Skull & Bones, Secrecy in Conclaves

TIA,

I am sending you, below, two photos of high level American authorities supporting “gay marriage.” The first one is Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiating at a homosexual “marriage;” the second is ex-president George H.W. Bush with his wife Barbara attending a “marriage” of two lesbians, also portrayed in the photo. Further, Bush was the official witness for that “marriage” as shown in the third photo.

One sees that by themselves the homosexuals would never gain any legal battle if authorities like these were not supporting them behind the scenes. Obviously these authorities supported homosexuals before the decision of the Supreme Court to allow “gay marriage.” And who is behind these authorities if not Skull & Bones secret societies, which have their own agenda to corrupt society?

     M.C.

TIA,

J.M.J.

Here is Pope Francis speaking again:

“The Church has her roots in the teaching of the Apostles, authentic witnesses of Christ, but looks to the future, and has the fixed awareness of being sent by Christ, of being Christ's missionary, of bringing forth Christ's name by prayer, proclamation and witness. A Church closed in on herself and the past, a Church who focuses only on minor rules and habits, betrays her own identity”.

All fine, until the last sentence. Then Francis typically sets up a straw man, easy to beat down. This is a very unfair characterization of faithful, moreover  of traditional Catholics. Demonize your enemies, insinuate falsehoods about them, exaggerate some tendencies they have - heck, just plain lie about them. But don't exactly name them. Pretend to remain aloof. Question: would you tolerate this behavior in a friend?

     P.B.

TIA,

These examples of papal buffoonery started with JP2.

Check out this video on YouTube.

     .J.B.

Dear TIA,

The newspaper O Globo from Rio de Janeiro published on Sunday, September 29, 2013 an article by Fernando Eichenberg titled “Catholics out of Rhythm - Resistance to Francis.”

In this 780-word-article there is an entire paragraph (96 words) referring to TIA, inspired by a previous news report published by the French magazine Le Point:

“The American conservatives of Tradition in Action - a site based in Los Angeles which defends ‘Catholic traditions’ - accused Francis of being a ‘deceiver’ who organizes ‘demagogic tours’ in a ‘miserablist style.’ For Tradition in Action, the Pontiff tries to ‘desacralize the symbols of the Papacy with the intent of abolishing them.’ The site criticized Francis’ gesture of taking of his zucchetto and placing it on a girl’s head. ‘Doing so, he tries to appear like an old grandfather entertaining his granddaughter, sending the message that the papal symbols are worthless.’” (Original in Portuguese here)

I remind you that O Globo is the main paper of the powerful O Globo network, probably the largest in Latin America. Normally what is printed in that newspaper is reproduced throughout the entire network.

Keep up the good work. It is making a difference.

     In Jesu et Maria,

     P.H., Brazil

TIA,

Regarding Catholic Mainstream Enters the Frenzy

Thank you for the article by Lyle J Arnold. Catholic young men are to be our future leaders.

Having young men give sway to their emotions is far more disastrous for the Church and is detrimental to the social order that we depend on in world politics than when the young girls act all giddy.

     A.T.

TIA,

I have read many of the things that the Church has said about modesty in dress on your website and in other places, and I was wondering something: this quote says,

"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper." (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI)

First of all, where is this quote from?

Second, I saw a video of a Latin Mass in 1940, the one in Chicago (it's on Youtube) and even there, I saw that some women were wearing short sleeves and weren't even wearing a veil. How's that possible?

The above quote says that sleeves should reach AT LEAST to the elbow, but I have seen countless pictures of "traditional" women wearing sleeves above the elbows and even in Churches before and after Vatican II.

Can you tell me what is going on here?

     Thanks.

     A.S.


TIA responds:

A.S.,

Unfortunately your source references are too vague to allow us to check them - the quoted text and the mentioned YouTube video - in order to give you a specific answer.

Generally speaking, when one finds women improperly dressed at church, the first one responsible is the pastor, who most probably is not enforcing the rules of Catholic modesty as he should. No matter how revolutionary the fashions are in the world, a good pastor should never allow these trends to enter the sanctuary.

Second, one should blame the woman who wears improper or scandalous clothing. Independent of the orientation of the pastor, she has the obligation to maintain Catholic patterns of decency at home, in society and mainly at church. If she does not, she is accountable for the temptations her improper dresses or those of her daughters will cause. She will have to answer for that before God at her judgment.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

Dear TIA,

I have been interested in the deaths of Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII and the secrecy of the subsequent conclaves. I find it fascinating that all 20th century conclaves seem to have had more iron clad secrecy than any of those of any previous century.

The secrecy of these conclaves is understandable before and during a conclave, but why is there permanent subsequent secrecy of the proceedings?

I have a book by Frederic Baumgartner on the history of Papal Elections in which he makes the claim that Pius XI tightened the papal election regulations to make such secrecy obligatory. It sounds more like a masonic degree meeting than a papal conclave. What are they hiding? I believe such secrecy is immoral and unnatural for a Catholic election to the papacy.

If the deaths of Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were unnatural then need for such secrecy of the subsequent conclaves would make sense. I think there’s a whole lot of blackmail and threats keeping these prelates in line. I would be interested in researching this.

Any suggestions?

     Viva Cristo Rey,

     M.P.


TIA responds:

Dear M.P.,

Thank you for telling us about what you are reading and your research plans.

Different from you, we believe that having secrecy in the Conclaves to elect Popes is perfectly normal. It was established to give full liberty to the Cardinals to elect the new Pope. It prevents the Cardinals from giving an account of the candidate they voted for. With the secrecy, no one can pressure a Cardinal - before, during or after the Conclave - to gain his vote or to punish him for it.

Since the Pope is the highest authority on earth, no situation is more subject to external and internal pressures than the election of a new Pope. All the ambitious prelates inside the Church are vying to become a Pope and consequently exercise all their influence to achieve this goal. Outside, the plots of all the enemies of the Church converge with the aim of making their own pope. Therefore, there is an enormous pressure over the Cardinals. Thus, to give them full liberty to choose whomever they deem the better candidate, secrecy in the Conclaves is absolutely indispensable.

It is our liberal mentality, which rebels against anything we are not privy to, that causes us to accuse this secrecy - as well as other legitimate secrets existing in the Catholic Church - as being immoral or Masonic.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk