Murder in Lyon

Quentin Deranque was twenty-three years old and a student in mathematics at the University of Lyon, France. A recent convert to Catholicism, he attended Saint-Georges, a church of the diocese of Lyon where Mass is usually said in the traditional Latin rite. Family, friends, and acquaintances described Quentin as devout and studious, someone whose day-to-day life centered on faith, reading, and doing well in school. One friend, “Vincent,” speaking on Radio Courtoisie, praised his “moral and spiritual virtues” and described him as a “bookworm” widely read in classical Christian theology, with a special interest in Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Another friend, “Baptiste,” quoted by Le Monde, described him as deeply devout, intelligent, and curious, with a strong sense of justice.

On February 12, 2026, Quentin and two other men accompanied female activists from Collectif Némésis as they protested outside of Sciences Po Lyon, a far-left university. Collectif Némésis is a right-wing NGO comprised of young women opposed to the negative impact of mass immigration, Islamism, and left-wing ideology on the lives and rights of young women in France and Europe. The women of Némésis were there to unfurl a banner protesting an appearance on campus by Rima Hassan, a member of the European Parliament for the far-left party La France Insoumise (LFI). Hassan, who claims to be of Palestinian descent, is chiefly known for her full-throated support for Hamas in the wake of October 7.

An unremarkable set-piece of political theater should have ensued: A far-left figure speaks at a far-left university; right-wing activists protest peacefully outside. Instead, a horror unfolded. 

Thanks to mobile phone video, an official autopsy report, and a preliminary report by Thierry Dran, chief prosecutor of the Judicial Tribunal of Lyon, we know what happened in detail. Contrary to initial media reports that described a “street brawl” between far-right and far-left activists, implying shared responsibility, it is now undeniable that a group of about twenty masked, hooded men encircled Quentin and the two other men and threw them to the ground and beat them. Quentin became isolated from his companions, and six men hurled him to the pavement and struck him repeatedly before dispersing.

The autopsy report shows that the assailants landed multiple blows to Quentin’s head, even after he was incapacitated. A breakdown of the video evidence counted at least eleven distinct blows. One man straddled Quentin and hit him repeatedly. Another appeared to strike him with a metal object. 

According to the autopsy report, the damage to Quentin’s skull and brain was so deep and pervasive, including “major cranioencephalic trauma” and a “right temporal fracture,” that he had no chance of survival. This last fact is important, because minutes later Quentin regained consciousness, being described as visibly confused, and initially refused medical attention. The left-wing noise machine latched onto this fact to claim that Quentin had not been mortally wounded and that he only died as a result of his initial refusal to seek medical help. The autopsy report made it clear that even if Quentin had been immediately rushed to the hospital, he would still have died of his injuries.

It is important to get the facts right, which, again, are attested by multiple mobile phone videos, an official autopsy report, and an official report by the chief prosecutor of Lyon. There can be no reasonable doubt: Quentin was attacked and murdered by an organized, violent group. He did not seek, provoke, or initiate violence, and his attackers deliberately beat him and left him for dead.

The import of the event is clear. A French center-right commentator, Kevin Bossuet, put it simply in a television interview yesterday: “He is our Charlie Kirk.”

Quentin had nowhere near Charlie’s public profile, but he was a virtuous, talented, young Christian man who was gratuitously murdered by far-left extremists for doing nothing other than peacefully exercising his right to free speech.

PASCAL-EMMANUEL GOBRY FEBRUARY 20, 2026

Virginia: Vote “No!”

 

BREAKING: Cardinal Zen on the SSPX case

The SSPX Case

Friday of the 2nd Week of Lent

In the face of the SSPX case, it seems that even traditionalists are divided. This is very understandable—there are two things to consider.

A. A schism must be avoided with every effort, because it will cause serious and lasting damage to the Church; but on the other hand

B. a major issue of conscience must also be respected: “How can someone be forced to follow teachings that evidently deny the Holy Tradition of the Church?”

So how can the case be resolved?

The SSPX have been sent to dialogue with the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, but is there even a glimmer of hope from this dialogue?

Reading today’s first reading and the following responsorial psalm from Mass, it seems one can see it this way:

Joseph ─ SSPX  

Joseph’s brothers ─ Card. Tucho  

Ruben ─ Pope Leo (perhaps with the help of His Excellency Schneider)  

“Joseph’s brothers hated him.”

Tucho, who intends to dismantle the Church’s traditions—how could he not hate the SSPX? He will probably be delighted to see them excommunicated!

So there’s no hope left?

There is Ruben, the good brother!

There is Leo, the good Father!

The unity of God’s family is close to his heart! But what if the children do not accept the Council?

Pope Leo is one who listens! He understands and will make his children understand that certain things perpetrated in the name of the so-called “spirit of the Council,” but contrary to the Church’s Tradition, are not of the Council!

And the TLM Mass? Evidently, it is a mistake to want to eliminate it! The Novus Ordo did not respect the intentions of the Conciliar Fathers (His Excellency Athanasius Schneider has gathered abundant evidence on this point).

Pope Benedict, when speaking of the “reform of the reform,” acknowledged the possibility of mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman Mass liturgy.

Let us place our trust in Pope Leo—he has begun the catechesis on the Documents of the Council; it is to them that we must all return!

https://x.com/cardjosephzen/status/2029860324531208665?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

Paul Dans on Covid and the death of his father

Five years ago today, I was permitted a final, ten minute visit to say goodbye to my Dad who lay “dying of COVID” in the Covid Ward.  

We were required to put on “Moon Suits” to step in and pray over Dad.  As my sister (in attached photo) prayed aloud from memory several  prayers, and we all desperately tried to tell Dad of our love and evoke his deep faith, we knew Dad could hear us.  A priest had come earlier to give Dad Last Rites.  

We were not allowed to even wet his mouth with ice chips, the apparent “medical” reason being to lessen contact with him, he being administered only IV fluids. He was clearly suffering.  It was truly seeing your father nailed upon a cross.

Dad did not die until 5 days later.  We were not permitted to visit him again over those days, but we were assured we could join by iPAD and Zoom to be with him in his final moments.

My father was a Great Man of Medicine.  He spent his life healing the sick and protecting us from disease.  He was a professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Vietnam Veteran with a Distinguished Career in the U.S Public Health Service fighting Infectious Disease.  My father served at the National Institutes of Health at NIAID, the same Institue that Anthony Fauci later directed. They had several run ins over the years, and Dad considered Fauci a slick phony.

Before Covid, Dad had been living with Parkinson’s in Assisted Living.  He still had his faculties and managed for himself, but needed occasional care. For the past year in 2020, we had been permitted limited contact with him, sometimes only getting to see him on a balcony.  

To be sure, Dad had medical issues, but COVID was not one of them.  Admitted because of an intestinal infection, he had tested negative for COVID three times, but positive on the Fourth test.  That test had been 10 days prior, but the Doctors refused to retest him so that he might be moved out of the COVID ward.  He had not received his regular Parkinson’s Medicine during his admission, the natural result being he would decompensate.  Which he did.  We were told that’s the COVID.

COVID was a BIOLOGICAL WEAPON,  and the response to it, was a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.  It is hard not to conclude that many segments of the population were targeted to die. We need leaders in Public Life who will never permit this to happen again and who are committed to bring justice to the millions who were victimized like Dad.

My fellow South Carolinians, as your next U.S. Senator, I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL FAUCI AND HIS COCONSPIRATORS ARE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.  I will get Americans the justice and compensation they deserve.  COVID and its response, including forcing people to take the jab against their will and/or on the basis of fraudulent medical directives demand attention of the U.S. Senate.  

I pledge to work with @SecKennedy in order to bring accountability. We need fighters and I am committing to YOU today, on my honor, that I will get to the bottom of this, and put FAUCI IN AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT. We cannot simply forget and move on.  What happened was EVIL.

It’s personal for me. 

Paul Dans for U S Senate @DansForSenate on Twitter/X

Candid talk from senior cardinal on Pope Francis, Benedict XVI

 By Christopher R. Altieri

Feb 22, 2026

|Managing Editor

Share

Pope Francis, left, meets Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the helipad of the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo on March 23, 2013. (Credit: Associated Press.)

Cardinal Camillo Ruini thinks Benedict XVI’s resignation was a mistake. Ruini also found himself flummoxed by the Francis pontificate and unsure whether the reign of the late Argentinian pontiff will prove to have done more harm or good.

Ruini said so – in words – in a wide-ranging interview with Italy’s Corriere della seranewspaper that was published late last week.

Ruini, who served the better part of two decades as Pope St. John Paul II’s vicar for the Rome diocese and as president of the Italian bishops’ conference, is more than a venerable figure in the Italian episcopate and senior member of the college of cardinals.

Now 95 years old, he has seen more of the last century than almost anyone else, not only because he lived through it but because he was there for it.

When he gives an opinion about anything – especially about a pope – it is a good idea to take him seriously.

Ruini knows his opinions carry weight, even though he has been retired from active public life since 2008, which is why his candid remarks to the Corriere regarding Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, and Pope Leo XIV are themselves remarkable.

It probably won’t surprise many leaders to know that Ruini ranked Pope St. John Paul II as maggiore – which is the comparative of grandeor “great” – saying “he was a true leader on the world stage.”

Corriere had asked him to rank the popes of his lifetime, and Ruini said it was a tall order.

“For the Church, Ruini said, “it has been a fortunate period, in which various great popes have succeeded one another.”

“I think of Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI,” Ruini said.

“I found myself in difficulty with Pope Francis,” Ruini said in response to a question asking whether the late pontiff had disappointed him. “The change was too great and sudden,” Ruini said.

“More than disappointed,” Ruini said he was “surprised.”

Asked for his measure of the Francis pontificate, whether it did “more good or more harm to the Church,” Ruini said his would be “a complex assessment, with very positive aspects and others much less so.”

“It’s too early to judge which of them prevail,” he said.

Ruini was less circumspect regarding the pontificate of Benedict XVI, especially regarding Benedict’s shocking February 2013 decision to resign the papal office.

“I’ll tell you the truth,” Ruini said in response to the Corriere’s point-blank question whether is was a mistake for Benedict to resign, “it was a mistaken decision, at least it seems so to me.”

More: https://x.com/pluant/status/2025615022362435911?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

BREAKING: Little Sister of the Poor testifies in France against assisted suicide

 UPDATE:

“Nuns who refuse euthanasia in their retirement homes and hospitals face a penalty of 2 years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine under the euthanasia bill.  

“We have come to the UN to denounce this true persecution!  

“Let us not allow such an injustice to pass!  

“Share this video please and sign this petition  

“Thank you 

eclj.org/euthanasia/un/…

@Gregor_Puppinck

💉 **FLASH** — Sister Agnès, a doctor with the Little Sisters of the Poor, has denounced before the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief the French proposal to establish a RIGHT TO ASSISTED DYING, describing it as a violation of freedom of conscience and religious convictions.

https://x.com/lechochretien/status/2028929231539798473?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

LEFEBVRIAN QUESTIONS

Illustrative image: The four episcopal consecrations by the hands of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre and Msgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer (June 30, 1988, Écône, Switzerland).

Several of my readers have asked me about the upcoming episcopal consecrations of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. Well, here is my position, expressed pedagogically in the form of questions and answers:

1. Will the Lefebvrists commit a mortal sin with these episcopal consecrations?

— No, not at all.

2. Is it not a schismatic act?

— No, formally it is not.

3. Why is it formally not a schism?

— Because, for a “perfect schism” to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish, with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. In this case, neither of these two things will occur.

4. Could it at least be an act of disobedience?

— Yes, indeed it is, at least materially, since Rome does not want these consecrations to take place.

5. Then, do they commit a mortal sin by disobedience?

— No, because in this case the intention of the authority of the SSPX, of the consecrators and of the future ordinands appears to be upright. They invoke the “state of necessity”, which would justify the “material disobedience”. In this regard, we have no objective reasons to doubt their conscience nor their upright intention, which is the good of the souls they assist.

6. But the “latae sententiae” excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right?

— From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, that excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and philosophical-juridical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it from a purely legalistic point of view. However, I think that, in addition to the fundamental motive of the “state of necessity”, the “formal reason” why such a penalty should actually be incurred fails, since there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat.

7. Did Msgr. Lefebvre receive the penalty of excommunication?

— Yes, as these bishops will surely receive it, but his excommunication was also null, since, on the supernatural level of the Mystical Body, that bishop never ceased to be in communion with the Church.

8. What do you mean by that?

— The essence of communion is threefold, namely: doctrinal, sacramental and hierarchical. I therefore consider that Bishop Lefebvre and, by extension, the SSPX, did not deny any of these three “essential dimensions” of ecclesial communion.

9. Is the SSPX in doctrinal communion?

— Of course, it has never ceased to teach what the Church has always believed.

10. But don’t the Lefebvrists constantly question the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

— They do not make a total amendment, as people commonly believe, considering that in its texts there are elements that form part of the “depositum fidei”, but they address, with a critical spirit, certain “delicate” issues in which theological discussion is legitimate.

11. How can you say such a barbarity?

— I can say it because the very “nature” of the Council allows me to do so.

12. What do you mean by that?

— I mean that Vatican II was a council of a “pastoral nature”, not dogmatic, and therefore did not enjoy the charism of infallibility, because at no time did it intend to define or condemn anything infallibly; that was the express decision of the majority of the Council Fathers. However, in the post-conciliar period, despite this “pastoral nature”, some have tried to turn that council into a “super-dogma”.

13. Super-dogma? This is disrespectful. Why are you using the Lefebvrian narrative?

— I am in fact using the very words of Joseph Ratzinger, who, during a visit to the bishops of Chile (1988), used these same terms.

14. On the other hand, is it true that the SSPX is in sacramental communion?

— Its sacraments are not only valid, but they are celebrated according to the traditional rites that the Church has used from time immemorial.

15. But it is obvious that the SSPX is not in hierarchical communion, right?

— Although, at the canonical level, its “institutional situation” is irregular and imperfect, the Fraternity does not cease to recognize the Pope of Rome as the supreme pastor of the universal Church. In fact, it also recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of all the bishops of the Catholic world.

16. Can you give me proof of what you are saying?

— In every Mass of the SSPX, without exception, the priests name, in the “canon missae”, the Pope and the local bishop.

17. Isn’t this a very weak argument?

— By God, it is not. The most formal and public manifestation of hierarchical recognition takes place precisely in the holy Mass, specifically in the canon.

18. Are you a Lefebvrist or a pro-Lefebvrist?

— Neither one nor the other, sir; I go my own way. I am simply Catholic and, as such, I have a critical spirit, that is, the good habit of using reason and the judgment of discernment.

19. But it seems that you agree with the SSPX on everything?

— No, I do not. In certain attitudes and issues I do not agree, but these, in my view, are secondary and accidental. In what is “essential”, I agree 100% with the Fraternity and therefore I will not contribute to its unjust and disproportionate public “demonization”.

20. Can you tell me what is essential?

— The “essential” is its “Catholicity”. Full stop.

21. But aren’t you worried about the “drift” of the Lefebvrists?

— I am much more concerned about the swarm of heterodox, blasphemous and sacrilegious people that exist everywhere, especially in Germany. I am also troubled by the double standard that seems to exist when it comes to applying penalties and censures by ecclesiastical authority.

22. So, what solution do you see to the current Lefebvrian problem?

— First of all, I believe that Rome should be benevolent and formally accept the consecration of these next bishops, while at the same time it should recognize the spiritual fruits of the apostolate of the SSPX. I think this would be a true gesture of mercy and intelligence; both things are not mutually exclusive.

23. Aren’t you afraid that you will be criticized for these opinions?

— No, because I am a priest of the Catholic Church, not the pastor of a sect, and therefore, with respect, I can and must exercise, in my life of faith, the true freedom of the children of God.

Dr. Mn. Jaime Mercant Simó

------------------------------

Illustrative image: The four episcopal consecrations by the hands of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre and Msgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer (June 30, 1988, Écône, Switzerland).

Source: @JaimeMercant on Twitter/X.