Editor’s Note: Harnwell’s observation is a juridical one. The Vatican has defended itself from lawsuits round the world on the grounds that every Bishop is responsible for his diocese and the Vatican has no directive or responsible role. But by sacking Bishop Strickland for no reason, Pope Francis has shown that the Vatican could have sacked every wicked Bishop in the history of the Church. So when the Pope has not done this, he is responsible and hence liable for the crimes committed by these bishops.

Harwell supposes that the Cardinals will move to sack Bergoglio lest they lose their club nest egg.

It is not so clear to me, however, that this risk of liability will convince the Cardinals to act (Juridically they cannot remove the pope, but they can call for his removal at a Provincial Council). For the common criminal does want to avoid liability, but the really nefarious haters of civilization want to bring down the whole society. And perhaps that is what Bergoglio and his crew want, so Holy Mother Church can be destroyed the more easily by the malfeasance of crooks like himself.

This dynamic of honesty and public corruption is what I spoke about in my interview by A. J. Baalman at Ordo Militaris Radio TV about the sacking and the error of pietism. Honest men do not hesitate to act, when public corruption risks staining them all. Harnwell is correct. It is in fact a question of liability. And if the wicked do not hesitate to sack the honest, why should the honest hesitate to reciprocate?

Especially when it is a case of defending their Mother, Holy Mother Church? This is where true manhood and sonship will be shown. For who will come to the defense of a whore? And if one treats one’s mother as one would treat a whore, then one has, by his inaction, betrayed all his sonship and his manhood.