"Choosing between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces is a false choice. The side we should be on is the side of innocent civilians, regardless of where they live. Only by being against war will we stand against the correct enemy because, ultimately, most if not all wars are fought for the benefit of central bankers and their globalist allies"

That is not true Catholic doctrine on war, but expected from Lifesite. Why is Gloria repeating it? Palestine has been destroyed by Hamas and Israel has a right to defend itself.

When I first became acquainted with Cardinal Mueller online, a few years ago, I thought he was continually sitting on the fence and/or very confused. Recently, I've been more positive about him, but having read this and now read up about his Liberation Theology connections, I'm at least back to square one, and actually somewhat suspicious. This photo gives Martin credence.

"Cardinal: Liberation Theology needed separation from Marxism" 2014

Cardinal: Liberation Theology needed separation from Marxism

Separation? Why didn't he just condemn LT, instead of playing footsie with it? I don't trust any of them 100% - even the ones who are apparently faithful. Sad times.

@Strong and Steadfast

You forgot Thomas who refused to believe and have faith and also James and John and their mother who were squabbling for first place. ALL the Apostles ran away abnd deserted Christ into the bargain, but John returned to the Cross. I honestly believe that this was part of God's plan, to demonstrate the reality of His forgiveness. "And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."

I wonder if the fact that John wasn't martyred reflects the fact that those who repent and return to the Cross will not die the second death, but be saved (as, obviously they all were!). Just musing here.

"He would be less angry with you, if you did not pretend that He AGREED with you, and you left the Faith and set up your own ........ club under a different name."

Yes, this bunch make the common old garden type of heretics, like our very pleasant Jehovah's Witnesses seem remarkably mild in their heresy. Perhaps they'll inherit the Kingdom yet, taking the place of our own prelates.

I'm not sure - in fact I've no idea - why they all need protecting in this. I admire Strickland immensely for taking a stand, particularly given that he is a diocesan Bishop, but how much worse could things get for him? Francis can take him out by demanding his resignation any time. How does being 'associated' with Vigano's statement change his position? He's made his position clear and I pray he'll stick with it, but one might just as well say that he shouldn't be seen in the company of any Traditionalist, so let's not invite any.

I've just re-listened to this, having listened late last night. 1) You can't have unity at a conference whilst ignoring the fact that some possible speakers won't agree with each other. So you don't let anyone speak who may upset people. Otherwise there will be no unity. 2) If it was too much hassle to set up for a video at short notice, why did Matt bother say he'd read it? Presumably the hassle would have been worth it if Vigano had been speaking in union with everyone else there??? 3) As far as I'm aware, there was no bomb. Hasn't Vigano previously suggested that Francis isn't the Pope? 4) I'm curious as to what they replaced it with. Something less disturbing of the 'unity', so as not to upset attendees too much?

How can you possibly have a conference about Catholic Unity whilst completely ignoring everything which is wrong with it and the fact that there is disunity everywhere. How do you tackle the disunity whilst demanding at great length that everyone concentrates on some ephemeral 'conference' unity.

If I'd paid good money to hear Vigano (or anyone else), I'd be fuming that I had to go and search the internet to do so. This is coming from someone who is no particular fan of Vigano. The correct procedure would have been simply to have said "I'm very sorry, your Grace, but we are unable to change the programme at such short notice, but we can still go ahead with the interview, as planned, but you must now agree to only discuss matters allowed at this conference".

@Caroline03 A one sentence post directing people to go to Barnhardt's site (Vigano speech available there) was left on The Remnant. It has now been deleted by the Remnant. Barnhardt's site is well known (people can choose whether they use it or not) so it seems to me that the only reason to delete that post is to discourage more people listening to Vigano. Or perhaps they don't like their faithful to read other opinions on this matter. I find Matt's 'explanation' video pathetic.