The late great George Pell and his enemies, part 2

 The late Cardinal Pell was vilified by an anti-Catholic Australian media and may have been set up by greedy Vatican employees to get him out of the way.

January 10, 2026 Dawn BeutnerPrint

Australian Cardinal George Pell holds a copy of his book, "Prison Journal," during an interview with Catholic News Service at his residence in Rome Dec. 18, 2020. (CNS photo/Robert Duncan)

Editor’s note: You can read Part 1 of this column here.

In 2014, the newly elected Pope Francis decided to improve the state of the Vatican’s finances. He appointed the Australian cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) to be the first prefect of his new Secretariat for the Economy. Pell was seen as the sort of no-nonsense, thorough, and intelligent cardinal who could corral other cardinals into cleaning up their mess.

Pell ordered audits, established policy guidelines, and began to investigate the financial affairs of different Vatican offices. One would think that simply trying to introduce transparency into the Vatican finances would be non-controversial. One would be wrong.

Just as Pell began to uncover problems, a series of child sexual abuse charges from Australia were leveled at Pell in 2017. While he could have remained in Rome and avoided the trial as others have done, he chose to return to his native country to clear his name.

The Victoria Police had apparently spared no expense in trying to uncover dirt on George Pell—and him alone—going back to 2013. They produced dozens of witnesses in court in 2018, but those alleged witnesses could only offer fuzzy charges and testimonies, which is why the jury could not agree on a verdict.

Their indecision is not surprising because the two strongest allegations against Pell sound ridiculous to anyone who has regularly attended the Catholic Mass. Two boys claimed that Pell exposed himself to them after Mass in the sacristy of the cathedral. But how could Pell reasonably have done that while fully vested for Mass? Why wouldn’t he have been outside the front door of church, like every other priest after a Sunday Mass (including Pell), talking to his parishioners? Where were the other priests who typically accompany a bishop at Mass? And wouldn’t it have been incredibly stupid for a priest to expose himself in a public place like the sacristy, where a random parishioner might show up at any moment to ask for a blessing of a new rosary?

Despite the ludicrousness of the accusations, Pell was convicted during a retrial. He was sentenced to prison in 2019 and spent 404 days in prison, almost entirely in solitary confinement, deprived even of the ability to celebrate Mass.

More: https://x.com/father_rmv/status/2010163805968322694?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

We are not promised happiness in this life

Leo XIV: “When you feel alone, remember that God never abandons you. His companionship becomes the strength to take the first step towards those who are alone, yet are right beside you. Everyone remains alone if they look only at themselves. Drawing close to one’s neighbour, instead, allows you to become an image of what God is for you. As He brings hope into your life, so you too can share it with others. You will then find yourselves together as seekers of communion and fraternity.”

“Imagine the SSPX having to discuss Catholic doctrine with a theologically illiterate modernist heretic pornographer buffoon who is supposed to be head of doctrine for the Church….”

(N.B. The title of this post a quote from the inimitable Chris Jackson. “Synodality”, whatever that means, in no way trumps the Tradition of the Church, not in this or in any other conceivable universe…)

Vatican doctrine chief to hold talks with SSPX leader

Cardinal Fernández told The Pillar he hoped to “find a fruitful path of dialogue”

EDGAR BELTRÁN

FEB 04, 2026

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández will meet with the leader of the Society of St. Pius X next week, days after the traditionalist group announced plans to consecrate new bishops without a papal mandate.

Announcing the step Feb. 2, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the superior general of the SSPX, said the decision to consecrate new bishops in July came after he requested an audience with Pope Leo XIV in August 2025 and after he recently received a letter from the Vatican “which does not in any way respond to our requests.”

More: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-doctrine-chief-to-hold-talks?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Diocesan Inc.: The Second Avignon Captivity of the Church

 JAMES R. GREEN

JAN 10, 2026

The question of why a revolution succeeds or survives, why, even when it’s clearly failing, it manages to stay in place, and uninterested parties don’t overturn it, is far more interesting and practically relevant to reversing it than merely trying to get the motives of the villains right. In the revolutions in Catholic faith and practice over the last 60 years, asking why so many Catholics are indifferent to failing policies and declining metrics is far more important than merely pointing out that people are trying to subvert the Church.

Certainly, the Lavendar Mafia in the hierarchy of moral corruption running to the top that Gene Thomas Gomulka, Dr. Kwasniewski, Janet Smith, and many others have pointed to is the most obvious factor behind the revolutionary mindset still possessed by many a hierarch, with many of them seemingly actively opposed to the faith over which they are the leaders.

But while this corruption runs deep, it’s not the whole story. In the liturgical revolution of the 60s, most of the priests and bishops weren’t ideologues or morally corrupt but were swept along by the propaganda and manipulation of those who were, and who were more focused on manipulation.

Similarly, in the broader “Catholic Revolution” of the 60s, most people weren’t ideologues, but were carried along with it, because the Church’s enemies, instead of a direct assault, tried a charm offensive.

Rather than fighting the Church outright, the Church’s enemies were now offering to help, pretending to meet the Church’s naively open approach with their own warm (yet false) welcome. They “helped”, or “infiltrated”, that is, by building up a power structure that is not the Church but exists within and around it, and to which the bishops—and many others—abdicated authority, a system of managerialism which turns the bishops into mere puppets or guardians of a system of secularization that is smothering the faith from within.

Why do the priorities of the bishops we hear so often sound so much like blatheringly secular corporatist or governmental speak? Why does it seem so hard to get them to speak clearly on any matter of faith and morals that’s not aligned with the interests of the world? Because, at a high level, the Church’s institutional power has been abdicated ever since Vatican II to the world of corporate managerial and government concerns, and the bishops are just the middle managers for a process that they feel is outside of their control, a treadmill that they feel they can’t leave.

It’s not the French this time, but we’re in a sort of second Avignon Captivity of the Church.

This is the story (probably just the beginning) of “Diocesan Inc.” or the managerial infiltration of the Church.

More: https://x.com/drkwasniewski/status/2010127337300599141?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

Ad orientem in Duluth

… and no one got hurt.

Throughout 2025, Mass was celebrated ad orientem (facing the East) in nine parishes in the Diocese of Duluth, Minnesota, under the terms of an instruction issued by Bishop Daniel Felton.

Instruction

Regarding the Celebration of the Mass “ad orientem”

My Dear Brother Priests,

In our journey as disciples of Jesus, we are particularly blessed as Catholics to have the precious gift of the Holy Eucharist. As priests we count it as our highest privilege to celebrate the Mass and to nourish God’s people. As we all know, the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life (LG, 11; cf. CCC 1324), and as such it also must be a source of unity amongst us. Over the past few years, some priests in our diocese have initiated the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass in English while adopting an “ad orientem” posture. This is the liturgical posture of facing the altar with an “eastern orientation” during the Liturgy of the Eucharist – ie. the priest and the people facing the same direction. This was the common practice of the celebration of Mass up until about fifty years ago. Priests have initiated the celebration of Mass in this manner after having a conversation with me, advising me of their reasons why, and providing an example of the catechesis that had been provided to the faithful. Others have begun this practice or expanded it without my knowledge.

As we all know, after the Second Vatican Council, it became common for the altar to be freestanding and the priest to face the people during the entire Mass in a posture called “versus populum”. Indeed, the current rubrics found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (#299) advocate for this stating,

“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” The freestanding nature of the altar was established primarily to foster full and active participation in the Mass by allowing the people to view the liturgical action taking place at the altar. It must be stated that for most of the Catholic faithful, the past fifty years of liturgical practice and posture have been widely

received.

However, some have held that a certain “sense of transcendence” has been lost in the liturgy and that the unique role of the priest as mediator has been obscured by the current practice. Furthermore, it has also been contended that the liturgy could become “a circle turned in upon itself” and no longer focused on the worship of God. For some, a response to these trends has been the reintroduction of the liturgical

posture of “ad orientem” while celebrating the Mass. While it is true that the Roman Missal does not prohibit priests from celebrating the Mass in this manner, and acknowledging that this posture has ancient roots in liturgical history and has never been abrogated by the Church, nevertheless it is crucial that its application in our Diocese does not become a source of disunity or foster a spiritual or liturgical

elitism either among the priests or the faithful. Both postures merit mutual respect. Priests who desire to implement the “ad orientem” posture at Mass should agree not to denigrate a Mass celebrated facing the people, nor be dismissive of the priests or the people who have grown in holiness and love for the Mass facing the people. Likewise, those priests who prefer the Mass facing the people should not be dismissive of the priests or people who find spiritual fruitfulness in a Mass celebrated using an “ad orientem” posture and should be open and respectful to this.

Furthermore, in all that we do, we must foster a deeper sense of holiness among the people we serve …

Full text: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6279816fda32f57e31be823a/t/678e90704d3d3634fe6c79dd/1737396336858/Instruction+Ad+Orientem.pdf

THE DEMOGRAPHIC CERTAINTY OF A TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC RESTORATION

The long-term future of the Church will not be decided by synods, press statements, or the volatility of the ecclesiastical news cycle. It will be decided, with mathematical regularity, in the domestic hearth. When demographic reality is examined rather than institutional rhetoric, a stark divergence emerges between the mainstream Catholic population of the West and the concentrated Traditionalist communities that continue to live according to the Church’s perennial moral and liturgical order. This divergence is not rhetorical or ideological. It is statistical, compounding, and ultimately decisive.

The contemporary West is experiencing what demographers describe as demographic winter. In the United States, the total fertility rate has fallen to approximately 1.6 children per woman, well below the 2.1 replacement level required for population stability. Catholic fertility broadly mirrors this collapse. Immigration may temporarily obscure the decline, but it does not reverse it. Native Catholic populations are aging, shrinking, and consolidating. Parishes merge or close, schools contract, and vocations diminish, not primarily through persecution, but through attrition.¹

Against this backdrop stands a radically different model. The most visible American example is St. Marys, the geographic heart of the American apostolate of the Society of Saint Pius X. Comparable patterns are observable in other Traditional Latin Mass hubs across North America and Europe, but St. Marys offers a particularly clear case study because of its concentration, stability, and institutional maturity.

Within such communities, fertility estimates consistently range between 3.6 and 4.5 children per woman—more than double the mainstream Catholic average and nearly triple that of the surrounding secular culture. While these figures derive from community-level surveys rather than national census instruments, their effects are unmistakable: crowded schools, youthful congregations, expanding parish infrastructure, and a demographic pyramid that is broad at the base rather than inverted at the top. This divergence is not a sociological curiosity. It represents two fundamentally different civilisational trajectories: replacement versus expansion.

Fertility is never merely biological. It is the embodied consequence of theology, anthropology, and moral vision. Large Traditionalist families are not accidental. They are the lived expression of doctrines that the modern West—and increasingly the institutional Church—has struggled to sustain: marriage ordered toward procreation rather than self-expression; children received as blessings rather than lifestyle impediments; sacrifice understood as meaningful rather than pathological; time oriented toward inheritance rather than consumption. In this sense, the Traditionalist household functions as a theological manifesto written in flesh and blood. Where contemporary ecclesial documents often struggle to articulate a coherent anthropology, the Traditional family demonstrates one concretely, week after week and generation after generation.

Once a fertility gap of this magnitude exists, outcomes cease to be speculative and become arithmetical. Demography obeys mathematics, not ideology. If one conservatively estimates the current global practicing Traditionalist population at approximately one million souls, the implications of sustained above-replacement fertility are straightforward.

By the first generation of demographic renewal (approximately 2025–2050), the children of today’s Traditionalist families reach maturity. Even allowing for attrition, a fertility rate above 3.5 yields a population approaching four million. During the same period, mainstream parishes continue to merge or close as older cohorts die and younger ones fail to replace them.

By the second generation (2051–2075), the effects of compounding growth become unmistakable. The Traditionalist population plausibly reaches eight to twelve million, while the mainstream Church faces an accelerating crisis of clergy, finances, and attendance. At this stage, Traditionalists likely constitute fifteen to twenty percent of all practicing Catholics in the West—far beyond their current institutional representation.

By the third generation (2076–2100), a demographic tipping point is reached. Under conditions of continued retention, Traditionalists exceed twenty-five million and become the majority of practicing Catholics in many Western countries. What began as a marginalised remnant becomes the functional centre of gravity of ecclesial life.

Birth rates alone, however, do not explain the full magnitude of this shift. Traditionalist communities exhibit a pronounced vocation multiplier effect. Families formed around the Traditional Rite produce priests and religious at rates many times higher than the diocesan average. The reasons are structural rather than romantic. Boys regularly serve at the altar and see the priesthood embodied as a sacred vocation. Liturgy communicates transcendence rather than managerial functionality. Sacrifice and celibacy remain intelligible within a culture already ordered toward self-gift. As a result, even while diocesan seminaries close and priest shortages worsen, Traditionalist seminaries continue to expand.

This demographic reality brings the argument to its ecclesiological conclusion. This is why the work of the Old Roman Apostolate, the Society of Saint Pius X, and the Servants of the Holy Family is of such decisive importance. In the present moment, these apostolates may appear marginal, numerically insignificant, or even deliberately sidelined within the visible structures of the Church. Yet history and demography alike testify that fidelity sustained over time possesses a cumulative force far greater than institutional prominence. By endurance rather than influence, by perseverance rather than accommodation, these communities are laying the foundations for a future in which what is now dismissed as “exceptional” will once again be normal.

For this reason, the recovery of the Domestic Church is not ancillary but central to restoration. It is within the family—ordered toward sacrifice, fecundity, discipline, and the transmission of the faith—that the Church reproduces herself most securely when parishes close, seminaries empty, and diocesan structures contract. Where faith is lived daily rather than administered sporadically, continuity is assured even amid ecclesial disorder.²

More at source: https://x.com/abpjeromeosjv/status/2009364268529889491?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w