So, it has come to my attention that yet another deceitful gatekeeper, by the name of Teresa Stanfill Benns, who runs a website called Betrayed Catholics, has been making complete fabrications concerning Catholicism in general. And to what end, you may ask? Well, the usual one: Trying to make sure that nominal (already deceived) Catholics, who are merely ignorant of the lies that have been forced upon them since birth, do not get wind of the actual Catholicism which is today held ONLY by 1958 Sedevacantists.
In short, this deceitful shrew lies about a great number of things, but all of them come to the same conclusion: You must follow the fake “Pope” Bergoglio who is just a “bad Pope” and not the gay handmaiden to Satan that he actually is.
It is complete nonsense of course, but then another moron who should also hold her tongue (and typing fingers) as per 1 Corinthians 34-35 and even more clearly 1 Timothy 2: 12-13:
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Hilariously calling herself “The Thinking Housewife”. But also tragically, because she gives actual housewives with a brain a bad name. Her piece is here, and it is very simple to refute… IF you actually understand the basics of canon law and Catholicism. But she is merely quoting Benns and Benns style, is very much like the one of John Salza, a supposed “ex” self-confessed freemason who pretends to teach people how the Novus Orco Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, it isn’t it is the result of usurpation by Stanists and it is a full inversion of Catholicism of course, as readers here will know by just looking for the words “Vatican II” or “Canon Law 118.4” or “188 part 4” and reading the relevant posts. And John Salza, having been a Freemason even though a layman is absolutely forbidden from teaching anyone anything about Catholicism. In fact, even if his repentance were real (it is not, by all measures one can reasonably observe) this would still be the case, since, once a heretic, even clergy who repent are to have authority over precisely no one, and spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance. That is the dogmatic law. Imaginbe how much less authority a heretic layman has then to tell anyone anything. About anything.
So let’s dispense with the unthinking and at best illiterate “housewife”, which is really a dismissing of Benns, since all the “housewife” does is parrot the same lies Benns does.
Benns assertion is quoted in full by the Housewife and we will do the same here and also take it apart piece by piece in the usual Kurgan style.
Her lies in filthy bold, my pristine truth in normal text.
“TRADITIONALISTS argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations.
She begins in the usual freemasons fashion, intentionally trying to obfuscate simple concepts by use of jargon and unnecessarily “scholarly” wording. I say “scholarly” because it is of course a lie, a deceit and an attempt to wrap oneself in the in any case logical fallacy of argument from authority. Using the Greek word for “reasonableness” is simply obfuscation in the first place (most people have no idea what Epikea means and the slight confusion the causes to them puts them in the immediate mental state of assuming the writer must be very “scholarly” indeed). Well, she is not, and in fact this transparent deception shows she is not even mildly intelligent. Just vicious and nasty from the start. The deception is that there is no need to use the word “reasonableness”. There is a very sound and logical concept at play here, which is simply this: ROMAN LAW. Which Canon Law and the Church has always used. The point of Roman Law is that it is based in absolutely sound yet humane logic. So, for example, unlike the mechanistic and inhuman British Laws, or worse the American ones, in the context of a criminal act, in Roman Law, there is no specific prescribed action other than generally. Each case is evaluated on its merits. The murder of a pedophile is not the same as the murder of an innocent shop owner, and so on. But more importantly, Roman Law is soundly based in logic. So for example it follows the rule of silent assent and the reasonable and logical concept of the negative application of a rule being valid when such situations are fulfilled for it. Two relevant examples will suffice: There is NO prescribed maximum duration of an Interregnum (time between when one Pope dies and another valid one is elected). Therefore, no specific limit can ever be prescribed for it. We could go 1,000 years before a new and actually valid Pope is finally voted in after the usurpers have been done away with it and this would in no way mean the Church has defected, otherwise it would mean the church had defected as soon as St. Peter died. or when for almost 3 years there was literally no one at all even pretending to be Pope a few Centuries ago. In short, you cannot assume things that don’t make sense.
But furthermore, the sentence above is a lie. NO ONE has ever said “reasonableness” is why ordinations by Bishops of other Bishops is why Sedevacantist Bishops can ordain new Bishops.
The reason is covered in detail in my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church but to summarise it:
Whenever a Pope dies Bishops have no jurisdictional authority, and neither do Priests. In essence all a Bishop can do and priests too is issue the sacraments to the faithful, which of course includes doing Holy Mass and doing so WITHOUT the name of any Pope joined to the prayers, since no pope exists presently. Because the Pope is the one that has final say in if ANYONE is actually allowed to become a Bishop, what the liar Benns is pretending to say is that: “Only the Pope can validly make someone a Bishop, so Sedevacantist ordinations are invalid and a sham.” this is a filthy lie and the entire history of the Church proves it. Whenever Popes died and before another was elected Bishops were ordained, the eventual new Pope had absolute authority to veto any of those ordinations that happened before he came to the throne. And in the era of the Borgia and Medici, this veto power was used a lot. But even then, Popes would generally not make any comment of people who had been ordained as Bishops who were not some kind of threat or power-play. In fact, throughout its history, most Bishops are ordained and the Pope says not a thing about it. And because it’s Roman Law and the rule of silent assent is a given, it means that if the Pope says nothing, the ordination is assumed valid. And that is how it has ALWAYS been. So she lies straight out the gate. And then she gallops on to the next lie.
This has been refuted here.
The link leads to a screed of John Salza-like absurdities, obfuscations, lies and so on. It really is the Freemasonic way. She invokes the Papal writings of Pope Pious X and Pious XII Vacante Sede Apostolica and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, as if they agreed with the lies she is saying. they do no such thing of course. And it goes on to several lengthy pages of lies and obfuscations. it is the Argument ad infinitum Salza also uses. Writing page sand pages of lies so enmeshed and so twisted with the facts that one’s brain gazes over and once again they do this to give the impression that they are great and wise scholars that have “done their homework” but of course, it’s all nonsense, because we have already seen that the ordinations are simply assumed valid and always have been, until a new and VALID Pope says specifically otherwise.
And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. ‘The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.’
Note again the strawman. She is trying to imply that VAS says “You guys can’t ordain Bishops when a Pope is dead or not valid!” But that is not what it says at all. All it says is what has already been known from the very first Pope on. When a Pope dies or is not present on the throne, no one has authority to do anything other than give the sacraments. We already know that. and we already know that Bishops and priests were ordained throughout the history of the Church without a Pope necessarily being validly on the throne. And after one did come validly to the throne, unless they specifically stated so-and-so was actually NOT accepted as a valid Bishop or priest, it was assumed by all, positively, definitively and permanently that they in fact were validly elected.
“Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law.
Again an obfuscation of nonsense. There are only two kinds of Laws in the Church. Divine Laws and Church or Ecclesiatical laws. Divine Laws are immutable and eternal. For example, a public defection from the faith makes you a heretic without anyone needing to say or do anything, regardless of your status, which includes even a previously valid Pope. Another divine Law is that no one can be forced to become Catholic or get married say, again their will.
Ecclesiastical rules on the other hand are generally for the smoother running of the Church as it got larger. For example, the requirement of 70 Cardinals to vote in a Pope. this is merely a human rule that was not followed in the past, and therefore need not be followed in the future if circumstances make it obsolete or irrelevant. For example, in the current state of things there is not even 70 valid Cardinals. but then, neither were there ANY Cardinals at all int he year 400. And yet we had the Church and Popes were getting elected, by non-cardinals every one. So all that one requires to know is if a rule is of Divine Law, in which case it is absolute and eternal, or if it is of ecclesiastical law, in which case the specifics and the reasons for it need to be looked at and logically understood so that if things have changed to the point that the rule no longer makes sense, this is understood and acted upon intelligently.
Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law. But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS.
We have already covered this above. She is just lying.
It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors.
Here there is the hint that she is well aware that ecclesiastical rules are not immutable, because Divine laws don’t change, and there is no such thing as “similar cases”. Either a law is divine or it is not. So in this case, it is a divine law that the Pope (if he exists and is valid) is the ultimate, supreme authority of the Church on Earth, as representative of Jesus Christ. It is also the case that JESUS is the ultimate head of the Church and NOT the Pope, and that any infallibility a Pope has is limited to when he makes official pronouncements on faith and morals, which in essence, for 2,000 years have almost entirely been composed of refining of divine law; required usually because gnostics, statists and protestants started to teach false doctrines in precisely this fashion, so what was always a law and a rule known by all now needed to be spelt out in detail to avoid the sophists and deceivers to confuse the faithful.
It is also a law that if a Pope does not exist, then any ordination performed in accordance with the rules of ordination is automatically assumed to be valid and this becomes NOT the case ONLY after a valid Pope IS elected and said valid Pope for whatever reason deems that an ordination was in fact not valid.
Also, the “teachings of approved authors” is yet another bit of nonsensical theatre thrown in to confound things and make it seem as if you need to consult 12 tomes from the archives to know if a “pope” putting demonic effigies on the altar is sacrilegious or not. But you do NOT need to do that. Because Canon Law is the distillation of every behaviour and rule a Catholic should follow. And because it was put together by a group of cardinals expressly for the purpose of ensuring that there was no contradiction in the 40,000 or so documents that the team of Cardinals looked at to compile the CoCof 1917, it is also part of the infallible magisterium of the Church, which is why in over 100 years, NO ONE has been able to find defect with ANY of its rules or laws. Instead the New Orcs (Novus Orco) simply said in 1983 that a new code was required and they made up a document that literally contradicts itself several times over and is just a typical mis-match of gnostic stuff blend with some roadkill.
What even St. Thomas Aquinas may have to say on a topic is irrelevant if you have Canon Law of 1917, because it is the final judge of how behaviour should be undertaken for a Catholic, Be they clergy or lay people. So it is totally pointless to refer to “esteemed authors”. It’s like saying you need to go have a coffee with the guy who wrote the book you need to study to pass your driving test, in order to be able to do the exam. It’s nonsense. There is no instance in which Canon Law does not supersede the thoughts, opinions, or writings of any Catholic
Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching.
Once again, arguing for a straw man. Under normal circumstances, sure… but when your “Pope” is a henchman of Beelzebub, and so are his “cardinals” you don’t call these indemoniated freaks together to elect the baddest of them to be a horned minor demon. And St. Bellarmine simply laid out the procedure that should be followed when/if things are X. Which no one is arguing. But things are now Z and X is really not that relevant now.
St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect.
Oh…so…we CAN deviate from the ecclesiastical rules when it makes sense. Just as I said and she has been denying from the start until… now. Freemasons are not smart. Aside picking evil, which is dumb, they also can’t think on their feet. But the problem is not this, the issue is that fake Cardinals who are also fake Catholics, heretic every one of them, have no business electing anyone, much less one of their number to be “Pope”.
Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.”
Again irrelevant. Because VAS says nothing about Bishops being elected when there is not a valid Pope being somehow illegitimate.
— Teresa Benns, Betrayed Catholics
And there you have it. Just another gnostic/heretic trying to get you to be “in communion” with Satan’s henchman instead of with the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Once more on James Wharram
I wrote briefly about James before as a possible way to escape Clown World for those less burdened by many children perhaps.
I have not had enough time to yet finish his second book, People of the Sea, but am a good 2/3 of the way through it and am genuinely fascinated by the man. Had I known of him earlier, while I still lived in England, I would probably have tried to meet him and have a conversation. Something now impossible as he left this Earth on 14 December 2021.
It is hard to know how I would have reacted to him in person. On the one hand I get the sense he was a man that had absolutely no doubts about his way of doing things, regardless of what anyone else thought, which I relate to very well, and he also seems to have been comfortable with the ocean, something that I, though not a sailor, always have been too. For me, mostly as a form of relaxing solitude. These are the sides of him I relate to. But on the other hand there are sides of him I am curious about. Not so much his rather hedonistic aspect of having multiple female lovers live and work together, though I am sure that fascinates many men.
The reality of that aspect is not one that fascinates me very much. I have had many lovers and at times some of these women knew of each other, but ultimately I am an intense person in a way I suspect is very different from how James was.
The ever-shifting dynamics of female emotions, and multiple females at that, tend to affect me perhaps more than they should, as my ability to sense the mood of others is elevated enough it invariably has some influence on me. Not in the sense that it diverts me from my chosen path, but rather in the sense that it acts as a kind of unpleasant background noise when it is in dissonance with my own rather calm and ever-forward looking natural state of being.
Two, three, or five women at a time in a confined space like a sailing catamaran could quickly devolve into a floating hell from which the only escape would be to tie the main anchor to your neck while seeking the blissful silence of death in the depths of the Ocean.
Probably too my own intensity in this regard would be at fault. I could never really be with a woman half-heartedly, even when the encounters were brief and temporary. After all, the whole point for me was to experience that person as deeply as I could in the moment, ephemeral or even inconsequential as it might be in the long term. And that tends to cause a reaction in the women too, and in the other women who inevitably end up in some kind of competition for such attention.
But in some way I sense this ability of James to juggle multiple women at once in a way that clearly was not superficial —at least from what I can gather from a book— since after all, he had children with at least two of them and long relationships with several, is tied —or at least related to— his ability to immerse himself also in customs of pacific islanders, and what he refers to as “Arts and Craft” types that helped him build various ships over the years.
Once again, the thought of spending weeks, months and years with random strangers of rather eccentric types and backgrounds —which I uncharitably think of as a kind of kumbaya unwashed hippies— sends a shiver up my spine.
None of this is a judgement on James Wharram, but rather merely a springboard on which I ponder my own character and try to compare it, to see what I might learn, if anything. For this reason I would genuinely have loved to spend some hours talking with him and getting a sense of him directly.
Whatever one might think of his character, there is absolutely no denying that he was a unique and uniquely talented individual. With a knack for meeting, attracting and becoming partnered with similarly uniquely talented women too.
I wonder at his ability to commune with groups of people from very different walks of life, because I too have this quality, but it seems to me, perhaps wrongly, he had a better ability to remain embroiled with them for longer periods and in more confined spaces. Something I doubt I could do for very extended periods of time.
It makes me wonder, at what abilities I may need to learn and gain proficiencies in, if I am, indeed, ultimately, to succeed at creating the greater Kurganate I have set out to do.
But then I also am pre-selecting the people I am interested in attracting because I have already determined they need to be 1958 Sedevacantists, preferably with a good understanding of the first Crusade and the Siege of Malta for their inspiration regarding being a good Catholic, for this to work.
There is also an undercurrent of the boomer years and zeitgeist that existed in the 1960s and 1970s and generic optimism of the 1980s that possibly made his unusual life both easier in certain ways and also harder in others, but that is pretty much as most men have it anyway.
What shines through most for me is the absence of the levels of bureaucracy, nickel and diming, permits and regulations, that he could mostly operate under.
Another aspect is the extreme bravery that perhaps is best described as the foolishness of youth that later matures into courage that was exhibited by all his lifelong female companions. As well as the fact that all of them, James included, absolutely give me the certain impression of essentially being good, open, friendly and reliable people.
Human beings are all nasty, brutish, weak, selfish beasts, even the best of us, but between our flaws and weaknesses and fears and egos, there are genuine moments of light and joy and love and bravery and goodness that simply reveal also the spark of the divine in us. And I have the absolute sense that James Wharram and “his women” all would have been people I could see that aspect of humanity in them that makes us redeemable.
I see and recognise his quasi-pagan ways in my own attitude for most of my life before my conversion experience to Crusader style pre-Vatican II Catholicism, a conversion I would have ridiculed as impossible even one day before the 3rd of March 2013.
And I wonder how I might have seen his views in say 2020 when I was already a baptised Catholic and he was still alive and I imagine from his writing at least, in possession of all his faculties.
Again, not as a judgment on him, but rather a perspective on me.
It makes me wonder… what if I had managed to get my yacht in my early 20s and started sailing and lived a life close to what he did?
And I am reminded of a time when I was 19 I think, and went for a week to Durban to do a sailing course. I slept on the boat to save money, which was an option, enjoyed the skipper, who was a grizzled old man that took the usual “liking” to me that men who are men in their own right often took with me when they were older, which is to say, be impressed by my ability (I was the only one who did not take motion sickness medication who managed to keep his lunch in his stomach, and that only by watching what the skipper did, which was to let the waves move him instead of fight them) and at the same time get frustrated by my overreaching. In the exercise on rescuing a man fallen overboard, I got the shortest time… but I did so by arriving at the lifesaver that had been cast overboard at such speed that even when the sail was dropped and the boat came right up to the lifesaver so it could be plucked out by hand without even needing the pole to hook it, the skipper blew up at me.
Doing that manoeuvre that way in a storm was likely to crush the man overboard’s skull if the waves and the boat’s speed and sudden stop did not align perfectly. But we weren’t in a storm. And it was a lifesaver doughnut, not a living person. And I did the best time. But I kept quiet. He was the skipper and he was trying to educate me. And I had had various injuries and my nose broken by various karate instructors, on whom I inspired similar sentiments. As the Japanese say:
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered.”
I enjoyed the week of sailing and I had taken that course because I wanted to learn to skipper in preparation for eventually finding a way to get a yacht and be free of most of the rest of the world.
But there were two events I still recall from that week. One was a film I went to see one evening, about the dictatorship in Chile, with Jeremy Irons and a beautiful young woman who is raped then killed by some random soldier. It was, I recognise now, propaganda designed to make Pinochet “the bad guy” when in effect he probably saved millions of Chileans from utter misery and death.
The other was an encounter at a local pub I went to on another evening, that being in a port was frequented by sailors. I struck up a conversation with a Frenchman, and he told me about his boat and how it didn’t take much money to do what I wanted to do. He had bought a boat in pretty bad “used” condition and worked on it for a year or so to get it ship shape. I don’t recall the exact type of boat, it wasn’t very big, but had two masts, he had travelled the world with it, and a woman, for eight years. Then, a couple of months earlier, the woman had enough, and left him. Somewhere in India I think, to fly back home to France and I suppose her family. He was still clearly distraught. As he drank another beer, to my then teetotaller juice or water, or whatever it was, he gradually became more melancholic and sad.
I still think about that Frenchman on rare occasions, and hope he found peace somewhere with someone.
But it also made me wonder. What would a life aboard be like? Yes I wanted freedom, from rules, people and humans in general, and considering I grew up mostly wild in rural areas around the world, it might give you an indication of just how misanthropic I am, and how much I enjoy the “authority” of people dumber, slower, and less accomplished as human beings in every way than I am, which basically means pretty much all governments on our planet currently, and absolutely and totally with respect to the pedovores that run them.
The life of endless adventure is one some men aspire to and can live. I know I have that in me and my own life is pretty much testament to it. But it is not that I was alone so much because I necessarily enjoyed it, as my mother had once assumed at around that time (but then it was obvious to me from age 2 onward that woman had and has never understood the remotest part of me or how I function). I spent a lot of time alone because the alternative was to spend it surrounded by idiots.
I know that sounds unkind, but it really was the case. Imagine, if you will, that your options in life was to retreat in a life mostly of solitude, or be perennially surrounded by mongoloids. As well-meaning and harmless as they might be, try to imagine how it would be to have them constantly around doing mongoloid things and talking mongoloid talks and discussing things on their mongoloid level.
And yes, again, I know how arrogant it sounds to probably most of you reading, but with an IQ that averaged at 155, the distance between me and the nominally average person of 100 IQ is greater than the one of the average person and a 65 IQ mentally handicapped person by a whole standard deviation.
I didn’t know or care about IQ then, but the distance in mental ability, interests, and so on was simply unavoidable. Part of the idea of sailing the seven seas was that in doing so I might meet and learn from cool people in far away lands and maybe even end up with that hot girl that would look really awesome in a swimming costume in some Caribbean island setting.
But the Frenchman made me think.
The lure of adventure for a man is natural, but for a woman… eventually their purpose in nature is to make children, and even if I found one willing and able to give birth at sea and homeschool them on the boat as we travelled the world… was that the kind of father I saw myself as?
It’s not that it would be a bad childhood for my children, or even unhappy for the woman; but…
what… ultimately… would be the point of such a life? How many ports and cultures and miles and miles and miles of ocean can you sail before it all starts to seem aimless?
I used to play Traveller a lot as a teenager, and even now, the idea of having a spaceship you can use to go explore weird new worlds and trade with alien species is something I would immediately say yes to. And I know every one of my children except possibly my eldest would too. And my wife. She probably would come along because the kids would convince her, but she likely would have a nervous breakdown.
The idea of a yacht was a kind of analogy for that.
Sail away. Meet new people, possibly frolic with hot exotic women, even if they didn’t have blue skin and came from another planet. That was the general idea. But then what?
I have in any case travelled a lot and met many different people and cultures; and spent enough time with many different women too. And yet, my perspective on this from when I was age 19 was still correct. I am glad I did it as otherwise I would have remained unsatisfied in the wondering of it, but my life was never about the travelling per se. That was just incidental. I went where my curious heart led me. That’s all.
So, the life of James Wharram seems to me to be almost a window into what one of my possible lives could have been. It is interesting to look through that window and think about it. But my sense of it, which I am sure is only because I am on this side of the window, is that such a life would have been just that much lonelier. Perhaps not by much, but by enough to probably be a bit more than I would have liked.
And I wonder what James would tell me if he were still here, sitting across from me with whatever his drink of choice might have been, be it an English tea or something else.
I suspect he might tell me that he was one of the most free and least lonely men that ever lived, having the love and companionship of multiple women simultaneously and adventure rarely had by anyone today alive. And I would keep quiet and listen.
And while imagining and pondering, I nevertheless do not envy nor begrudge the man anything. Because I think it is a trait of at least some men, of which I am one, that they do not experience such emotions. They are emotions that are the children of ambitions and lives unfulfilled and failures to launch. I have failed many times at many things. And I have not yet achieved but a fraction of what I want to, and honestly, unless dementia takes me, it is utterly impossible I ever will achieve even a quarter of what I would like to do, given infinite money and other resources. But the point is I have never stood still and stagnated. Sometimes I struggle in quicksand for a while, but eventually I drag myself out of it and carry on at my usual speed again. Besides, which adventuring hero of pulp fiction does not have a regular close call with quicksand?
So I read and think about James Wharram and his life and am glad for him and his having written it down. And of course for Hanneke Boon and Ruth and the other women and friends of his that made his story possible.
Wherever you may be James, I hope you have tropical waters and fair winds.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 30 December 2024 | Posted in Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Social Commentary, The Crusades - Iron Men and Saints Vol. 1