Taylor Marshall, Father Z and Other Catholic Bloggers Blatantly Lie About Pope Francis

The jihad being waged against Pope Francis by Those More Catholic Than the Pope ("TMCTP") is escalating to new highs, or lows, as the case may be.   In their effort to portray the Holy Father as evil and corrupt, TMCTP is now slinging anything they can against him, with no regard to the veracity of the charges whatsoever.  All they care about is if their mudslinging will stick.

TMCTP is resurrecting old scandals that were resolved before Francis ever became Pope and trying to pin them on him.  They are parsing every word he says in an attempt to prove he is teaching heresy.  They put a spotlight on all those around him and manipulate the facts to prove that Francis surrounds himself with evil.  And even when it is pointed out that none of this is true, they still refuse to accept it and instead, continue to cling to their lies.

This past week has seen constant, unrelenting attacks against Pope Francis. trying to pin scandal after scandal on the Holy Father, and even creating scandals where there are none.

But it doesn't take much to expose the truth.  Even just a cursory investigation uncovers the lies behind all of these vicious attacks.

One of the major hit men attacking the Pope is Dr. Taylor Marshall.  He is a former Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism in the mid 2000's.  He is also a traditionalist.  Marshall is one of the leaders for Those More Catholic Than the Pope.  I have not previously written about him because to do so, I would have to subject myself to his pompous hateful attacks against Pope Francis, and I just haven't had the stomach for it.

Marshall is right up there with Michael Voris as a promoter and practitioner of yellow journalism.  Marshall loves to push conspiracy theories.  One of his favorites is that Benedict was forced out of the papacy by the Freemasons and something called the Saint Gallen Mafia.

Marshall has been a strong, unflinching supporter of Archbishop Vigano, calling him completely trustworthy and not to be questioned.  I do give Marshall credit for supporting Pope Francis in the first years of his papacy, but Marshall is now an avowed enemy of the Pope.  He holds nothing back in his brutal attacks against the Holy Father.

As I wrote above, I rarely bother with Marshall.  However, Zuhlsdorf highlighted one of Marshall's podcasts this week which made me take a look.  Marshall played an old video of Pope Benedict introducing the President of Germany to the German bishops.  The bishops all shake the President's hand, but most of them did not shake Benedict's hand.

Marshall and his scary looking buddy come to the unwavering conclusion that the German bishops were deliberately snubbing the Pope, and that these disrespectful German bishops were part of the evil cabal that pushed Benedict out of the papacy.

Taylor Marshall and his scary looking friend

Zuhlsdorf picked up on this with the headline, "What the H is up with that? Does this have bearing on The Present Crisis?"  This incident happened in 2011, long before anyone knew there was ever going to be a Pope Francis.

So why do they bother with this?  As I wrote above, TMCTP, in their attempts to destroy Pope Francis, are even digging up old scandals and trying to pin them on Francis.  According to them, electing Francis was a plot against Pope Benedict.  Therefore, according to them, Francis is connected to everything.

Here is the video

The problem with this video is that there never was a scandal!!  The first comment on Zuhlsdorf's blog was as follows:

Charles E Flynn says:

2 October 2018 at 9:55 PM

The video is from 2011. Phil Lawyer has an explanation of just what is going on, and why it is not what it appears to be to us:

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=850

I find it deliciously ironic that Phil Lawler, a rabid enemy of Pope Francis, is used to debunk Marshall and Zuhlsdorf.  Here is what Lawler wrote back in 2011:

So what’s happening in this clip?

The bishops are in a receiving line. Following protocol, the Pope is introducing them to German President Christian Wulff. The Pope, trailing slightly behind Wulff, has his right hand is extended—not toward the bishop in front of him, but toward the one in front of the German leader. It is a gesture of introduction, not an attempted handshake. Notice that when a bishop does seize the Pope’s hand, the Holy Father appears somewhat distracted; he is already introducing the next bishop in the line.

If you watch the video without preconceptions, you will see no tension, no hostility in the body language of those involved. Whether or not the bishops take his hand, Pope Benedict shows no reaction. He looks tired and distracted but definitely not surprised or offended.

This is a diplomatic ritual, in which the bishops are greeting Wulff, not the Pope. When you host a party, and you introduce one friend to another, you expect the two to shake hands, but you don’t expect them to shake your hand again as well. That’s roughly what’s happening here.

Sorry to puncture balloons, but there’s no real story here.

One more interesting comment on Zuhlsdorf's blog:

JonathanTX says:

3 October 2018 at 11:14 AM

Since Charles E Flynn has showed us that not only was this from 2011 (why is this a thing now?) but it is taken out of context and is in fact not a diss of Pope Benedict, will Fr Z’s post be edited to reflect this information or removed altogether?

Of course, there is no acknowledgment of this comment from Zuhlsdorf.  He lets his post stand just as it is.  Zuhlsdorf does get some credit for leaving the comments that disprove the video, but as I said, the truth is no impediment to the enemies of Pope Francis, as seen in this comment:

Spinmamma says:

2 October 2018 at 10:47 PM

I followed the link posted by Charles Flynn. Is there any corroboration of that explanation? I must wonder why some shook his hand and some did not–even raising the hands in a gesture of rejection., if there was a set protocol. I also do not perceive the Pope’s hand moving in the familiar gesture of introduction at all. Why would he be trailing behind if he were presenting those in line to the Prime Minister. I am afraid I am not convinced by Phil Lawyer’s explanation standing alone. Is there video of another such receiving or introductory line elsewhere in the world where the persons in line react in a similar manner to Pope Benedict after shaking the hand of a political figure?

Those More Catholic Than the Pope live in their own reality, making their own truth.

I saw one more video this week from Marshall that resurrects yet another old scandal which occurred before the present Papacy and which Marshall again tries to pin on Francis.  This is a scandal that has also been used by another member of TMCTP, Lifesitenews.com, or as Mark Shea calls them, Liesitenews.com.

Here is the video

This particular accusation arises from Vigano's second letter about an almost decade-old allegation that now deceased Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, former archbishop of Westminster, had raped a 14 year old girl in the 60's.  Vigano accused Pope Francis of "halting the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor."

This is Marshall's allegation:

Yesterday to further confirm it, we have Cardinal Muller who was doing the investigation at the CDF on Murphy O'Conner, who was called off the altar, which is just sacrilegious. it's wrong. He said he doesn't want to break the papal secret, but he said yes, I no longer had papal support to continue the Cardinal Murphy O'Connor molestation rape case because in order for a cardinal to be investigated, since he is one of the Pope's men, you gotta have papal support. And Francis took it away. And that's the question. Timothy, why did Pope Francis want an investigation into molestation stopped by one of his cardinals?

Marshall states this all as fact and nothing that can be questioned, despite the fact that he gives us no sources for his information.  Marshall also tells us here that Muller has confirmed this, even breaking the Papal Secret to do so.

Hmmm.

Before we get to Scary Tim's take, let's look at the accusation that Cardinal Muller was called off the altar during Mass.  Where does that come from?

There are only two places on the entire Internet where it is reported that Cardinal Muller was ever "called off the altar" during Mass by Pope Francis.  That is in an article from July 2017 in First Things, which was quoted by Lifesitenews on September 24, 2018.  The First Things article was written by Marco Tosatti, a prominent member of TMCTP.  Tosatti is one of two journalists who helped Vigano write his testimony.  Tosatti is truly a loyal soldier in the fight against Pope Francis.

This purpose of the First Things article was to show how much Pope Francis hates the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and even more, hates Cardinal Muller.  Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is not even mentioned.

It is very important to note that Tosatti did not get his information directly from Cardinal Muller, but as he says:

To write this article, I peeped into the confidential notes I had made during the last four years regarding the German cardinal and his relations with the reigning pontiff. The notes are the result of many private conversations with high-ranking people in the Vatican who enjoyed the cardinal’s friendship.

So this is all hearsay.  Tosatti never actually talked with Cardinal Muller about this, but was told about it, at best, through second hand sources.  He gives no confirmation whatsoever.  He just reviewed notes that he had made over a four-year period.  This would never be accepted by a legitimate news outlet.

From a review of his notes, Tosatti gives us this account of Cardinal Muller being called off the altar:

The cardinal was celebrating Mass in the church attached to the congregation palace, for a group of German students and scholars. His secretary joined him at the altar: “The pope wants to speak to you.” “Did you tell him I am celebrating Mass?” asked Müller. “Yes,” said the secretary, “but he says he does not mind—he wants to talk to you all the same.”

The cardinal went to the sacristy. The pope, in a very bad mood, gave him some orders about a dossier concerning one of his friends, a cardinal. (This is a very delicate matter. I have sought an explanation of this incident from the official channels. Until the explanation comes, if it ever comes, I cannot give further details.) Obviously, Mūller was flabbergasted.

We are suppose to believe that Pope Francis was waiting in the sacristy for Cardinal Muller?  Really?  And we are suppose to believe that Pope Francis has so little respect for the celebration of the Mass that he would call the Cardinal off the altar?

This is the only place that it was ever reported that Cardinal Muller was called off the altar by Pope Francis.  More importantly, Cardinal Muller has never confirmed this at any time, completely contradicting Marshall.

And c'mon, if this actually happened, it would have been widely reported.  But not so.  No one else seems to know about this incident.  In fact, Tosatti didn't know about it until some second hand source allegedly told him.  And even after Tosatti's article, no one else picked up on this story.

Also note that Tosatti says he does not know what the "delicate matter" concerned, other than it was about "one of [Muller's] friends, a cardinal."  There is no link here to Cardinal Murphy O'Connor whatsoever.

So how do we go from Tosatti's account to the accusation that this was all about calling off the O'Connor investigation?  From Lifesitenews.com:

Tosatti and LifeSiteNews have worked together on this joint story for some weeks now. We have shared our findings with each other.

Tosatti had previously revealed what he learned in September 2013 from a high-ranking Vatican source – “an extremely good source, who was then in the government of the Curia,” and he adds that his source has “learned [it] from those directly concerned.” – that Cardinal Müller, then Prefect of the CDF, was interrupted by the Pope while saying Mass at the Church of Santa Monica (next to the CDF building) for a small group of German students. But now Tosatti reveals that the reason for the interruption was to demand that an investigation into Cardinal O’Connor be halted.

Now we know that Tosatti's source was actually third hand.  His source learned it "from those directly concerned."  We don't know what this means because Tosatti doesn't explain it.  But still, there is no explicit confirmation from Muller himself, once again contradicting Marshall's contention.  This would never be accepted in a court of law.

Now we get Scary Tim's take:

Well of course we know that in common parlance when you don't want something investigated, it doesn't look good. Lifesite made some sort of clarification in the last three days that they never said Cardinal Murphy O'Connor was actually guilty. Right, that's not been demonstrated apodictically or even legally.

Yes, that's right.  Scary Tim is telling us that the accusations against Murphy O'Conner were never proven.  But Scary Tim tells us to forget about the truth, and concentrate on the "implications."  Put  your own spin on the story and draw the conclusions that you want to believe.  Truth doesn't matter.

But they did reaffirm that yes, the implications, of course, are not good when he and his friends feared an investigation and even rose to the level of stopping an investigation, there are insinuations that probably this indicates guilt. Yea, he had the highest friend in the land when it comes to the Magesterium, Pope Francis, who we now have it on very, very identifiable and non-conjectural and solid authority, Cardinal Muller, who use to be No. 2 in the Church in terms of matters of faith and morals, that this was indeed true. And another aspect of the fact that it came out the day after the last one of these we did, is that, yea, this is not just speculation.

No, Scary Tim, you do NOT have this on the authority of Cardinal Muller.  There is not one direct quote from him anywhere confirming this story.

But, Scary Tim, you are certainly right that this is not just speculation.  It is blatant lies.

Let's go to some real news sources and see the true history of the Cardinal Murphy O'Connor investigation.  

One very respected news source is the Tablet, which reported that Vigano's allegations concerning Cardinal Murphy O'Connor were investigated and proven to have no credibility.  The Tablet article gives us facts which are never even hinted at by Marshall and Scary Tim.

The Tablet starts out with this statement:

Police looked into the claims against the Cardinal and decided not to pursue them

Civil and Church authorities investigated abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor on three occasions, and each time they found them lacking in credibility.

I wonder why Marshall left out such a salient fact.  These allegations were investigated and dismissed by both civil and church authorities as having no credibility.  Guess this just doesn't fit into what they want to believe.

It gets more interesting with this background: 

But the allegations against Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, first lodged in 2009 or 2010, were referred by the Church authorities to the UK police, who decided not to pursue the matter. A source connected to the Kent Police investigation told the Catholic Herald that they had “thoroughly” investigated the claims.

The allegations were then referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church body that handles internal canonical investigations of priests accused of abuse.

The Tablet can report that in June 2011 a letter was sent to the Archdiocese of Westminster by Cardinal William Levada, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith serving under Benedict XVI, who ruled there was no case to answer.

Why doesn't Marshall or Lifesitenews tells us that in 2011, long before the current papacy, the Prefect of the CDF ruled that there was no case after both civil and church investigations showed the accusations had no credibility?

But if it was dismissed by the CDF in 2011 as having no credibility, why was Francis ever involved?

Two years later Archbishop Vincent Nichols initiated a review of abuse cases in his archdiocese. That process found an “administrative gap” in the bureaucracy around the initial handling of the claim and Archbishop, now Cardinal, Nichols referred the case once again to the doctrine congregation.

By this time Pope Francis had been elected, and the dicastery was led by Cardinal Gerhard Müller. After receiving details of the case, the cardinal came to the same conclusion as his predecessor.

Hey, wait a second.  Cardinal Muller himself "came to the same conclusion as his predecessor"?!  Certainly doesn't sound like Pope Francis stopped the investigation, but that it was Cardinal Muller himself who came to the conclusion not to pursue the case.  And he didn't leave in the middle of Mass to stop the investigation.

That most certainly does not fit into the "facts" given to us by Marshall, Tosatti, Scary Tim and Lifesitenews.

I know this is getting very long, but there is one more "scandal" that needs to be looked at.  Father John Zuhlsdorf, a leading member of TMCTP, led the way with this, but he was hardly the only one.

Zuhlsdorf posted a picture on his blog of the Pope carrying a very unusual looking Ferula (papal stick) at the opening of the Youth Synod:

Zuhlsdorf, in brief but hateful commentary, used what some would refer to as wit and tried to link the Ferula to the Pope's supposed hatred of Archbishop Vigano:

First impression…

It looks like a V with a nail through it.

V…

V…

Viganò?

Zuhlsdorf then wrote "Comment moderation is very much ON", but that didn't stop his readers from posting some very nasty comments about Pope Francis, which is just what Zuhlsdorf was aiming for.

The next day, in a follow up, Zuhlsdorf posted the following.  At first it seems he is actually trying to give the real explanation, but in reality he is still discounting the explanation and still accusing the Pope of using a satanic symbol.

From Zuhlsdorf:

ACIPRENSA has a story in Spanish about the meaning of the stick thing that Francis had the other day.

It might look just like a “stang” used in satanic rituals, but it was gift from young people intended to be ” Jesus crucified with arms joined by a nail and sculpted in the shape of a bamboo.” And, “In the torn heart of Jesus on the cross is guarded a small seed, that seed that dies to bear fruit and our hope. And it reveals the secret to make life flourish, love, “said the young woman explaining the meaning of the staff.”

So, when you see it now, repeat to yourself… no, the vestments in Ireland did not have an interlocking trio of sixes… no, the stick thing is not a stang. It isn’t. It isn’t.

This, of course, worked with Zuhlsdorf's readers, who followed their leader and continued to accuse the Pope of using a satanic symbol.

Again, let's go to a truly credible news source to find out the truth.  Once again, we find a report in the Tablet.  As Zuhlsdorf said, this was a gift given to Pope Francis by two young women.  The Ferula was actually presented to the Pope last August at a youth pilgrimage:

Although difficult to identify from a distance, the figure of Jesus on the cross, his arms nailed above him, is carved into the bamboo staff, which was given to the Pope by the group of young Italians with whom he met at the Circus Massimo in Rome on 11 August.

Two young women presented the staff to the Pope at the start of the August pilgrimage gathering, the theme of which had been “On a thousand roads, towards Rome”.

Delivering him the gift, one of the young women, Elena, told the Pope: “We have experienced that each path needs his cane and on this special occasion we give you a staff sculpted from a log.”

She explained that bamboo staff showed that the “torn heart of Jesus on the cross guarded a small seed, that seed that dies to bear fruit and our hope.”

She had also told Francis that “it would be beautiful for this staff to accompany him during the Youth Synod”.

Pope Francis had clearly taken the young people’s wish to heart, carrying the staff at Wednesday’s opening Mass.

Most stangs do no have contain any kind of head.  They are normally just a two pronged stick.  But for the sake of argument, here is an actual stang with an animal head and horns coming out of the head.

Below is a picture of the Ferula which clearly shows the bowed head of Jesus, His Heart and his arms raised above his head.  This picture is from the Spanish website ACIPRENSA cited by Zuhlsdorf.  Wonder why he didn't show us this picture.  You can see it HERE.

For those who are able to be honest, they must admit that the Ferula is nothing like a stang.  You can see that this is actually very beautiful and that there is nothing satanic about it.

Zuhlsdorf of course doesn't want you to see the image of Jesus.  He doesn't tell you that the image of Jesus was actually carved into the bamboo stick, a sacred image you would not find on anything satanic unless it was somehow perverted.

Zuhlsdorf says the Ferula was "Jesus crucified with arms joined by a nail and sculpted in the shape of a bamboo." I don't think this was a typo. Zuhlsdorf does not want his readers to know the true meaning of the Ferula.

Nothing less than the Shroud of Turin actually supports the theory that Jesus was crucified with his hands above his head, as symbolized by this gift to the Pope.   Many believe that the Shroud is the actual image of Jesus Christ created when He rose from the dead on that first Easter Sunday.

From the Sunday Times.  This article is done from the point of view that the Shroud was made by a human artist.  As Catholics, we believe the Shroud is divine in origin, and thus this story carries even more weight:

For centuries the Church has largely depicted the crucifixion of Christ with his arms outstretched horizontally on a cross.

But scientists believe that death by crucifixion may have been even crueler, and that a victim’s arms were probably nailed above their head.

An international team studying the Shroud of Turin, which appears to depict a man who was put to death by crucifixion, said that no matter who created it, the artefact suggests that the practice involved a victim who was suspended in a Y-shape.

Of course, nothing will convince TMCTP that the Ferula was not satanic, and Zuhlsdorf does nothing to disabuse his readers of this belief.

In fact, the next day Zuhlsdorf did another update in which he claims that one of the presenters of the Ferula was wearing a Wicca red string.  He posted this picture:

However, this time a few of his readers weren't buying it.  

Amerikaner says:

5 October 2018 at 4:25 PM

Looks like a red knot rosary bracelet.

And that, my friends, is exactly what it is - a red knot rosary bracelet, as can be seen here from an Ebay listing:

Notice the large knots which match that worn by the young woman, as well as string hanging down which also matches.  Compare this to an actual Kaballah string, shown on another Ebay listing:

As you can see, they look very different.

Interestingly, a picture of the young man at the Synod who presented the Synod documents to Pope Francis appears to also be wearing a string rosary bracelet.  His rosary bracelet is blue:

This was Zuhlsdorf's comment about the young woman whom he falsely accused of wearing a Kaballah string (he misidentified it as a Wicca string):

I suppose it is possible to dismiss this.

“But Father! But Father!”, you might be tempted to giggle, “It’s – ha! – just a little piece of string. What are you? Some sort of scaredy cat? Not that I have anything against cats, mind you. I’m not speciesist, like YOU. That string…even it is did have to do with Wicca… what of it? I’ll bet she saw some pop start wear it and that’s why she does too. But even it she were into Wicca… so what? All faiths are good and love is never wrong, right? But you think that Wicca is wrong and that red strings are demonic and … and… that other thing… because YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

Friends. It could be that this young skull full of mush had no idea that that Wiccan thing is a Wiccan thing. Or, it could be just what it looks like. A young person wearing a Wiccan symbol gave a staff that had a sort of Christian image on it while giving every impress that it is a satanic stang.

Father Zuhlsdorf is always telling his readers to go to confession.  I certainly hope he takes his own advice and goes very soon and often.

Once more, creating scandal when there is none, all in an attempt to destroy Pope Francis.

There is a war going on for the heart and soul of the Catholic Church.  The outcome is already determined, as Our Lord promised us that the Church will survive.  One side is waging this war with lies and malicious attacks, manipulating facts in whatever way will benefit their narrative.  I am not sure they even realize it, but if they succeed (which they won't), they will destroy the Papacy, and that will be the destruction of the Catholic Church.

Remember, where Peter is, there is the Church.