And people want to know why people don't want to pay diocesan assessments any more ...

Parishes are assessed taxes by the diocese as the sole or primary source of funds to provide the compensation and benefits for individuals like this:

Bishop Hicks Former Diocesan Chancellor Reportedly ‘Marries’ Boyfriend

December 22, 2025 TagsHomosexuality from Complicit Clergy by Staff

In 2021, Bishop Hicks announced David Salvato as his new Chancellor for the Diocese of Joliet:

In late April 2021, Bishop Ronald A. Hicks announced the appointment of David Salvato as chancellor for the Diocese of Joliet.

As chancellor, Salvato will advise Bishop Hicks and diocesan officials on issues related to canon law. He will also record the ecclesiastical acts, decrees and dispensations issued by Bishop Hicks, as well as oversee the diocesan archives.

Salvato has worked since 2011 as a canon lawyer for the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. In that role, he led two teams that oversaw the investigation of nearly 200 marriage annulment cases each year.

He also has taught at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, as an adjunct professor; worked as an English translator for L’Osservatore Romano, the daily newspaper of the Vatican City State; and served as the director of the marriage and family life program at St. Thomas More Catholic Church in Centennial, Colorado.

Salvato holds a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome, where he also obtained bachelor’s degrees in theology and philosophy. He also earned a bachelor’s degree in communications from the University of San Diego.

This week, we learned from a reliable source within the diocese that Salvato went missing from his diocesan job several weeks ago.  The source further informed us that Salvato was “married” to his partner, Jacob Aguilar, last week in Naperville, Illinois.  The couple had a wedding registery on The Knot which apparently is no longer active.  We were able to locate a wedding registry that was still active at Bloomingdale’s.

This sad situation raises a few questions that we think Bishop Hicks should answer:

1. When did Hicks learn that Salvato was an active homosexual?  Did he know (or even suspect this fact) when Salvato was initially hired in 2021? If so, why did Hicks proceed in hiring Salvato?
2. Is Hicks concerned about the eternal salvation of Salvato’s soul?  What spiritual counseling did Hicks offer in an attempt to have Salvato turn away from his mortal sin?
3. Did Hicks ask Salvato to leave his position or did Salvato leave of his own accord?
4. Hicks had to recognize that this situation would eventually become public and create a scandal.  Why didn’t Hicks use this as a teaching opportunity by publicly stating Salvato was asked to resign because of his decision to enter into a sinful relationship that is contrary to Catholic teaching?
5. Did Salvato’s “wedding” ceremony take place in a Catholic Church?  Did a Catholic priest participate in the ceremony?
6. Has Salvato been barred from receiving Holy Communion in the diocese?
7. How many other active homosexuals are employed by the diocese (including diocesan schools)  and what is Hicks’ strategy for dealing with these individuals?

We understand that it is possible (although unlikely) that Hicks may not have known about Salvato’s lifestyle until just weeks before his “marriage.” But this should have been all the more the reason for Hicks to address this issue in advance of the information becoming public so that people would not have to speculate as to the answers to these questions. We hope and pray that Bishop Hicks will use better judgement when making staffing decisions in his new role as Archbishop of New York.

BREAKING: President Trump has directed his administration to ensure that all federal agencies are in compliance with the Hyde Amendment.

 

Pope Leo XIV sends message to 2026 March for Life

 To the Participants in the 2026 March for Life

I send warm greetings to those of you participating in the 2026 March for Life. I likewise express heartfelt appreciation, and assure you of my spiritual closeness as you gather for this eloquent public witness to affirm that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right” (Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2026).

Indeed, “a society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it” (ibid.). In this regard, I would encourage you, especially the young people, to continue striving to ensure that life is respected in all of its stages through appropriate efforts at every level of society, including dialogue with civil and political leaders.

May Jesus, who promised to be with us always (cf. Mt 28:20), accompany you today as you courageously and peacefully march on behalf of unborn children. By advocating for them, please know that you are fulfilling the Lord’s command to serve him in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:31-46).

With these sentiments I entrust all of you, as well as those who support you with their prayers and sacrifices, to the intercession of Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States of America, and I gladly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abundant heavenly graces.

From the Vatican, 17 January 2026

LEO PP. XIV

VP Vance at the March for Life

"In the ancient pagan world, discarding children was routine. From the skeletons in brothels to the child sacrifice of the Mayans, the mark of barbarism is that we treat babies like inconveniences to be discarded rather than the blessings to cherish that they are."

"The March For Life... is about whether we remain a civilization under God or we return to the paganism that dominated the past. The far left in this country tells our young people that marriage and children are obstacles... We know it's a lie."

President Trump to the March for Life: "For 53 years, students, families, patriots and believers have come to Washington from every corner of the country to defend the infinite worth and God-given dignity of every human life ... this is a battle that must be fought, must be won, not only in the corridors of power, but above all, in the hearts and souls of the people."

RFK Jr pushed back on vaccines and Fauci called him a liar. RFK Jr sued. What happened next:

 🚨 READ THIS CAREFULLY.

Anthony Fauci publicly called RFK Jr. a liar for saying that none of the 72 childhood vaccines were ever properly safety tested.

So RFK Jr. sued him.

After more than a year of delays and stonewalling, Fauci’s own legal team quietly admitted RFK Jr. was right.

Here’s what came out:

“There’s no downstream liability.

No front-end safety testing.

No marketing costs.

Because the federal government mandates these vaccines for 78 MILLION schoolchildren every year.”

Think about that.

A guaranteed market. Zero liability. Zero advertising.

RFK Jr. put it bluntly:

“What better product could you possibly have?”

That’s why, he says, there was a gold rush to cram more and more vaccines onto the childhood schedule.

Get on the list — and suddenly it’s a billion dollars a year for your company.

The result?

72 shots.

16 vaccines.

And starting around 1989, something else exploded too.

Chronic illness in kids.

ADHD.

Sleep disorders.

Language delays.

Autism spectrum disorders.

Tourette’s.

Tics.

Narcolepsy.

Then this stat hits like a brick:

Autism went from 1 in 10,000 in his generation

to 1 in 34 children today.

That’s not a coincidence people just “imagined.”

That’s a question nobody wanted asked.

Until now.

Source: @CharlieK_news  on Twitter/X.

Mislabeling survival as Christian “nationalism”

Let's be clear about something else: what you call "Christian nationalism" is, in Britain, nothing more than ordinary citizens asserting that their own history, faith, and culture should not be erased. That is not extremism. It is survival.

You smear fathers, mothers, pensioners and preachers on a stage in Whitehall as if they were plotting some theocratic coup. They weren't. They were saying out loud what millions feel in private – that Britain is a Christian country in heritage and law, and that this heritage should not be sneered at or dismantled by cultural engineers. To brand that conviction as "a threat to us all" tells us more about your own bias than it does about them.

The truth is this: Britain's freedom, its law, its democracy, its very sense of human dignity were all born from the Christian tradition you so casually pathologise. Habeas corpus. Trial by jury. Equality before the law. The idea that every individual has worth. None of these came from "secular humanism." They came from centuries of Christian thought, hammered into institutions by men and women of faith. To denounce that inheritance as dangerous while indulging ideologies that openly call for jihad on our streets is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

You talk of "outside influence" from America. Where is your outrage when Gulf states pour money into our universities, funding Islamist networks that demonise Jews and women? Where is your alarm when foreign-funded NGOs stage pro-Hamas rallies in London under the guise of "human rights"? That silence is telling. Imported grievance is tolerated. Imported radical Islam is excused. But imported Christian money or rhetoric? That you brand an existential "threat."

And let's talk about threats. Is it Christians who have run grooming gangs across our towns? Is it Christians who chant for jihad outside synagogues? Is it Christians who terrorise teachers for showing cartoons, or who knife women in the street for "dishonour"? No. Yet we are told that the menace comes not from radical Islamism or the progressive Left's culture war, but from a handful of Christians who dare to say Britain should stay Christian in character.

What you really fear isn't extremism – it's resistance. Resistance to your project of turning Britain into a deracinated, post-national, post-religious experiment where every identity is celebrated except the one that built the nation. You fear that ordinary people, rooted in their faith and traditions, will refuse to be passengers on your managed decline.

You can brand it "Christian nationalism" if it helps you sleep. But the reality is far simpler. This is Britain's majority culture asserting that it has a right to exist. And if you think that is a "threat to us all," then the problem isn't with the people – it's with the elites who despise them.

Christianity in Britain is not a threat. It is the faith that shaped our freedoms, our laws, and our culture.

Source: @JChimirie66677  on Twitter/X.

Austen Ivereigh. The attacks on the Pope by the Santa Marta hacks

(N.B. Pope Leo likes traditions. This is a Catholic sensibility. The low- life hack opportunists who falsely attributed moral value to the jettisoning of such during the late unpleasantness now find themselves on the outside and desperately cling to relevance by attacking the new man for not apeing his predecessor in mindless lockstep.)

Rome - The criticism levelled this morning by Austen Ivereigh at Pope Leo XIV says nothing about the Pope’s gesture. It says a great deal, instead, about the method – and the standard – of a certain brand of journalism that for years built careers, reputations and income around the figure of Pope Francis, and that now, suddenly cut off from access, is trying to stay relevant by attacking the new Pontiff with false claims and ideological distortions.

As is well known, this morning Leo XIV received monks and nuns who, according to an ancient and well-documented tradition, brought with them the lambs blessed on the feast of St Agnes. Lambs that are not killed, not mistreated, not paraded as props: they are raised, shorn, and their wool is later used to make the pallia for metropolitan archbishops. This is an ecclesial, symbolic act, deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church.

It is a tradition that was observed in the early years of Francis’s pontificate and later set aside. Not for ethical reasons – because there is no ethical issue in that rite – but simply because these things did not interest Francis. Signs, rituals and liturgical tradition were not central to his vision of governance. What mattered to him was personal loyalty. And when that loyalty failed, bishops were removed with little hesitation, canon law included.

It is worth restating this, since some today pretend to be discovering it for the first time: the lambs are shorn with full respect for the animal; shearing is a relief, not a source of suffering. Because they are very small, they are presented to the Pope lying in a basket. The videos released show calm, serene animals, certainly not “terrified” as Ivereigh claims. This is not a matter of opinion: it is a simply false statement.

More: https://x.com/silerenonpossum/status/2014058913348411532?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w