Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Troubling Case of Cardinal Kasper


“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”
– Jesus (Matthew 19:9)
“It’s now a new situation of a marriage. They are living together, they love each other, and to say every sexual act is sinful, that’s different. If you tell people who do it this way, and they do it in a responsible way, to tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended.”
– Cardinal Walter Kasper, CNS News Interview, October, 2014

It is difficult to understand how a Catholic Cardinal could take it upon himself to contradict the explicit teaching of Christ. And yet here we have perhaps the plainest evidence to date that Cardinal Walter Kasper, Bishop-emeritus of the German diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, has done exactly this. In a short video interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal Kasper makes clear his disdain for the divinely revealed truth that individuals who divorce and remarry are guilty of the sin of adultery.

Trying to process my feeling of disbelief, I turned to The Catholic Encyclopedia. Not having ecclesiastical authority or being in the business of identifying heresy, I wanted to know the mind of the Church on the subject:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. “The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity — as distinct from wanton opposition — supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create “good faith”. Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the mind and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.

One would be hard pressed to make the argument that a prince of the Church who is publicly contradicting Christ’s own teaching in the Gospels is not “corrupting the dogmas” of the faith. The question becomes, then, the issue of pertinacity. Cardinal Kasper, recently on the verge of fading into obscurity after his retirement, is suddenly very nearly a celebrity, following the publication of his proposal at the February consistory promoting a pastoral allowance for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist.

Such a public deviation from the faith of Christ demands public reproof.  What makes the matter even more troubling is that Cardinal Kasper is getting as much mileage as possible from the praise he has received from the pope – praise that he wields like a de facto imprimatur. Two notable examples made the rounds in the media – the first coming at the very beginning of Francis’s papacy:

Sales of Cardinal Kasper’s most recent book, “Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life,” got a big bump in March 2013 when Pope Francis effectively plugged it during his first Angelus address as pope.

Describing Cardinal Kasper as a “superb theologian,” the pope said his book on mercy “has done me so much good, so much good.”

“Cardinal Kasper said that feeling mercy, that this word changes everything. This is the best thing we can feel: It changes the world,” the pope said. “A little mercy makes the world less cold and more just. We need to understand properly this mercy of God, this merciful Father who is so patient.”

Again in February of this year, leading into the consistory and Kasper’s own proposals on rethinking the pastoral approach to divorced and remarried Catholics, Pope Francis took time to publicly praise Kasper’s work:

The Pope walked to the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall to start off day two of the ‘Extraordinary Consistory.’ The Pope opened the session by offering some words of encouragement for Cardinal Walter Kasper, who led the main discussion on the family on Thursday morning.


“Yesterday, before falling asleep, though not to fall asleep, I read, or re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”

And yet despite the pope’s compliments on Kasper’s thought, never has he officially endorsed Cardinal Kasper’s erroneous views on adulterous marriages – nor could he! The infallibility of his office prevents him from doing so. Still, that hasn’t kept Kasper from making quite the show of telling anyone who will listen that he has Pope Francis’s approval, thus widely disseminating the opinion that the Church can — and will — change her teaching on this critical issue. In his own words:

“I’m not naïve,” Kasper said. “I knew that there are other positions, but I didn’t think that the debate would become, and now is shown to be also, without manners.”

“Not one of my fellow Cardinals ever spoke to me. I, instead, [spoke] twice with the Holy Father. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, except be with Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one.”

Kasper again claimed that Pope Francis knew what he was going to propose and fully approved of his speech.

“They know that I have not done these things by myself,” he said. “I agreed with the Pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content [with the proposal]. Now, they create this controversy. A Cardinal must be close to the Pope, by his side. The Cardinals are the Pope’s cooperators.”

Cardinal Kasper’s errors are — unsurprisingly — making headlines around the globe. If they are not refuted, they will lead not only to the continued propagation of grave scandal, but the impression that the Church has changed her mind, thus giving permission to those living in adulterous marriages to return to the sacraments. It doesn’t matter in the slightest that the Church cannot and will not change her teachings on the matter; if the world is given the impression that such a change is being made, they will act accordingly. This is precisely what happened with artificial contraception during the deceptive lead up to the release of Humanae Vitae – and we now have data showing that the overwhelming majority of Catholics contracept, despite the official teaching of the Church.

What recourse exists? What steps should be taken? Again, we can look to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on heresy:

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ’s work of salvation. Her Founder, who foretold the disease, also provided the remedy: He endowed her teaching with infallibility (see CHURCH). The office of teaching belongs to the hierarchy, the ecclesia docens, which, under certain conditions, judges without appeal in matters of faith and morals (see COUNCILS). Infallible decisions can also be given by the pope teaching ex cathedra (see INFALLIBILITY). Each pastor in his parish, each bishop in his diocese, is in duty bound to keep the faith of his flock untainted; to the supreme pastor of all the Churches is given the office of feeding the whole Christian flock. The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura — the highest canonical court in the Church — has already taken aim at Kasper’s errors.

In a teleconference in preparation for the synod, Burke firmly addressed Kasper’s suggestions that criticisms of his proposal are criticisms of the pope, who (according to Kasper) agrees with the proposal:

Burke strongly defended his criticism of the “Kasper proposal,” and said it was “outrageous” for Cardinal Walter Kasper to suggest that such criticism was actually aimed at Pope Francis, during a teleconference with reporters on September 30.

“I find it amazing that the cardinal [Kasper] claims that he speaks for the Pope,” Cardinal Burke said. “The Pope doesn’t have laryngitis.”

Cardinal Burke joined several other participants in a teleconference on preparations for the Synod of Bishops. The teleconference was arranged by Ignatius Press, which will release four books on October 1 presenting arguments against the Kasper proposal and in defense of Church teaching on marriage.

Cardinal Burke said that he finds the books—and particularly Remaining in the Truth of Christ, to which he contributed—an “effective response” to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal that the Church might allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist. These works, the American cardinal said, reflect the “firm conviction of the authors and the firm conviction of the Church” that the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage is based on the clear words of Jesus Christ and cannot be altered. Saying that Cardinal Kasper “erred” in his proposal, Cardinal Burke said that the new works were “a positive contribution to get the discussion back on the right track.”

It is clear from his many interviews and public appearances that Pope Francis does not, as Cardinal Burke says, “have laryngitis.” But his silence on the matter of Cardinal Kasper is disconcerting, particularly as rumors persist that Cardinal Burke himself — currently the most qualified and vocal critic of the Kasper proposal — will soon be removed from his curial offices and given instead the ceremonial (and non-governmental) role of Cardinal Protector of the Sovereign Order of Malta. If Burke is indeed taken out of the equation — and potentially removed as a player at the synod — who will stand against Kasper’s incredibly damaging errors?

Pope Francis has the power to quell these fears as the Synod on Marriage and Family begins this Sunday. The clearest signal would be to remove Cardinal Kasper as a synod participant while retaining Cardinal Burke and those who agree with him. It would also be possible for the pope to use the synod as the opportunity to address and condemn Kasper’s proposal, though it seems an odd choice to allow the impression that Pope Francis favors Kasper’s position to continue. The longer this misconception exists, the more damaging it becomes to those Catholics in “irregular unions” who will take it as a green light to return to the communion line, regardless of the synod’s outcome.

Pray for Pope Francis, that he will courageously and unequivocally re-affirm Church teaching on the question of communion for the divorced and remarried and not allow himself or his synod to be used by those would seek to alter the Catholic Faith. Pray for Cardinal Kasper, that he will repent of his errors and submit to the mind of the Church.

The eyes of the world are on the Synod on Marriage and Family. May God’s will be done, the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar protected, and Holy Mother Church be defended by her sons.


44 thoughts on “The Troubling Case of Cardinal Kasper”

  1. I’m one of those so-called neo-catholics that accept the teachings of the Church as taught in the councils, catechisms, and the papal magisterium. I don’t understand how people like the writer of this article can state the Church CAN’T change her teaching.

    Unless I misunderstand the history, the Church at one time taught that heretics like Huss or Wycliffe could be executed by the state for their heresies. But the Church overturned this teaching with Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty.

    It seems to be there is ample precedent for the Church changing her teaching under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So my prayer for the Synod is that the will of the Holy Spirit is done.

    • The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. Further, if you don’t understand how the Church and the Pope have no power to change the teaching of Jesus Christ himself, perhaps you’d better study a little more.

      • You didn’t address the issue of the Church and previous Popes allowing people to be executed for heresy or apostasy. I assume that in this age of ISIS no Catholic would actually argue that the previous doctrine was correct.

          • Nope, still not doctrine. Executing someone for heresy is an act, but not a doctrine.

            Try again.

            also, listen to yourself. If the Church can change doctrine, she would no longer be the Church of Christ (and since She is, there is no way that any doctrine can be changed).

            It really isn’t that complicated.

          • Yes, execution for heresy is an act. But it was an act that was officially sanctioned by the Church/Popes under the previous doctrine that “error has no rights.”

            The new doctrine of the Church introduced at Vatican II is “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

            Under the new doctrine any Catholic state that would execute a person for heresy would be going against the doctrine of religious liberty as promulgated by Vatican II and reiterated in the catechism.

          • “The new doctrine of the Church introduced at Vatican II is “This
            Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious
            freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion
            on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power,
            in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to
            his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in
            association with others, within due limits.”

            No, incorrect. This is not “new doctrine” but simply wishful thinking on your part off a perfunctory reading of Dignitatis Humanae.

          • LOL. Maybe I was wrong when I wrote “that in this age of ISIS no Catholic would actually argue that the previous doctrine was correct.”

          • You’re really missing the point. Errors does not have rights but those who err do. Many in the Church have taken incorrect stances towards heretics however that does not mean that heresy is ever condoned.

            You have not actually proved anything tonight. Popes can make mistakes in things like executing people for heresy because that IS NOT DOCTRINE. The only thing that the Second Vatican Council told us is what has been always true. Error is always wrong however each human being is free to find Christ without any outside coercion.

            I believe I have made my case in defending the honor of Christ’s Church from your inaccuracies. Ask the Holy Ghost for more guidance on this issue and may God Bless you.

          • Willard,
            You’re being consciously stupid. One didn’t have to believe in the execution of heretics to be a Catholic.

          • What ever your background it is obvious you do not understand the difference between dogma and church law. Execution, even today, is not
            approved dogma. It is a prudential judgment formed by the prevailing hierarch and could be subject to change. No dogma has ever been changed by the hierarch, nor could it as it is considered part of revealed Truth.
            I don’t think your argument given here is anything but wishful thinking.
            There is more than enough of that floating about today.

        • What is there to address? Not sure what your point is. People were executed for heresy going back to pre-Greek times. A practice does not undermine God’s Dogmatic Teachings. Your straw men are point less.

        • Unlike neo-Catholics, I’ve actually read the documents of Vatican II because in the place I am currently, that’s kinda required. I would like you to point out in which document of Vatican II does it say the state may not execute heretics? I’ll wait. The Pope could mandate tomorrow that every Mass in the world must be said in Swahili. He has that power. He could not mandate tomorrow that the 5th commandment prohibiting murder is no longer in force. The problem with you Ultramontanists is, you think the Pope has absolute power to change anything he pleases, including Divine and natural law. Your sad confusion of everything the Pope says as some sort of doctrinal pronouncement is no where close to approaching a Catholic view of the Papacy.

          You see, since I’ve also been forced (one might even say coerced) to study Church history I know that many (if not most) heretics were executed for reasons that had little to do with religion, but much to do with the political situation and to maintain public order. But that doesn’t fit into the Black Legend of ignorant Catholic hating bigots so it’s largely ignored.

          BTW….the Church still teaches that the state has a right to execute convicted criminals (including a Catholic state executing convicted heretics, if such a state actually existed). That’s in the Catechism if you are looking for a source. Vatican II changed nothing in this regard, no matter how badly liberals, neo-Catholics and Ultramontanists might wish it had.

          • Umm unlike most neo-traditionalists I’ve also read the documents of Vatican II where you can find the following doctrine:

            “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious
            freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion
            on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power,
            in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to
            his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in
            association with others, within due limits.”

            As far as the power of the Pope please see the following from the INFALLIBLE first Vatican Council:

            “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

          • “immune from coercion” says nothing about executing pertinacious heretics. But nice try.

            And your quote from Vatican I does not mean the Pope has the power to change the teaching of Jesus Christ himself or alter doctrine one whit. Mohammedans believe that God is all powerful and can even act contrary to his nature and may even act evilly if he so chooses. That is not a Catholic belief. God may not contradict himself and the Pope may not contradict God. Period.

            You might wish to try a reading comprehension course. Just some advice.

          • You’re an idiot that obviously doesn’t know what immune from coercion means.

            Oh, and it’s good that you’re on record, in this age of ISIS, of supporting the burning of heretics.

          • You said: “Unless I misunderstand the history, the Church at one time taught that heretics like Huss or Wycliffe could be executed by the state for their heresies. But the Church overturned this teaching with Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty.”

            The quote from Vatican II you provided says nothing about executing anyone. Yes, you misunderstand history. You grossly misunderstand history, which is 144 times worse than a regular misunderstanding.

            I mean, I’m only about to be ordained a priest. How many years of theology do you have? Church history? Philosophy? Canon Law? Ecclesiology? Latin? Eh, how many? I don’t really require a lecture from someone who considers downloading a Catholic Answers podcast to be an engaging intellectual exercise.

            But please continue. I’m fascinated to know how the Pope can overturn a Divine Law simply because he’s the Pope. Say more.

          • Obviously we’re not going to agree so why don’t you tell us who your bishop will be? Then we can ask him if Vatican II allows the burning of heretics.

          • Could the Pope declare that the Mosaic Covenant is still valid and a means of salvation for the Jews WITHOUT the Lord Jesus Christ? No. But that did not stop anti-Pope Francis and anti-Pope Benedict from saying so.

        • Pracdices are not doctrines. The right and wrong understanding of moral doctrine can not change, not how it is enforced at a particular canonical event requiring fallable prudential jdgment.

    • “It seems to be there is ample precedent for the Church changing her
      teaching under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So my prayer for the
      Synod is that the will of the Holy Spirit is done.”

      Uhh, no there isn’t. Show me one time when doctrine was changed (I’m not talking about disciplines)?

      You will not find one doctrine that has been changed because the Church is the Bride of Christ and Truth cannot change, no matter how much the world and the modernists try to distort it.

    • Willard, what you describe is a discipline, not a doctrine. Disciplines are frequently modified for the good of the faithful; dogma and doctrine are as immutable and unchanging as the God who Divinely revealed their contents.

      • You’re wrong. Whether or not we can eat meat on Fridays is a discipline of the Church. The “right” to burn heretics is a doctrine of the Church. See Daniel O’Connors reply below.

      • Thank you for your honesty Daniel. At least your not trying to pretend that the “right to burn heretics” is/was not a doctrine of the Church.

    • Willard,
      The burning of heretics is not a dogmatic Church teaching. You pose a straw man, and you either do not know the difference between a Dogmatic, unchanging Truth, and a “praxis”. It was never a dogmatic truth that heretics be burned alive. Yet, it is still magisterial teachings that using artificial birth control is a Mortal Sin; over 75% of couples calling themselves Catholic use artificial birth control. Humanae Vitae did not unveil some new “truth”; but a Truth that goes back even before the Didache. Last month, Cardinal Kasper hinted at even changing the “teachings” of the Church concerning artificial birth control. He stated that it is none of the Church’s business on how many children Catholic couples have, and their sexuality is their business and not the Church’s. Do you subscribe to this point of view? That is, the Church (i.e. Christ) no longer has a place in ensuring couples make it to Heaven?

      In one of the few instances that Christ was to to the “right” of Moses, Christ said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This is one of the reasons why the Church of Rome didn’t adopt the theology of “oikonomia”, which allows for the possibility of 2nd marriages. Christ, like he was in the 6th Chapter of John about the Eucharist, was emphatic about marriage. The Roman Catholic Church’s dogmatic teachings have a 2000 year continuity that no other Church can claim.

      No Pope can change dogmatic teachings of the Church. However, that may not prevent some people from attempting to force his hand. Cardinal Kasper and his minions wish to effect a wholesale change in the Church’s dogmatic teachings.

      • You’re wrong. Praxis or discipline is something like meatless Fridays or the requirement to hear mass on Holy Days of obligation. The “right to burn heretics” is a doctrine.

  2. I would disagree with the statement that the Pope could never accept Kasper’s views. I think that the evidence has shown that Francis is in perfect agreement with Kasper, only that the Pope lets Kasper speak for him publicly. The office of the papacy does not have Impeccability. The Pope can embrace Kasper’s heretical views of his own free will and teach them. Popes can fall into heresy. Popes can then expose their heretical views for the Church to see and be scandalized.
    Papal Infallibilty is very limited and applies only to ex cathedra statements. The Holy Ghost will prevent a Pope from teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but the Holy Ghost will not prevent the Pope from actually holding a heresy and spreading his error. The Pope is a man with free will who can reject the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    • I believe the operative word in that statement was “officially.” He has never, and can never, officially endorse heretical views. That’s what the office prevents. It keeps him from ex officio or ex cathedra errors in faith and morals.

      • Right I agree, but what happens if Kasper and the Germans are able to get their way at the synod with the silent approval of the Pope? The world, the media, even most Catholics would see this as “official.” They won’t be able to make the distinction. A heretical decision from the synod could never change the Magisterium, but the world would think that it had. There would be a disastrous diabolical confusion.

        • That’s precisely why this topic deserves consideration. The analogous situation would be the lead-up to Humanae Vitae. The Church didn’t change her teaching, but many in the Church gave the impression that she would. When HV came out, it was a fait accompli, and now somewhere north of 90% of Catholics contracept.

          We need to be vigilant and honest about whatever transpires. Sin and the distortion of the faith are only one effect; we now are facing the ever-increasing threat of sacrilege as well.

  3. The danger here is that the dissidents may pull a “Vatican II”. The Pope may make orthodox statements, give orthodox homilies, and support the eternal teachings of the Church concerning marriage and the family. But, behind the scenes, and within the confines of the multitude of study groups, committees, and advisory groups, heterodox practices develop, which will be used by the various national bishop’s conferences. In the end, priests and bishops at the local levels will say that in the “Spirit of the Synod on the Family” they are only dispensing Christ’s Mercy to divorced, married couples. Who knows? Cardinal Kasper also has voiced ideas about artificial contraception (it is not the business of the Church). His ideas on artificial contraception may work their way into the study groups.

    The Synod will be a 2 year fun fest for activists to do their thing. It would not in the least surprise me that in the end, much damage will be done.

  4. You can only get to God through Jesus. To call the Pope the Holy Father is blasphemy. I have left the Catholic Church who has misled us for years. The Vatican is an evil place where they worship satan. May Jesus return soon.

  5. If King Henry the 8th had lived today he could have simply divorced his wives and got an annulment from the Church. The English reformation would never have happend if the Church back then was as lax about divorce as it is today.

  6. God Bless Cardinal Kasper. I feel sorry for those in broken marriages, and unfortunately it is a sign of the times. When corruption dominates public life in all spheres, even up to the Vatican things get very messy on the ground. It is time for some leadership coming from the Church leaders, and Cardinal Burke is showing his colleagues how to do that. It sounds like he will pay for being a man with his career unfortunately ( But for one small moment I saw a truthful and courageous statement coming from the leadership in the Vatican, and that alone is enough to strengthen my faith. Pray for Cardinal Burke and fro Pope Francis to make the right decisions.

  7. Am I the only one absolutely amazed it’s going to take two years to decide this? Let’s see, “Jesus said, ‘no divorce’.” Done. Let’s hit the buffet.

  8. The real question in my mind is “Is the Pope a Catholic?”. Since he is a Jesuit there is a 90% chance that his prompting spirit is St. Ignoramus of DisLoyala. He should review what Ignatius said about discernment.

  9. How is it that all of these heretical priests, bishops,nuns, archbishops and cardinals, not to mention theologians managed to sneak by the V2 Popes? Haven’t people like you, Michael Davis, Prof William Marra, the Wanderer, the Remnant, Catholic Family News, EWTN, and Fatima Crusader been sending the secret messages to the Vatican to watch out for these guys. Maybe the message has not been getting through–or maybe the message has not been getting through to you guys.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...