante: Tribune of western civilization and target of Dan Brown’s falsification

Announcing

Revisionist History no. 67

Now Being Mailed to Subscribers

CONTENTS

Cover article: "Dante Alighieri: Tribune of Western Civilization and Target of Dan Brown's Falsification." 

Dante was the greatest poet of the Middle Ages. It could be argued that he was the greatest of all European poets, of any time or place." His Divine Comedy is one of the noblest representations of the western Christian tradition ever penned. What does it mean to be a "a man of the West"? We see this word, the "West" invoked often. Increasingly it is being misrepresented, or eclipsed by the ideology of diversity and mulitculturalism which on many college campuses is an enforced dogma. One cannot effectively defend against degenerate and falsifying movements, or appreciate or comprehend the depths of western civilization without Dante, who stood at the crossroads of an epoch, straddling from his vantage in the aptly named Middle Ages, the first millennium of the orthodox Christianity of the past, and the first rumblings of the revolution that would become the Renaissance modernism of the future. All who would be considered educated in what remains of our civilization must read Dante's Divine Comedy, or at the least, its renowned first volume, The Inferno. Michael Hoffman serves as your guide through the politically incorrect and suppressed passages in Dante, in sections titled, "Dante's Purgatory," "Dante and Visual Art," "Dante's Sources," "The Medieval vs. the Modern Outlook," "Popes in Hell," "Dante's Inferno" and finally, "Dante's Equation," about which Hoffman writes, "As long as literacy prevails on earth, the West will never escape the challenge of Dante Alighieri's Equation."

Inside: Next, Hoffman demolishes Dan Brown's best-selling new book, Inferno, page by page, calling it a "palimpsest of deceit and a mockery of Dante." (Brown claims Dante as his inspiration). Hoffman shows that Brown's novel is a "farce for death-worshipping hipsters," with a population control agenda that surpasses the CFR, the U.N. and the Club of Rome with Brown's propaganda for sterilizing one-third of mankind with a new Black Plague (a virus created in a laboratory). If you or someone you know is smitten with Brown's books, deprogram them with this analysis that proves that Dan Brown is a fraud.

Also in this Issue: 

"Boston Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Timeline - Stagecraft and Terrorcraft."

"Strengthening al-Qaeda in Syria - like we did in Libya."

"New study by a top Israeli molecular biologist argues that Judaic-Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars, not Abraham"

"Golem-Goyim giving it all away with Amnesty for Illegal Aliens"

"The War on Reality"

and much more!

Get your copy of Revisionist History no. 67 for $9.00 (plus shipping in Canada and Overseas - free shipping in the USA).

Or save big by subscribing to the next six issues of Revisionist History for only $35 (in the USA)

-- and start your subscription with this issue!

ORDER HERE

***

Another challenge to Hoffman’s thesis on Usury in Christendom

On June 24, 2013 someone unknown to us, writing under the name “Jonathan Doyle,” submitted a comment on our Dec. 27, 2012 post, “Debate online over ‘Usury in Christendom.”  We published this person’s comment which can be found below the original post, (comment #17) at this link: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/12/debate-online-over-usury-in-christendom.html

What follows is our rejoinder.

Hoffman Contra Doyle

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES:

...my overall impression is that M. Hoffman’s bias against the Catholic church does a great disservice to himself and to his otherwise thought-provoking book.

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES:

In the penultimate paragraph of your comment you refer to modernists as “an inflitrated enemy in the Church.” How can I be “biased” against the Catholic Church when all I am doing is exposing the actions of “modernizing, infiltrated” enemies? For fifteen hundred years the true Catholic Church taught that all interest on loans of money was forbidden on pain of mortal sin. Supporting the true Catholic Church against the subversive agents of the Money Power who have captured the Church of Rome does not make me an enemy of the authentic ecclesia.

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES:

It would appear that M. Hoffman’s preconceived idea is that “the Catholic Church falsified the Word of God, especially in relation to usury” (a common claim amongst muslim polemicists today, perhaps M. Hoffman has been influenced in this regard by his muslim teacher) .

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES:

The true Catholic Church never can falsify the word of God in relation to anything. The post-Renaissance Church of Rome has permitted mortal sins directly contradicting the Word of God. Whether this is a “common claim of the Muslims” it does not nullify the truth. Facts are facts whether Muslims believe them or not. Needless to say, I have not been influenced by Islamic teaching. For my study of the Muslim view of riba, cf. Revisionist History newsletter no. 64, “Modern German and Islamic Resistance to Usury.”

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES:

On page 383 of the book, it is stated that in items 1609 to 1610 of Denzinger
“The sum effect of this papal directive was that those who take interest on money according to the rate permitted by law must not be disturbed”.

Now those items are online, at http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=32&title=Denzinger+1600+-+1699&page=2.

Anyone reading those two short paragraphs will see that
1) Those “not to be disturbed” are not the “usurers” but the confessors
2) Those confessors are not even advocating usury, but are trying to “hold
a middle course”.
3) Nowhere is “rate permitted by law” mentioned in those two paragraphs.

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES

In Denzinger 1609, a query from the Bishop of Rheims to the pope concerned how Confessors should handle Catholic capitalists who practice usury and have been refused absolution in the past (“denial of the sacraments to many business men engaging in that method of making money”). The bishop notes that the current practice of confessors in many cases is to absolve them. Pope Pius VIII responded in Denzinger 1610: “They are not to be disturbed.”

If Mr. Doyle imagines that declaring that priest-confessors who absolve usurers are not to be disturbed signifies that the usurers themselves are to be disturbed, then I would suggest that Mr. Doyle does not have a firm grasp of the English language. Moreover, there is no evidence that in his statement Pius VIII was referring only to the confessors who absolved the usurers and not the usurers themselves when he declared “They are not to be disturbed.” Pope Pius VIII himself made no qualification. Faced with two categories, confessors who absolved unrepentant usurers, and the usurers themselves, he decreed, they were not to be disturbed. And guess what? By some strange coincidence, from thence onward Catholic usurers were not “distrubed’ by having to confess their mortal sin and receive absolution.

Mr. Doyle is endeavoring to discredit my thesis based not on substance but on raising lawyer’s quibbles. Such petty lawyer’s tactics do not detract, however, from the disgraceful and indeed heretical response of Pius VIII to the revolution that was taking place before his very eyes, in that Catholic agents of the Money Power were being allowed to profit from usury, receive absolution and the sacraments, and remain Catholics in good standing.

As for the “rate permitted by law,” if Mr. Doyle will study the rulings of the Penitentiary in the 19th century he will see that this loophole is often invoked, as it was in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with regard to permission for usury. As the revolutionaries took over the Church they created a two-tier understanding for usury that had never existed in the past: interest on loans of money based on a “rate permitted by law,” which was deemed permissible, contrasted with extraordinarily high interest rates which were now defined as usury, but for which, once again, no bar to reception of the Holy Eucharist and no refusal of absolution was any longer maintained in the confessional.

Denzinger 1609: "If the penitent perseveres in his plan of giving money as a loan to business men, and objects that an opinion favorable to such a loan has many patrons, and moreover, has not been condemned by the Holy See, although more than once consulted about it, then these confessors demand that the penitent promise to conform in filial obedience to the judgment of the Holy Pontiff whatever it may be, if he should intervene; and having obtained this promise, they do not deny them absolution...If a penitent does not confess the gain from money given as a loan, and appears to be in good faith, these confessors, even if they know from other sources that gain of this sort has been taken by him and is even now being taken they absolve him, making no interrogation about the matter..."

Denzinger 1610:  "Therefore the said Bishop of Rheims inquires: 1. Whether he can approve the method of acting on the part of these latter confessors. 2. Whether he could encourage other more rigid confessors who come to consult him to follow the plan of action of those others until the Holy See brings out an express opinion on this question."

Pius VIII responded:
1: They are not to be disturbed."

(END QUOTE FROM DENZINGER 1609-1610)

Let us examine the declaration of Pope Urban III (1185-1187), from Denzinger 403

From the epistle "Consuluit nos" to a certain priest of Brescia: "Your loyalty asks us whether or not in the judgment of souls he ought to be judged as a usurer who, not otherwise ready to deliver by loan, loans his money on this proposition that without any agreement he nevertheless receive more by lot; and whether he is involved in that same state of guilt who, as it is commonly said, does not otherwise grant a similar oath, until, although without payment, he receives some gain from him; whether or not that negotiator ought to be condemned with a like punishment, who offers his wares at a price far greater, if an extension of the already extended time be asked for making the payment, than if the price should be paid to him at once. But since what one must hold in these cases is clearly learned from the Gospel of Luke in which is said: "Give mutually, hoping nothing thereby" [cf. Luke 6:35], men of this kind must be judged to act wrongly on account of the intention of gain which they have, since every usury and superabundance are prohibited by law, and they must be effectively induced in the judgment of souls to restore those things which have been thus received." (End quote from Denzinger 403; emphasis supplied).

I reject and contest every notion that usury constitutes something other than what Pope Urban III, in confirming what the true Catholic Church always taught, here states. Usury is anything contracted for a loan above the return of the loan itself.

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES:

On page 390 of Usury in Christendom, it is claimed that Heribert Jones' Moral Theology gives "permission for sodomizing one's Catholic wife", and a paragraph from p. 195 of Moral Theology  is quoted as putative evidence for this. In point of fact, the immediately preceding paragraph condemns sodomy, even "imperfect sodomy" in the strongest terms.

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES: (Warning to sensitive readers - of necessity some intimate details of a grotesque nature are mentioned here).

Mr. Doyle has his citations wrong. P. 195 of Moral Theology refers to permission for usury, i.e. a “just rate of interest...established...by law." Moral Theology’s permission for sodomizing one’s Catholic wife is on p. 539, not p. 195.

The author is not Heribert “Jones,” it is Heribert Jone.

Mr. Doyle accuses this writer of distorting and misinterpreting quotations. Observe what he does with quotations from the permission for “Catholic” sodomy of one’s wife in the post-Renaissance “Catholic” manual of Moral Theology:

Mr. Doyle indignantly proclaims that this manual, “condemns sodomy, even ‘imperfect sodomy’ in the strongest terms.”

Mr. Doyle should read more attentively. Moral Theology condemns the sodomizing of one’s Catholic wife when the husband ejaculates his semen in her rectum:

“757. I. Imperfect sodomy, i.e. rectal intercourse is a grave sin where the seminal fluid is wasted.”

The Moral Theology manual clearly teaches, for those who can read, that when the husband has anal intercourse with his wife without the intention of ejaculating in her rectum, he is free to do so in that it is not sodomy and it is not a grave sin:

“Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally...”

In other words, if the husband begins his marital act with his wife by having rectal intercourse with her, as long he concludes the act by ejaculating in her vagina, it is not sodomy and it is not a grave sin.

It is also not sodomy or a grave sin, “if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution.”

[All quotations from p. 539 of Moral Theology (Newman Press, 1962) and bearing the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat.

One wonders why Mr. Doyle omitted these quotations in his attempt to impeach my thesis?

He is wasting this writer's time by disputing what are plain facts of the post-Renaissance Moral Theology -- one of the most celebrated “Catholic" statements of dogma in print. The manual gives permission for usury and for sodomy. This is the hallmark of modernity. There is a connection between sodomy and usury. We find it in the medieval, truly Catholic Dante’s equation, wherein he places them together in the seventh circle of Hell in The Inferno.

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES:

Another very weak point in M. Hoffman’s book is his treatment of St. Thomas Aquinas. M. Hoffman claims that his position is completely in accord with St. Thomas’, but conveniently omits to discuss the parts of the Summa that would be hard to reconcile with this claim, such as solution 1 of Art.2
or Art.4 in IIa-IIae Q.78.

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES:

Nowhere does St. Thomas Aquinas deviate from this sacred dogma. On a mutuum, the damnum to which Aquinas refers, is strictly limited to cases of compensation for non-payment of the loan; nothing more. The damnum of Aquinas is not an interest payment of any kind (see p. 391 of my book).

Moreover, foenus (or faenus) does not refer to compound interest specifically, but rather, it denotes interest on debt generally. It is always pejorative because of its etymological root as the brood of iniquitous increase. The word is derived from fetus, because it is “quaedam faetura pecunia parturientis” (the brood of increase). The context here is of a mockery of God’s creation by the use of money to create money. The use of foenus/faenus carried with it in antiquity the connotation of man’s monstrous increase, as opposed to God’s natural increase.

“Extrinsic circumstances” relating to fees for a loan arose in the Renaissance with concepts of time value, “administrative fees” and lucrum cessans (see pp. 392-393 of Usury in Christendom). In the majority of cases these are interpretive subtleties created for purposes of circumventing the dogma and sacred law of the True Church against any increase deriving from a loan.

Neither Rerum Novarum nor Quadragesimo anno reinstated the Church’s pre-Renaissance dogma against interest on debt.

Traditionalists often point to the Council of Trent as being a fount of supreme and unassailable Catholic dogmatic Truth. Trent’s definition of what constitutes usury is consonant with all pre-Renaissance Catholic doctrine from the Apostolic and Patristic age, as well as the medieval papacy and councils: “Now, whatever is received above the principal, be it money, or anything else that may be purchased, or estimated by money, is usury.”

What is it about that word “whatever” that sets the human mind working to find an exception or a loophole?

Denzinger after 1515 is no longer a reliable guide to Catholic Truth, since it reflects the statements of the revolutionaries who occupied the Chair of Peter henceforth, all of them being guilty of the formal heresy of tolerating the institution of the mortal sin of usury, or extending this grave and hellish transgression from the initial permission issued by Leo X.

This is a difficult truth to accept, but where there is truth there is Jesus Christ and His Church, as it existed for one thousand five hundred years, until Renaissance modernists subverted and infiltrated, which we have with us still.

JONATHAN DOYLE WRITES

M. Hoffman tries to make a case for a progressive distortion/evolution/falsification of the doctrine on usury by the Church, but the progressive distortion is all of his making : his books starts by giving a fair exposition of the Church’s  teaching on usury, and later on his quotations become increasingly distorted and misinterpreted (on what grounds, for example, does M.Hoffman calls the Catholic interpretation of Vix Pervenit (an interpretation shared by Fr. O'Callaghan) an “intellectually lazy failure”...

MICHAEL HOFFMAN REPLIES

In Vix Pervenit (1745) Benedict XIV expanded Leo X’s "infallible" 1515 Bulla Concilii in decima sessione super materia Montis Pietati, promulgating the lawfulness of charging interest for philanthropic ends, to include the lawfulness of interest on investment credit capital. The intellectually lazy failure is seen in the failure to note and comprehend Vix Pervenit’s “fine print.” After many anti-usury rhetorical flourishes throughout the document, the technique of the devolutionary degradation of God’s law through gradualism was deployed with the following subtle papal statement:

“We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles — which are not intrinsic to the contract — may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.”

The papal usurers apply rabbinic-style loopholes to sneak their usury past the eyes of gullible Catholics who have a psychological need to believe that the Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church of Rome did not overthrow the dogma of the True Church. Vix Pervenit consists of 98% anti-usury rhetoric and 2% loopholes by which usury could continue to operate.

Note that in Vix Pervenit Benedict XIV declined to apply the general prohibition to the specific usury contracts which gave rise for the need for his encyclical in the first place!

Mr. Doyle accepts Vix Pervenit at face value, even though Vix Pervenit is a textbook example of Vatican dissimulation and misdirection, very much in the tenor of the current Pope Francis's undoubtedly eloquent jeremiads against avarice and obsessive pursuit of economic affluence to the detriment of family values. Exceedingly naive people believe that this sort of oratory signifies something. But Jesus Christ said By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their palaver.

Res ipsa loquitor - the facts speak for themselves - usury, both from inside the papacy and among Catholics in general, has grown exponentially, largely unimpeded, from Leo X in 1515, through Benedict XIV in 1745, Pius VIII in 1830, Benedict XV in 1917, John Paul II in 1983, up to the present time of Benedict XVI and now Francis. In the midst of all of these pontificates no other pope restored the mortal sinfulness of usury, or declared that all interest on loans of money must cease immediately, on pain of eternal damantion.

What were the fruits of Vix Pervenit? Because of its rabbinic-style loophole, it opened the door to even more latitude for Catholic usury. Note the testimony of the Bishop Rheims as recorded in Denzinger 1609: "There is bitter dispute over the meaning of the Encyclical Letter, 'Vix pervenit'...On both sides arguments are produced to defend the opinion each one has embraced, either favorable to such (usury) profit or against it.”

________

For further research:

Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not 

by Michael Hoffman. Paperback. Illustrated, 416 pages.

________

Is “Pope Francis Good for the Jews”?

Wall Street Journal editorial says "Pope Francis is good for the Jews"

Three questions for the Wall Street Journal

By Michael Hoffman

1. In the Wall Street Journal editorial (see below) by Francis X. Rocca, Rome bureau chief for the Catholic News Service, modern popes are praised for repudiating the apostles, popes and saints of the past who sought to convert Jews and Judaics from Talmudic falsehood to the truth of Jesus Christ. Rocca's definition of a rehabilitated Catholic is someone who cooperates with Judaic self-worship and abandons Christ-rejecting Judaics to their damned condition. Is this not a virulent form of "Jew hate," disguised as reconciliation? Is Pope Francis actually “good for the Jews” -- or a terrible enemy who has abandoned them to eternal perdition?

2. Why did Jesus Christ incarnate on earth if not to convert the Jews and to have his followers convert all people, including the Judaics of the present? How can "Jews" be exempt from the Gospel commission to convert in light of Jesus' words in Matthew 15:24?

3. How is any "convenant" with the God of Israel maintained by adherents of Orthodox Judaism who nullify the Word of God in favor of their Babylonian Talmud, and the pagan, soothsayer traditions from which it is derived?

Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, and Judaism's Strange Gods

WALL STREET JOURNAL p. A13. June 14, 2013 

***

On the Contrary blog scoops the world’s media

If you are an American who still reads the morning newspaper, then today (Wednesday June 12) many of you woke up with an internationally circulated Associated Press wire story headlined, "Pope tells group 'gay lobby' at work,” and a New York Times article that reported on: "...a network of gay priests inside the Vatican who used blackmail to gain influence and trade in state secrets."

This is news which On the Contrary readers had yesterday.

On Tuesday, June 11 there were only three sources in the world for this shocking revelation: the Spanish language "Reflection and Liberation" website in Chile, Rorate Caeli, a traditional Catholic blog, and our On the Contrary blog.

What does breaking news like this mean to you? Does the fact that we scooped websites a hundred times bigger and better funded than our service signify anything? We beat the Drudge Report, Salon and News Max in getting this story to you first, so you could be better informed and yesterday, when it came to the pope and the Vatican, readers of this blog were among the best informed people on the planet.

Along with the breaking news, yesterday we also asked that readers send a donation or order a book, CD or newsleter from our online store.

No donations were received. Two people ordered newsletters, but their orders may have had nothing to do with On the Contrary. They may have accessed our online store through Google or Amazon or some other source.

Yes, this blog is a "free" service. Nothing is free, however, except God's grace. On the Contrary is made possible solely by donations and orders to our store. Consequently "free" translates into at least a minority of idealistic truth seekers supporting our service by either donating funds, or buying items from our online bookstore, for the benefit of the majority of readers who send nothing and who apparently imagine they are doing us a favor just by reading our columns.

Yesterday we broke world-historic news. The Vatican Secretariat of State had previously called the  rumors of a homosexual mafia governing the Church through the Curia "unverified, unverifiable or completely false." The new pope has now revealed that it's true: sodomites are administering the modern Catholic Church.

If scooping the media of the world is not enough to motivate at least a few dozen of the thousands of On the Contrary readers to donate a few bucks now and then, or buy a newsletter or a book, how will we continue this service?  What will it take to pry a $10 donation or a $25 book order from your purse?

Donations:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page2/paypal.html

Online Revisionist History Bookstore
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page7/page7.html 

***

Pope admits there is a "Gay Lobby" in the Roman Curia

...and hints that Traditional Catholicism ("restorationist groups") has no future

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/pope-to-latin-american-religious-full.html  

On June 6, 2013, the Pope received the presiding board of the CLAR (the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women - Confederación Latinoamericana y Caribe?a de Religiosos y Religiosas) -- three nuns and three priests. A transcript of the pope's words was made by those present, and given to the Chilean ultra-progressive page Reflexión y Liberación (Reflection and Liberation) for exclusive publication.

Words in (parentheses) are part of the original transcript to provide the context. Words in [square brackets] were added by us to clarify language difficulties and explain a few points.

I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council... One feels in 1940... An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: "Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries." Why don't they say, 'we pray for you, we ask...', but this thing of counting... And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through - not you, because you are not old - to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today...

The second [concern] is for a Gnostic current. Those Pantheisms... Both are elite currents, but this one is of a more educated elite... I heard of a superior general that prompted the sisters of her congregation to not pray in the morning, but to spiritually bathe in the cosmos, things like that... They concern me because they ignore the incarnation! And the Son of God became our flesh, the Word was made flesh, and in Latin America we have flesh abundantly [de tirar al techo]! What happens to the poor, their pains, this is our flesh...

The gospel is not the old rule, nor this Pantheism. If you look at the periphery; the destitute... the drug addicts! The traffic of people... This is the gospel. The poor are the gospel... +

And, yes... it is difficult. In the Curia,* there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true... The "gay lobby" is mentioned, and it is true, it is there... We need to see what we can do...

(Emphasis supplied)

+ "The poor are the gospel...” Pope Francis contradicts Jesus Christ in Matthew 26:11. The gospel is the good news about the coming of the Messiah, the Son of God. In the grace and spirit of Jesus Christ, tremendous compassion and concern are to be shown to the poor;  this is an action of the gospel, but it is not the gospel. The poor are not God (Acts 10:34; 1 Peter 1:17). The Gospel is the Way of Jesus Christ. Any pontiff truly concerned about the poor would shut the Vatican Bank, restore the ancient Catholic Church’s immutable law against interest on loans of money, and refuse communion to any unrepentant operator of a savings or commercial bank, "payday loan" or similar usury-based business. 

*Curia: The administrative apparatus and central governing body of the Catholic Church.

For further research:

Original Spanish text:
http://www.reflexionyliberacion.cl/articulo/2729/papa-francisco-dialoga-como-un-hermano-mas-con-la-clar.html

Support the continuation of Michael Hoffman's On the Contrary

Buy a book, newsletter or CD, or send a donation.

***

Perverted rabbi confesses child sex guilt

Pervert rabbi admits kid sex 

By Katie Zezima 

New York Post • May 14, 2013 

With other accusers stepping forward, a former yeshiva teacher changed pleas yesterday on the third day of his New Jersey trial and admitted he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy while working as a camp counselor. Rabbi Yosef Kolko, 36, shifted uncomfortably on the stand in the Toms River courtroom as he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sex assault, sexual assault and child endangerment. The abuse occurred from 2008 to early 2009 and ranged from fondling to oral sex. [End quote from the NY Post].

Hoffman’s comment: this behavior is not an anomaly. Sex with children is permitted in the halacha. 

Cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 422-425; and Judaism’s Strange Gods (2011), pp. 358-361.

***

Right wing agents of disinformation

The Right wing continues to promote the delusional and subversive myth that Talmudism is the ally of Christian conservatives

By Michael Hoffman

Updated April 29, 2020

Our colleague in Denver, Mr. J.P.J., writes to allege that the “traditional Catholic" Matt family newspaper The Remnant states:

“Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that the French government has begun monitoring certain groups for ‘religious pathology,’ including, you guessed it! traditional Catholic organizations...as Valls put it, ‘these traditional Catholics as well as radical Muslims and ultra-Orthodox Jews want to live separately from the modern world,” and are thus examples of religious extremists who under the new secular policy will be disbanded if the government deems them to suffer from “religious pathology.”

In the undated photocopied excerpt from The Remnant I could found no analysis of this statement by the secularist Valls except The Remnant editor’s prediction that all these religious groups are threatened with being disbanded by the government of France.

This statement by the editor of The Remnant, when published at face value, as a bald fact, is misleading and deceptive and demonstrates no knowledge of history or religion.

The roots of French secularism are in the French Revolution. The roots of that masonic revolution pre-date The Enlightenment and can be traced to Rabelais’s Abbey of Thelema and its infamous motto that there is no other law other than, "Fais ce que voudras” (Thomas Molnar translated this in the parlance of the hippies—as “Do your own thing”).

The occult being mostly lies, this saying does not mean what it says. It actually denotes, in practice, total freedom for the occultists and total bondage for the rest of us. Now the question should be asked, is Orthodox Judaism of the occult imperium of Thelema and Freemasonry, or not? 

The answer is, that the Thelemic freedom for occult tyranny extends to Orthodox Judaism because Orthodox Judaism in its black-hatted Hasidic incarnation is the repository and cultivator of the books of the Kabbalah, from which Thelema, and Freemasonry itself, are derived.

Therefore, it is more than obtuse to take the statement of France’s Interior Minister Manuel Valls as if it were completely truthful rather than deceitful, and draw the conclusion that both “traditional" Catholics and Orthodox Judiacs are to be persecuted by the masonic government of France. 

As long as the masonic government of France stands, Talmudism will thrive. Long after "traditional Catholicism" and conservative Protestantism have been dismantled in France, the houses of worship of the Chabad-Lubavitch will stand untouched. One does not need to construct an elaborate schema of historical or theological arguments and treatises to make this point. It is a truism for anyone who has made any kind of serious study of the subject from independent, scholarly sources.

What we actually have from the Donald Trump, Fox News, neocon-Republican, is the fake martyr duality: “We Christians and the poor, persecuted Talmud-followers, are about to be put up against the wall by the forces of Leftist secularism!” Stuff like this is beneath contempt. People who spout it at this late date are mentally challenged.

Mr. J.P.J. further informs us that the “Christian” right wing conspiracy radio host Stanley Monteith has fashioned a theory that at the pinnacle of the occult cryptocracy one finds not the Sanhedrin but "anti-semitic Satanists who plan to persecute all fundamentalists whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish.”

In response to Mr. Monteith, we quote from footnote 402 on p. 360 of this writer’s book Judaism Discovered:

The common fiction among Right wing "Christians" and Republicans is that "religious Jews" are not the problem, but rather that liberal and Leftist ones are. This fable is sown by Ben Shaprio, Dennis Praeger, Michael Medved, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "Dr. Laura" (Schlessinger) and many others, the implication being that true believers in the Talmud are not as much of a threat to Christianity as are liberals. Asa far back as 1933 the eminent T.S. Eliot promoted this fallacy in a statement to an audience at the University of Virginia(published the next year in After Strange Gods): "...reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable." Remarks like Eliot's are fixtures of a mystical fear and dislike of the Enlightenment intellectual when he happens to be of Judaic descent, a WASP snobbery that delights the rabbis in that it causes Judaics who break away from Talmudic solidarity to regret having done so, since they are rebuffed by the T.S. Eliot types among the goyim. Personally, all we would ask of a Eliot’s undesirable "free-thinking" Judaic is disengagement from tribal loyalty and the sense of entitlement which is a hallmark of the Talmudic mentality. Judaic free-thinkers meeting those criteria are infinitely preferable to Talmudic censors, liars, bigots and killers.

Mr. Monteith is channeling the party line of legions of conservative goyim who serve as Talmudic propagandists. Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabism and Talmudic fundamentalism are indeed enemies of truth and freedom, while the fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are at the root of our western heritage of freedom. 

To conflate two soul-withering tyrannies with the glorious freedom of Christianity on the specious commonality of a mutual “fundamentalism," is to support the continued thralldom of Islamic fundamentalists and Talmudists to a most severe taskmaster who is the opposite of God.

The Orthodox religion of Talmudic Judaism is derived from the pagan soothsaying traditions of ancient Babylon. Can anyone seriously contend that God is happy with those traditions? Does God favor Babylonian idolatry and occultism? 

Superstitious rabbinic fundamentalism is a form of darkness and bondage to strange gods that has nothing in common with the followers of Christ. If Monteith, The Remnant and the Right wing in general  had read our books rather than boycotting them, they would know this truth.

As usual, I issue a challenge to these sadly befuddled “leaders” — debate!

But they can’t debate. They have no answer. 

Their little fiefdoms are built on censorship and blacklisting of facts put forth by damned researchers like this writer. All they can hope for is that their followers never encounter our books.

Why doesn’t this shock me? Because I have read I Timothy 4:1-2.

Copyright©2020. All Rights Reserved
www.RevisionistHistory.org
________