Vatican should engage SSPX with detailed theological arguments

 The Society of St Pius X, without Vatican permission, proceeded with consecrating new bishops on July 1st 2026. This was done under appeal to a "state of necessity" as described in canon law as an exception to normative ecclesial law.

KEY TAKEAWAY: VATICAN HAS TO ENGAGE CONCERNS 

In their June 2026 Profession of Faith, the SSPX raised concerns about several "modern errors" harming souls in the Church today, such as: naturalism which attacks the necessity of grace, subjectivism, immutability of dogma, false ecumenism, and liturgical attacks, to name a few.

In moving forward with these bishop consecrations, the SSPX frequently referenced the Code of Canon law #1324, which states the penalty of violating a law

"must be diminished or a penance substituted in it's place, if the offence was committed by...one...who acted by reason of necessity. ...in the circumstances mentioned, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae [i.e. automatic] penalty, but may have lesser penalties or penances imposed for the purposes of repentance or repair of scandal.”

That paragraph corresponds to the 1917 Code of Canon law, which says in paragraph 2205:

"Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law."

You see in each case the concept of "necessity" can be a deal-breaker in part or entirely when violating a particular ecclesial law.

Because this exceptional circumstance is described in Canon Law, it is reasonable to expect those who opine on the current SSPX situation to account for that exception, given that the SSPX is appealing to it. A large number of commentators have not done so. Pointing out the normative ecclesial laws is insufficient. An analogous situation would be the obligation a child has to obey his parent. This is normative lest the parent issues an immoral or unfulfillable directive, for example. And pointing out the normative law to honor one’s parents minus the existing context would be insufficient to address such a situation.

Ultimately, the SSPX believes their role in preserving Church Tradition and the Traditional Liturgy is one of serving souls. On May 12, 2026, the SSPX explained how even in the current pontificate, Cardinal Roche wrote that allowing the TLM was a "concession that in no way envisioned its promotion." The SSPX lamented this as one of the Church hierarchy's "modern errors" and therefore it is:

"more necessary than ever to allow the maximum number of souls to benefit from the treasures of Tradition and, given its worldwide expansion, two bishops aged nearly 70 are no longer sufficient to meet the expectations of all the faithful and seminarians."

The problem is neither the Vatican nor the Pope have confronted this the SSPX argument that they are in a state of necessity to proceed with the ordinations. The closest the Vatican has come to addressing the SSPX's contention is an invitation to "dialogue" about what the SSPX is required to believe – not, apparently, to address the SSPX’s concerns about the state of the Church in lieu of Vatican II or otherwise.

Some have criticized the SSPX because they are not the sole order promoting the Traditions they seek to restore to commonplace. Other societies or orders include the ICKSP or the Canons Regular. Yet, given the SSPX’s desire to serve the “maximum number of souls” with Traditional Rites and culture, this criticism falls short that would require the SSPX to be the only such society in order to justify consecrations.

SSPX-VATICAN RECENT TIMELINE 

Let's look at a general timeline of key events.

A February 8, 2026 statement by the SSPX seminary director stated:

"[O]ur Superior General requested an audience with the Pope several months ago. But alas, this audience has still not been granted. He has written several letters to the Pope and, so far, the only response he has received from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is a negative one."

The SSPX requests for meeting with the Pope extend back several years.

Finally, they were able to meet with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fernandez is known for a number of scandalous sexual writings in his past and more recently his heretical opinion endorsing the blessing of same-sex "couples" as “couples” in his work Fiducia Supplicans and since.

On February 12, Fernandez met with the superior general of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani. After the meeting, Fernandez invited the SSPX for further "dialogue." Fernandez mentioned that they discussed "certain points" that the SSPX had brought up as far back as 2017, such as the "question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions." He said "the aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church..."

Pagliarani responded within a week, rejecting this invitation to "dialogue" on several grounds. Among them are that Fernandez allegedly told them no text of the Vatican II council can be corrected nor the legitimacy of the liturgical reform challenged. Another reason Pagliarani gave is the Vatican’s desire to now "dialogue" instead of approving the consecrations and still offering dialogue. Pagliarani stated: "We have been waiting for seven years... only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional." He also mentioned that Fernandez included publicly made "threats" of schism as part of his communication inviting dialogue. Pagliarani also noted that what is the "minimum requirement" to be believed has already been established in Tradition and isn't something their dialogue can re-evaluate.

Later, Fernandez addressed the SSPX on May 13, 2026 in a 2-paragraph message saying the SSPX "do not have the requisite papal mandate" to ordain bishops.

The communication still lacked engagement with the SSPX's concerns about the Vatican Council or otherwise; nothing about their claim to "state of necessity" to ordain bishops; and no engagement with the SSPX's larger concerns about the state of the Church or "modern errors." Fernandez's statement merely says no, and does not provide any theological satisfaction as to why. A sound confrontation with grievances issued by the SSPX in a manner transparent to the entire Church could have gone a long way. If the Vatican had good reason to deny the episcopal consecrations, it would have been edifying for the entire Church to see that laid out.

For his part, Pope Leo has been mostly silent. During an informal media Q&A, the Pope said, "[The SSPX] refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with several points of the Second Vatican Council." Yet, he offered no specifics on what these “fundamental” points of the Second Vatican Council are.

On June 29, two days prior to the consecrations, the Pope issued a short letter to the SSPX. He neither engaged with any of the SSPX's concerns. He merely asked them to not commit a "schismatic act" and to "please turn back."

EXCOMMUNICATION IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH 

July 1 came and went and the Vatican quickly issued a statement that the SSPX members were excommunicated and considered schismatic. https://wherepeteris.com/decree-of-excommunication-for-the-sspx/

Even after Fernandez declared the SSPX excommunicated, he issued a statement meant for any priests and lay faithful with the SSPX. Fernandez's statement included the command to "accept the Second Vatican Council." Many have observed: what exactly does that even mean?

There has been no public communication from the Vatican as to why the SSPX request to ordain bishops was denied, nor what these mysterious fundamentals of the Second Vatican Council are that apparently contradict the SSPX's June statement of faith?

It's also worth noting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, said of Vatican II: 

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest." 

What are we to do with that fact? If Vatican II defined no dogma, then what "fundamental" "points" does it uniquely contain that are apparently so important as to be held lest one risk excommunication?

The SSPX issued a lengthy Profession of Faith in June. If parts of that Profession contradicted Church teaching - whether articulated through Vatican II or otherwise - what were those objectionable parts, according to Fernandez? He never addresses the question.

The faithful are left with three main options here:

One, is to speculate what "points" in the documents of the Second Vatican Council rise to the level of dogmatic requirement of belief? - points that evidentally escaped the notice of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI who said the council issued no dogmas?

Second, is to adopt a cynical belief and presume Fernandez (and the Pope by permission) seek to stifle the ministry of a traditional society to protect the very modernist path the SSPX says is poisoning the Church.

Third, is to acknowledge the complexities of the whole scandal and let the matter play out without drawing any consequential conclusions.

DAMAGE TO VATICAN'S MORAL AUTHORITY 

This lack of theological engagement by the Pope and Vatican officials is significant, particularly when the last two pontificates have so frequently pushed the concept of "synodality" and "dialogue" with everyone on the planet, but not the SSPX. It’s hard to accuse the SSPX of avoiding dialogue when they waited unsuccessfully for several years for papal engagement, issued lengthy detailed theological positions, and were met almost entirely with silence or vague denials.

So the situation the Church is now in, with relation to the SSPX, is that this order and it's members merit decrees of excommunication and schism, but not bishops who promote "LGBT" or who even call to "bless" same-sex "couples" as does Cardinal Fernandez – the very man who is supposed to uphold the doctrines of the Church. We are told the SSPX merits excommunication but not the bishops in China who the rest of the world understands as appointed by the state government. Even this past week a bishop with heretical views on sexuality was appointed bishop of a new ordinary in Germany.

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons - in an article condemning the SSPX for breaking unity with the Pope - still recognized the Vatican's hypocrisy: 

"Popes meet with every heretical Christian leader on the planet, with promoters of immorality, and with degenerate Hollywood celebrities, but not with the head of a thriving, growing community within its ranks. All because the community supposedly doesn’t “accept Vatican II” (a sin the Vatican will not actually define). If only the Vatican had been so bold over the years in disciplining Catholics who rejected Vatican II’s condemnation of birth control (Gaudium et Spes 51) or the Council’s defense of the necessity of the Church for salvation (Lumen Gentium 14)." 

In their untoward treatment of the SSPX, or even other traditionalists in recent years, while cozying up to numerous persons or groups promoting immorality and outright heresy (like the recent female in the Anglican Church pantomiming as a "bishop"), Vatican officials have been sterilizing their moral authority. Henceforth, some form of "why didn’t you treat the SSPX this generously?" will accompany Vatican officials' future collaborations with anti-Catholic parties.

This decree of schism and excommunication is particularly vexing coming from Fernandez because in October 2025, Fernandez censored the title of "Co-redemptrix" for Our Lady because, according to him, "When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful." Yet, here is Fernandez's decree of schism and excommunication, accompanied by zero explanation, no engagement with the SSPX's concerns, leaving the faithful unclear as to what parts of Vatican II rise to the level of dogma in contradistinction with the SSPX's statement of faith, etc. Under this vague nebula, Fernandez declared a religious order schismatic and excommunicated.

Remember, the only hint Fernandez provided as to why the SSPX is excommunicated and schismatic is that they don’t “accept” unspecified points of Vatican II. Yet, there are plenty of statements from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that many priests disobey, including the Vatican itself at times.

For example, Vatican II confirmed that salvation only exists through the Catholic Church, yet in September 2024, Pope Francis famously said, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God.”

Sacrosanctum Consilium #36 states: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Yet the Vatican hasn't remotely enforced this directive.

Nowhere does Vatican II call for ad populum posture when the priest says mass facing the congregation, instead of ad orientum as he had for centuries.

One criticism of the SSPX that some traditionalists are making is the timing of the SSPX's consecrations. For example, Dr. Taylor Marshal expressed reservations "about the prudence of doing this this early in the pontificate of Pope Leo." Other traditionalists hedged there criticism as well. In his Crisis Magazine article, Eric Sammons said the SSPX should not have done the consecrations because it set them against the Pope, the source of unity in the Church, however, he said, "I think the pope should have approved the episcopal consecrations in an act of mercy and reconciliation."

What many of the faithful would like to have seen is the Pope or his Vatican representative present a thorough engagement with the SSPX's concerns, to handle the matter with full transparency, in a manner easy to understand.

IS THE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM AGAINST THE SSPX VALID? 

There are at least 3 perspectives on this question.

The first argument is YES - that the decree of excommunication and schism against the SSPX is valid because it belongs to the office of the Papacy or his representative to wield this jurisdiction. The Vatican holds this position and have declared the SSPX excommunicated automatically for ordaining bishops without papal permission and thus schismatic for disuniting with the Pope on this matter.

This argument is also predicated on the Papacy as the source of unity throughout the centuries. What complicates this position is that the SSPX openly recognizes Pope Leo XIV. The question is whether their disobedience constitutes disunity with the Pope in the sense it has meant throughout the centuries.

The second argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the SSPX is said to be innocent of the crimes which they are accused of doing. Prior to the declared excommunication/schism, Monsignor Jaime Mercant Simo, professor and doctor in Thomistic Studes, address the questions this way: 

But the "latae sententiae" excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right? — From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, such excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and legal-philosophical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it to me from a purely legalistic viewpoint. However, I think that, in addition to the "state of necessity" being present as the fundamental motive, the "formal reason" for which such a penalty should effectively occur fails, given that there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat. 

Why isn't it formally [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. Now, in this case, neither one nor the other will happen. 

After Cardinal Fernandez issued his excommunication and schism decree, a number of canon experts opined that the penalty lacks force. Those holding this view include InfoVaticana and Canon of Shaftesbury - a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese.

The Canon of Shaftesbury amplifies what appears to be a relevant canon in the penal process. Canon 1720 states that in a penal process, the ordinary must "inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense..." It seems neither of these requirements were met.

Fernandez, as we have mentioned several times above, has issued no detailed rebuttal nor "proof" of what beliefs the SSPX hold that are objectionable. The generic idea that they must "accept the Second Vatican Council" is not-specific enough to be understood and cannot qualify as a "proof" of impropriety. It follows that the SSPX was not afforded an opportunity for self-defense either.

Others, like EWTN canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, have observed that Pope Francis had endorsed the SSPX's faculties to hear confessions and preside over marriages. Cardinal Fernandez's decree claims to have revoked those privileges. However, those faculties require papal reversal given that they were issued by a prior Pope.

Related to this second argument is one posited by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who observes that the Church even unto ancient times did not consider an episcopal consecration made without papal approval a schismatic act. Rather it was disobedience given a suspension.

The third argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the one issuing the decree - namely Cardinal Fernandez - is himself a heretic and thus his faculties to issue such a degree were forfeited. This argument would point to something like Fernandez's apparent denial of an objective truth like the objective immorality of same-sex behavior, which he denies in his encouragement to offer a blessing over that objective immorality. Or it could be another of his positions that are considered heretical.

This third argument also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa 2.2.39, who stated: 

"On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid."

This third argument would have difficulty if Pope Leo formalizes the excommunications while no sound case of heresy was established of him. In any case, it is implausible that the Pope would declare Fernandez heretical at this point, and he would be the most fitting one to do it. If this third argument were true, it would foremost beheld in the eyes of God.

AN AVOIDABLE SCANDAL 

This entire scandal could have been avoided on several fronts.

Obviously, the modernist tendencies of the Church have been poisonous for several decades, from liturgical abuses to "cancelled" priests to affronts to dogmatic sexual teaching to contradicting Sacred Tradition. These matters are serious and are the impetus for the SSPX's actions.

Of course, the SSPX, for their part, could have submitted to the Pope's request to not consecrate the bishops, or they could have given the Pope more time, etc. Certainly, the Vatican's failure to give the SSPX a reasonable engagement with problems in the Church today also contributed to any impatience of which the SSPX may be guilty.

The Pope also could have simply approved the SSPX's request for consecrating the bishops. Why was this denied? Because the SSPX had grievances about the trajectory of the Church that were so untenable to Fernandez as to remain unspecified? But that would not explain why Fernandez wouldn't have declared the SSPX schismatic and excommunicated prior to the consecrations. If the Pope (and Fernandez) truly desired the dialogue they claimed to desire, this could have been done just as easily if the SSPX had 4 more or less bishops.

At worst, the Vatican through Fernandez have committed an injustice against the SSPX and the Church throughout centuries of Tradition. At best, the Vatican rightfully sanctioned the SSPX, but their hypocritical in how they treat other clearly heretical clergy is amplified.

Ultimately, the faithful are left with yet another scandal.

If the death penalty violates human dignity, so does a $5 fine

Recently, Pope Leo XIV echoed the sentiment of his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis, on the admissibility of the death penalty. In so doing, he joined Francis' departure from hundreds of Popes and Tradition prior. Other sound articles have examined the Tradition on the death penalty, such as “Two problems with Dignitas Infinita” by Dr. Edward Feser.

What this article will do is examine two aspects of Leo's (and Francis's) argument. 

First: Why appealing to human dignity as a disqualifier of the death penalty, Leo necessarily disqualifies any punishment that is ordinarily an affront to the human person.

Second: A rebuttal to the assertion that the death penalty uniquely deprives the guilty from the opportunity to repent.

HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Pope Leo stated: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

In saying this, Leo appealed to the right to life that is natural and properly due to the human person. Man, in the image of God, is a moral creature with various obligations and due rights associated with that dignity.

In saying man’s dignity is “inviolable,” Leo implies that a man guilty of, say, murder, is always due his right to life since that is a right due to man naturally.

Leo added: “The right to life is the very foundation of every other human right.”

But if a guilty man retains his right to that which is his right naturally, then by the same reasoning, so too would imprisonment or even a monetary fine violate the guilty man’s dignity. After all, freedom is a right of man naturally. The right to one’s possessions is a right of man naturally.

"The Ten Commandments...bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person." (CCC#2070)

The Catechism section on the 7^th commandment (Thou Shall Not Steal) specifically states man’s right to his own money flows from his dignity:

"In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice...of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what is his due." (CCC#2407)

And yet, in punishing the guilty, monetary fines are often given. But if man’s dignity is “inviolable” in the context that Popes Leo and Francis have applied, then a monetary fine would violate the seventh commandment as robbery of the guilty man—an affront to his inherent dignity by which he has the right to his own possessions. It would merely be a lesser affront to the guilty man than the death penalty. But it equates to the two latest popes endorsing a lesser sin by their own reasoning.

OBJECTION TO DEATH PENALTY DEPRIVING THE GUILTY A CHANCE TO REPENT

Leo also singled out the death penalty suggesting it was an impediment to repentance. He stated:

“Effective systems of detention can be and have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Therefore, a defender of Pope Leo might argue that the death penalty is different than imprisonment or a monetary fine on this notion that the death penalty deprives the guilty of a chance to repent.

However, not only does the death penalty not deprive the guilty of a chance to repent, but tradition has interpreted the death penalty as a mechanism by which the guilty is moved to repentance. For example:

“They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 3.146)

According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.2.64.2)

“It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace.  ... because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis 13, 1588)

Even in the case of the execution of one condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. It is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the 'good' of life, in expiation of his fault, after he, through his crime, has dispossessed himself of his 'right' to life. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, September 14, 1952)

"The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., Catholicism & Capital Punishment, First Things, April 2001)

Pope Francis' false appeal to "communion" in blocking Latin Mass

Pope Francis' backwardly named motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, appealed to a fictional disunity as justification for restricting the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). 

In the document, Francis acknowledged both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI's move to promote the TLM for "the concord and unity of the Church." Two paragraphs later, Francis called for the exact opposite of his predecessors, and instead restricted the TLM for the sake of "ecclesial communion." 

Pope Francis photo by Juan David Tena, accessed at Wikimedia Commons

On November 30, 2023, EWTN's Raymond Arroyo interviewed Abp. Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict's personal secretary.

Gänswein recalled asking Pope Emeritus Benedict in 2021 about Pope Francis' document oppressing the TLM. 

"Holy Father can I ask you a question? ... I do not understand that motu proprio because the liberty you gave with your motu proprio years ago has brought peace in the liturgy and in the Church. And I feel this motu proprio will cause many, many problems." 

Gänswein then recalled Benedict's answer: "I hope God will help us."

Gänswein's instinct in 2021 has proven correct, as today we see "many, many problems" largely issuing from Pope Francis' antagonism for the TLM and the faithful attending. Following Francis' motu proprio, a multitude of vexed faithful have cried out. Francis' action, rather than following a trajectory of unity, has given rise to multiple faithful individuals and even formal organizations pleading for the restoration of the TLM. 

We knew nothing of such resistance and disunion during the time period Francis claimed disunity needed fixing. John Paul II wrote his indult in 1984; Pope Benedict his motu proprio in 2007. Pope Francis' motu proprio was in 2021. No such disunity between 1984 and 2021 existed. As Gänswein said, Benedict's motu proprio "brought peace." 

Speaking of the language, Pope Pius XI in 1922 said that Latin was a "great bond of unity." Pope Pius XII in 1947 said Latin was a "beautiful sign of unity."

Obstruction of Latin is also a disunion with the saints of old. For at the divine liturgy, the saints and angels are present. We especially acknowledge this during the confiteor when calling to angels and saints. Liturgical unity is not an enterprise trapped in a single generation. The presence of angels and saints for all of Christianity should not be ignored in the scope of "unity" in the Liturgy. Beyond the language, the new mass arguably preserved a mere 13% of the content of the traditional liturgy. Appealing to the new mass as somehow more unifying than a centuries-old liturgy is nonsensical.

Among the reasons the late Cardinal George Pell said of Francis "this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe" were because " liturgical tensions are inflamed and not dampened" under Francis.

6 political behaviors of the Francis pontificate

Pope Francis and many of the bishops and Vatican spokespersons during his pontificate frequently behave in a manner matching modern propagandistic politicians. There are many examples. Here are 6.

CENSORSHIP

Francis Pontificate: Not only did the Pope command suffocation of the Traditional Latin Mass, but Vatican officials subsequently issued instruction censoring the TLM from being included among the bulletin mass times.

Hundreds of priests find themselves “cancelled” for reasons kept hidden by the aggressing bishops. In the typical case, there is no impropriety even alleged by the bishops. These priests are forbidden from public ministry. The latest inexcusable scandal was Pope Francis declaring the orthodox Bishop Joseph Strickland’s office in Texas vacant without due cause.

Politics: Recently, we’ve seen western governments even controlling social media sites to limit what is said and by whom. For example, Facebook has censored video of a living unborn baby. Both Facebook and Twitter censored a news story just prior to the 2020 election about Joe Biden’s son that was indisputably true. Social media knowingly censored true Covid information. Once the latest Ukraine conflict started, Youtube censored Oliver Stone’s 2016 film Ukraine on Fire, which incriminated the West in the 2014 Maidan coup. Youtube also recently removed interviews for the film The Sound of Freedom, which exposed a vast child-trafficking international network. It's a warlike tactic to take out an opponent's communication channels. These are a fraction of the censorship and account banning that has occurred in recent years at the behest of politicians.

Pope Francis 2016 (from Wikimedia Commons)

BLAMING A PROXY

Francis Pontificate: At the close of the recent “Synod on Synodality,” German heretical bishop Georg Bätzing claimed the “overwhelming majority of a world church has chosen” the sexual perversions he and many bishops (especially in Germany) have propagated. Of course, this is asserted gratuitously, because the practicing faithful believe the Church’s true moral teachings. The bishop points the finger at the faithful as a proxy for advancing his own ambitions.

Pointing the finger at the second Vatican council is also a common theme during the Francis pontificate. A Vatican official recently said, “Francis is the one who is pushing forward the application of Vatican II.” Yet Vatican II did not call for many of the Pope’s chief causes, such as the oppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Roche even claimed “The Council Fathers perceived the urgent need for a reform” in his letter defending suppression of Traditional Latin Mass. When cited this way, Vatican II has become a Rorschach blot, a proxy for advancing causes the Council did not call to advance.

Politics: The censorship tactic also ties into this, as government officials launder their power through big tech, belying the argument that these are “private companies.” They are instead used as proxies to do the bidding of the government entity.

In the Ukraine conflict, both NATO and U.S. politicians have insisted involvement in the war is limited to Russia and Ukraine and not NATO nor the U.S. However: In September, NATO candidly confessed the NATO expansion east was a cause for Russia’s response; the April Discord leaks show that the Pentagon was the source of war plans to which Ukraine did not have access; Hillary Clinton has said favor for Ukraine come with “strings;” British intelligence flat out said they support Ukraine so they can hurt Russia for non-acceptance of Western “lgbt+” ideology; President Biden’s son spearheaded funding for bioweapon research in Ukraine; and U.S. Undersecretary Victoria Nuland confirmed involvement with Ukraine biolabs. Sen. Tim Scott proudly said the U.S. was using “Ukranian blood” in the U.S. effort to weaken Russia. These are just a few of the direct involvements and interests the West has in Ukraine well beyond “freedom” help.

So, while Western politicians say their support is just altruism to help Ukraine, the operation appears ordered for Western interests. Ukraine is the proxy.

HYPOCRISY

A quick word on “hypocrisy.” The concept of hypocrisy is not merely condemning someone for that which one does himself. Someone addicted to smoking would be quite right and not hypocritical to discourage others from doing the same. Hypocrisy as used here is to condemn another for a behavior one condones for himself.

Francis Pontificate: Synod on Synodality pitchmen speak of the “openness” of the event. Yet participants are sworn to secrecy.

Pope Francis often makes statements like “say an emphatic ‘no’ to all forms of clericalism” while his pontificate is plump with clericalism. One example would be his attitude of placing himself above Church Fathers and preceding Popes when he rejected their teaching on the death penalty. Another is his absolutization of the Novus Ordo mass, in which the priest’s ad populum posture is a textbook form of clericalism. Other examples abound.

Politics: One of the politicized tactics of the abortion industry is to accuse the pro-life movement of being against “choice.” Of course, “choice” is a euphemism the abortion industry uses to disguise the intentional termination of an innocent human life. Meanwhile, when doctors offer women an actual “choice,” such as the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol, the abortion industry has responded by attempting to silence that treatment, most recently in Colorado and California.

As mentioned above, the West has denied leveraging proxies throughout the business world – especially tech - and the international scene. Ironically, Nuland said last year, “It is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves.”

FICTIONAL VICTIMS

Francis Pontificate: One of the battle cries of the Synod on Synodality is reaching out to people labeled “marginalized,” such as women or so-called “LGBT+” etc. As Professor Regis Martin said recently, “I have yet to meet any of these people. Who exactly are they whom we’ve so cruelly consigned to the margins of ecclesial life? … I really have not seen anyone who fits the description.”

Of course, the victimhood expressed here is fictional, since all of humanity is invited to participate in the full life of the Church, and the above persons are no exception. The only ostracized group today are the TLM attendees, ostracized by that very pontificate, and referred to in official Vatican documents as “members of the said group” distinct from all the other faithful. The heterodox cries of marginalization of women or the sexual identities commit a form of the fallacy of equivocation, confusing the non-possibility of a female priest or the non-possibility of blessing a sinful relationship as “marginalizing” those people. It’s similar to the modern world’s poorly thought-out attempt to redefine “love” as “endorsing” whatever someone does.

Politics: Fictional victimhood in the Synod mirrors fictional victimhood tactics in the world. Leftist ideologues have been conditioned to seek refuge in victimhood even when they act as bigoted aggressor. For example, in December, the Family Foundation had reserved a dining room at a restaurant later discovered to be owned by a leftist. Once the owner discovered the group was pro-life and pro-marriage, the owner rescinded the reservation and released a delusional statement claiming the Family Foundation sought to “deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights” and that the restaurant staff felt “unsafe.” Of course, the natural law and millennia-old notion of marriage and desire to protect innocent life is no cause for alarm.

Another example of fictional victimhood prowls the world of modern feminism, which asserts that women are denied “equal pay” for equal work. However, the statistics they use for this assertion conflate the average pay of males and females in totality, ignoring job-types or amount of work. When those factors are accounted for, the so-called discrimination virtually vanishes. A hallucination of victimhood occurred when the U.S. women’s national soccer team cried foul on equal pay because they themselves rejected the collective bargaining agreement under which they would have made more had they signed it when offered.

EUPHEMISMS

Francis Pontificate: Pope Francis often uses the term “backwardness” as a pejorative against orthodox Catholics. He said, “There is incredible support for restorationism, what I call indietrismo (backwardness).” The term is non-theological. As a concept, looking backward per se is neither good nor bad. It depends to what one is looking back. Certainly, the Church in every age has looked back toward the Apostolic deposit and the preceding Magisterium to guide matters of the day. As mentioned in the proxy section above, Francis himself is ever looking “backward” to Vatican II and the 1960s to defend many of his teachings. In rejecting what he claims is “backwardness” of orthodox Catholics, he ironically (and unconvincingly) appeals to the 5^th century’s St. Vincent of Lerins. Also ironic is that his document detaching from Tradition is called Traditionis Custodes, which in word means “guardians of tradition” and in practice means obliterator of tradition. While Pope Francis belittles such “restorationism,” predecessors such as Pope Pius X said where “Christian doctrine…is neglected, to restore it.”

Another common term used by Francis and heterodox bishops is “accompaniment.” This is, again, a concept that is neither good nor bad, per se. It depends on who one is accompanying. Proverbs 13:20 says “[T]he companion of fools will suffer harm.” In 2018, Cardinal Cupich exposed the term as a vehicle leading to the 2023 Synod, which, among other offenses, blurred the authority of the hierarchy and laity: “Thus, in a genuinely synodal Church there is no hierarchical distinction between those with knowledge and those without. As such, the most important consequence of this call to accompaniment ought to be greater attention to the voices of the laity, especially on matters of marriage and family life.” Opening doctrine in this way to any laity has resulted in various justifications of sinful behaviors. Fr. Jerry Pokorsky explained: “instead of accompanying our Lord on the way of the cross, many Church leaders choose to accommodate sinners on sinners’ terms.”

Related to “accompaniment” is “inclusion.” The Synod touted concepts like “radical inclusion” in the context of women and so-called “LGBT+,” etc. But, as discussed in the fictional victims section above, the notion that any group is excluded is really only applicable today to TLM attendees against whom the Francis pontificate has been plainly hostile. Polish Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki said the modernist term “‘inclusiveness’ implies an acceptance of how a person defines him or herself, as if defining oneself were in obvious conformity with reality, inherently unquestionable, and therefore demanding affirmation.”

Politics: The abortion industry is dependent on lies, including many euphemisms like “reproductive health” or “her body.”

The gay “marriage” movement hides behind many euphemistic slogans like “love is love,” “same love” or “marriage equality,” none of which address the root of the matter of what is a marriage or what is a man and woman.

The term “underrepresented” is used to signal supposed injustice if there are not enough of certain people of a particular demographic involved in a business, industry, film, or similar. It’s also applied inconsistently. Modern use of “representation” is a euphemism to condition people to perceive injustice where there is none. Politicians then leverage this. Merely sharing, say, skin color, with another person does not amount to any sense of relevant “representation.” If a white female devout Catholic is asked who better represents her, Nancy Pelosi or Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, she’s going to pick Cardinal Arinze. Today’s political use of “representation” appeals to trivial demographic characteristics when those characteristics are irrelevant to the context at hand.

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY

Francis Pontificate: The Pope’s quest to eradicate the Traditional Latin Mass is outside the scope of his authority. Cardinal Roche also abused authority proper to local bishops when he attempted to police them to impose Pope Francis’ Latin Mass restriction.

The removal of priests or even bishops without due cause is also external to the Pope’s or a bishop’s authority.

The Vatican Press office declared the Church was now ruled by Pope Francis as an individual, as opposed to the authority of Scripture and Tradition.

Politics: In an explicit overlap between the Francis pontificate and politics, the FBI was caught spying on traditional Catholics.

A court recognized the “abuse of authority” the U.S. government attempted to impose when demanding “vaccine mandates.”

Another court blocked Minnesota’s Democrat Secretary of State from forbidding the opposition party’s overwhelming leading candidate from appearing on the ballot.

FINAL THOUGHTS

What these overlapping tactics and language patterns between the Church and the world suggest is that the world is over-influencing the Church if not outright directing it. Language tricks and political tactics are not native to the pursuit of sound doctrine nor pastoral and familial leadership. It is indicative of a modern and worldly infection warned against by many in Church history:

Everyone must understand that such ravings and others like them, concealed in many deceitful guises, cause greater ruin to public calm the longer their impious originators are unrestrained. They cause a serious loss of souls redeemed by Christ’s blood wherever their teaching spreads, like a cancer; it forces its way into public academies, into the houses of the great, into the palaces of kings, and even enters the sanctuary, shocking as it is to say so. (Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile, 7, 1775)

The common enemy of the human race is wholly engaged in undermining faith, destroying truth and disrupting unity by worldly wisdom, heretical discussion, subtle, clever deceit, and even, where possible, by the use of force. (St. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 2, 1873)

According to these rules, Venerable Brethren, you should judge those to whom you will entrust the ministry of the divine word. Whenever you find any of them departing from these rules, being more concerned with their own interests than those of Jesus Christ and more anxious for worldly applause than the welfare of souls, warn and correct them. If that proves insufficient, be firm in removing them from an office for which they have proven themselves unworthy. (St. Pius X, Pieni L’animo, 9, 1906)

2 paths to save the immoral culture

What will solve the immoral madness that has seized the world today? The Western world is largely responsible for fostering various sexual deviance, abortion, sterilizations, child predation, anti-marriage and family, fatherless homes, drug overdose, and various other immoralities.

There are at least two key fronts by which this hellish trajectory can be altered.

#1: The Church restores moral authority

Abortion and various sexual, economic, and societal indecencies have infected the world, in a particular way, the West (predominantly North America, Western Europe, and Australia). The primary and non-negotiable path to save the moral decadence in the West must come from the Church. The current generation of papacy and bishops is largely infected with a secular bent hostile to truth and tradition.

Our Lady of Akita in 1973, fifty years ago, prophesied:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres.

In recent days, we’ve seen no less. One archbishop called out a Cardinal’s acceptance of sexual perversion at the divine liturgy, another archbishop called out a Cardinal’s heresy on sexuality, another Cardinal called out the bishops of Germany for openly embracing heresy, and holy priests remain persecuted and removed unjustly from ministry by their own bishops. Even the Pope is in contradiction to his predecessors and Vatican council fathers on the liturgy and otherwise. Cardinal Zen this week called to the attention of bishops the revolutionary sexual deviance promoted by the German bishops, allowed by the Pope to persist to date, and warning that a goal of some at the “Synod on Synodality” is “sexual morality different from that of Catholic Tradition.”

The sex abuse scandal, predominantly victimizing young males, continues to come to light. Liturgical abuses are all too common.  Pagan influence permeates the current hierarchy. The secrecy of the sex abuse scandal has moved to secrecy in “cancelling” good priests. And there are other scandals throughout the Church hierarchy, sadly too numerous to enumerate.

Meanwhile, a supermajority of “Catholics” are apparently contracepting against the moral order. Only a small minority agree fully with the Church on abortion. Suicides are hitting record highs. Teen depression is spiking. In the past several years, youth have been conditioned to embrace heterodox sexuality to the point that 20% of Gen Z thinks they are “nonbinary.”

Such tragically off-course results coincide with a Church hierarchy too silent on orthodoxy, morality and the meaning of the human person, marriage, life, sexuality, and humility. Instead of feeding the flock a foundation for virtues, they largely act as “a disciple of the world,” as Msgr. Charles Pope recently described the suspect “Synod on Synodality.”

As long as all these scandals and improprieties are permitted or endorsed by the Pope and hierarchy, the entire world will suffocate and decay under their poisons. The sanctification of the world is dependent on the sanctity of the Church.

“The world and the church are in a mess because we priests have failed to be as holy as we are called to be,” said Father John Corapi in 1997 at a retreat for priests and seminarians.

Dr. Edward Feser, professor of philosophy and scholastic, recently observed (emphasis added):

A mark of the diabolical disorder of our times is that we face grave problems (in Church, state, education, etc.) which can be solved only by those with the relevant authority, while at the same time largely having the worst possible people occupying those positions of authority.

Finally, restoration of the Latin may be a lynchpin to restoring sanity in the world. The Traditional Latin Mass’s promotion of family and anthropological realities are especially what today’s world not only lacks but often abhors.

Exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger F.S.S.P. stated:

It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself, the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church.

The Mass of St. Gregory
Spanish anonymous, ca 1490

A parallel change in rites also occurred in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, namely the rite of exorcism. While some exorcists deny a difference in efficacy of the older or new exorcism rites, the late Fr. Gabriel Amorth, exorcist of Rome, decried the new exorcism rite and obtained a dispensation to perform the rite rooted in antiquity from 1614.

On the new rite of exorcism, Fr. Amorth said, “Efficacious prayers, prayers that had been in existence for twelve centuries, were suppressed and replaced by new ineffective prayers.” Another anonymous exorcist stated of the new rite: “The new rite will one day itself be subject to a true restoration, which will restore to the obligatory texts of the exorcist the true nature of his office.”

These changes in liturgical and exorcism rites coincide both with the aftermath of the Council and immoral norms of the cultural and sexual revolution from the 1960s and 1970s. The evidence shows that a restoration to Latin in liturgy and exorcism will restrict the current hold the devil and his minions have on the world today.

Ultimately, moral decadence will persist until the Church leads the way back to sanity.

 

#2: The East and Global South move the West to reverse course

Related to the Church dimension is a secondary political one. In the U.S., the current Administration is using a form of financial terrorism against states that do not submit to “LGBT” ideology by withholding school lunch funding that is available to states that do submit.

Western nations also use economic penalties (or even military penalties) to obtain their social demands as an international policy. While Eastern or Southern nations are not immune to corruption, the West had traditionally operated with a brand of freedom and human prosperity. Those days have vanished. The East and South at least appear to have a greater aversion to the degree of moral depravity in the West.

The West’s accelerating deterioration has been noticed around the world. The following is a small sample of countries condemning Western economic and social immorality.

• Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People’s Party) recently issued a statement: “A valid marriage is only between a biological male and biological woman… any equality offered to same-sex couples goes against religious values and seriously affects the interests of every citizen.” Indian citizens also reject the idea to modernize by “follow[ing] Western culture.”
• The group of countries forming what is known as BRICS are allying in large part to insulate themselves from Western sanctions by way of “de-dollarization.” These sanctions are often imposed against countries that do not embrace the West’s sexual proclivities. The West openly admits this, citing a nation’s “climate of intolerance” as grounds for “financial sanctions, visa restrictions, and other actions.” The U.S. currently even has a bill, HR4422, with the intention “To impose sanctions on foreign persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, and for other purposes.”
• In June,130 African signatories wrote to the U.S. Congress warning against funding immorality in Africa. They wrote:

[W]e want to express our concerns and suspicions that this funding is supporting so-called family planning and reproductive health principles and practices, including abortion, that violate our core beliefs concerning life, family, and religion.

Nations represented included: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

• Japanese citizens are opposing so-called LGBT politics because “thanks to” the West, they have seen its “horror.”
• On the current U.S. government’s abuse of the Department of Justice, the President of El Salvador observed: “Sadly, it’ll be very hard for US Foreign Policy to use arguments such as ‘democracy’ and ‘free and fair elections’, or try to condemn ‘political persecution’ in other countries, from now on”.
• At the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill stated there was a link between Western moral values and the war. “For eight years there have been attempts to destroy what exists in Donbas. And in Donbas there is a rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.” He added that having “pride parades” showed a “test of loyalty” to Western sexual propaganda. “[I]n order to join the club of those countries, you have to have a gay pride parade.”
• In November, Russia passed a law criminalizing, among other things, propaganda for “promoting non-traditional sexual relations,” sex-change operations, and pedophilia. Vyacheslav Volodin, deputy of the Russian State Duma, commented: “This decision will protect our children and the future of the country from the darkness spread by the United States and European states. We have our own traditions and values.”
• In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech that proved internationally popular, emphasizing Western notability’s sexual predation of children.

Look what [the Western elite] are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. … Millions of people in the West realize that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy, and it looks like there is no cure for that. But like I said, these are their problems, while we must protect our children, which we will do. We will protect our children from degradation and degeneration.

Meanwhile, Western leaders specifically state that “lgbt” issues are a primary factor in Western opposition to Russia in Ukraine. Four days after Putin’s speech, the Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Richard Moore said: “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights.”

• Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov also cited the West’s exportation of its sexual requirements.

“[T]he [West’s] “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the ‘enlightened Europe.’ All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilizations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

• In March, a Western ambassador from Germany traveled to the African nation of Namibia to criticize them on their growing Chinese population. The Namibian Head of State, Hage Geingob, responded sternly. “Why has this become your problem?” He contrasted the way Namibians are treated poorly in Germany versus how their relations with the Chinese are faring. “[O]ur people are being bullied in Germany. … Talk about Germans. How do you treat us there? The Chinese don’t treat us like this.”
• In September, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also spoke of turning attention to China as a result of Western economic sanctions: “[M]ost countries in the world are looking forward to the Chinese yuan transforming into an international currency, since the dollar is the West’s weapon against developing countries.”
• In a November 2021 interview with British media, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko issued strong condemnation of the West’s tactics. “I really don’t care what they think of me in England or in the USA or EU. Because the whole world has seen what you’re really like.” And, referring to Western interference in Belarus 2020 elections and possibly an alleged attempted assassination attempt in 2021, he added, “What business of yours are our elections? We don’t interfere in the UK or America, in your home, why did you come to ours and start to smash it up?”
• In March, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni finished a speech on economic policy with a comment on Western interference: “On the issue of homosexuals, we shall get time and discuss it thoroughly… The western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by trying to impose their practices on other peoples.”
• Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva explicitly condemned the United States’ role in fueling the Ukraine conflict. “It is necessary that the U.S. stops stimulating the war and talk about peace,” he said in April. Leaked documents pertaining to Russia and Brazil apparently refer to an “the West’s ‘aggressor-victim’ paradigm,” which echoes a sentiment that the West is the aggressor in many international conflicts while claiming to be on defense.
• Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recognized both the West’s interference in elections and propagandization of its sexual distortions. He said “the [EU] federalists are trying to squeeze us out. They openly wanted a change in government in Hungary.” He added: “The EU rejects Christian heritage, carries out a replacement of its population via migration ... and conducts an LGBTQ offensive.”
• A member of Poland’s parliament, Kacper Plazynski, rejected Britain’s criticism of Poland’s efforts to promote the traditional family. “I am enormously disappointed in the unit of the UK’s Home Office which fell for propaganda of a trivial radical left activist about alleged Polish discrimination of gays.” Hinting at Britain’s interference, he added. “It is up to Polish people to decide the shape and form of the Polish constitution.”
• “This is the path of Venezuela and the path of a free economy where currencies are not used to punish countries and impose sanctions,” said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in May, promising to abandon the U.S. dollar.  “The de-dollarization of global trade is an unavoidable reality that we are currently witnessing. The era of unjust sanctions and economic manipulations that harm the people is coming to an end.”
• The concept of gay “marriage” is overwhelmingly rooted in Western governments as this map illustrates.
• In April, a dignitary from the Bahamas vehemently decried England’s effort to push perversion in schools:

You can't come in my country teaching my children foolishness. Don't come in this country. Now you want to be in England, you can teach them all the boogery things you want to teach them in England. But not in the Bahamas. Don't bring that around here. And I also want to say to all you parents, all you parents who have been emailing me, texting me, listen, you all get ready. Because the time will come when all of us are going to have to stand up to protect our children. I think we have to show this government. Because what this government is doing is testing the water to see if we pass it, if we're benign and going to let it slide. We will not let it slide. Not one filthy book will be let in our classrooms and our libraries. I'm going to lead the charge. When I say let's go, I need you all to let's go. Because I ain't letting it happen.

• In July 2023, 21 international endocrinologists signed a letter condemning “the politicization of transgender healthcare in the U.S.”

Examples could go on and on. But this is a flavor for the global resistance to Western immoralities.

Jeffrey Sachs, economist and former UN advisor, recently commented on the West’s dangerous path:

The US is seen for what it is, which is, you know, most of the world saying we don't want to be led by you. Thank you. We'd like to trade with you, would like to cooperate. We don't want to be bombed by you. Thank you. … But we don't want to follow you or have your sanctions regime and so on. … I do think that the weight of the world opinion really coming together to say, come on stop already, is actually going to, one way or another, make the difference. I hope it makes the difference.

If the East and global South are sincere in their rejection of Western immorality, this could pose a problem for those immoralities to persist, even in the West. The current BRICS nations have surpassed the Western-led G20 nations in global GDP. BRICS also stands to control 80% of the world’s oil production. The West may well have to back off their insane immoral propaganda and child abuse if they want any part of commerce that will otherwise be insulated from their control. Or the West can stay the course and be king of the ashes gathering underfoot.