The Presidential prophecy- An update on Charlie Johnston

A triumphant Trump inaugurated amidst some bold predictions
Update Jan 1, 2018: Concerning Mr. Johnston's alleged prophecies and private revelations, from early on this writer often commented that time and events (or lack of events) will clearly reveal whether Charlie's prophecies are authentic, or not.  In other words, time will tell. 

Well, as of today (January 1, 2018) time has clearly revealed that Mr. Johnston's numerous prophecies have ALL been shown to be completely false, most notably his predictions concerning the Presidential election, the great worldwide "Storm" which he foretold would bring global economic collapse and civil strife, toppling governments throughout the globe, war with political Islam resulting with the mass conversion of most Muslims, then a war with China, and generalized  global chaos resulting in 26 million dead, all culminating with the miraculous "Rescue" apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all of humanity, all of which was prophesied by Charlie to occur by the end of 2017. 

In conclusion, since Charlie's prophecies have now all been shown to be completely false, he joins the list of recent failed visionaries whose stories have been highlighted on this site, such as "Locutions to the World" and "Maria Divine Mercy", and together they provide a strong cautionary warning for all of us in regards to purported visionaries and mystics of past and present, urging us to be very cautious and prudent in our discernment concerning such persons,  reaffirming the statement and warning of St Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionists and great mystic himself, who once stated that 9 out of 10 purported visionaries are false.  Perhaps this estimation from St Paul of the Cross is a bit high, but then again perhaps not.  -Glenn Dallaire
-------------------------------
UPDATE, January 20, 2017: 
With the successful inauguration of President Donald Trump comes the unfulfilled conclusion to both parts of the alleged angelic “Presidential prophecy” of Charlie Johnston, namely that Obama will not finish his term and the next leader will not come from the political system (ie.-not elected), as detailed in the article below. It was a bold two-part prophecy that has now ended in a double fail.

When one claims to be a prophet of God, one’s life and most especially one’s prophecies are automatically held for scrutiny before the court of public opinion. In this court of public opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is what often initially sways one’s opinion, yet there eventually comes to pass certain very important matters for discernment, such as key prophecies, which depending on their eventual turnout, will considerably authenticate, or invalidate, the purported mission and message of such persons.  And when one compares the alleged angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’ against today’s successful inauguration, the conclusions to be drawn are self-evident.  

With the above being said, one would strongly suspect that today’s inauguration, which by all appearances completely invalidates the first formal public prophecy of Charlie Johnston, will likely be one of these aforementioned key matters for discernment that will have a decisive impact in judging his purported prophetic mission and message for a good many people.  For if a prophet is judged by his prophecies as the saying goes, then today’s failure of the purported angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’,  as detailed in the article below,  will for many persons surely bring with it an unfavorable judgment in what concerns the prophetic mission of Charlie Johnston. 

For in his blog post "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"...If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

And again, concerning today’s inauguration, for his part Charlie has also declared in his post entitled “Election day” on November 7th that:
 “…If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence.”  

With this pledge, one finds that today’s inauguration will bring with it not only the end of Obama’s term, but also the end of Charlie Johnston’s public blogging, speaking engagements, and future predictions, at least for a time, though the loss of credibility from today’s events will likely be permanent. 

And I say "for a time" simply because of Charlie's recent comments on his blog concerning the possibility of today's failure of his "Presidential prophecy", wherein he recently speaks about the possibility of being "recalled" by God into a silent, private period for some sort of remedial prophetic discernment re-training "for a time".

Nevertheless, for those who in good faith spread amongst their family, friends and coworkers Charlie's prediction concerning "Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the political process", and who are now left feeling much like "the boy who cried wolf", one can only presume that any possible future prophetic predictions from Charlie will be given little or no credence, if not outright opposition by many who have followed his work and message, as is perhaps justifiably merited by today's developments. In the end, it is up to Archbishop Aquila of Denver to make any formal judgments concerning Charlie Johnston's private revelations.

As for this writer, I can say that while I have always been reluctant to highlight purported LIVING mystics and visionaries, I am even more so now after these recent events.

May God bless the United States of America, and all of humanity.
-Glenn Dallaire, January 20, 2017


Charlie Johnston during a recent FOCUS TV interview
The final days for the possible fulfillment of a purported Angelic prophecy 

By: Glenn Dallaire

Jan. 7, 2017 -Vigil of the Epiphany
Many readers of this website are familiar with the original article that I wrote back in January 2015 entitled  "Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity".  In it I discussed at length Charlie's purported prophetic mission and message, along with a short biography of his life. And for the past two years it has been one of the most popular articles on this website.

Additionally, when the Archdiocese of Denver came out with a Statement in March 2016 concerning Mr. Johnston I published an article here discussing it.

The Presidential prophecy
In the past week, the comments beneath that original article have exploded (there are now currently a total of 770 comments), as has my email inbox, with most everyone commenting specifically on the angelic prophecy allegedly given to Charlie, which I have named "The Presidential prophecy":

"What I was told in the Spring of 2008 was that Barack Obama would win that year's election, that he would not finish his full term, and that the next stable national leader would not come from the political system."

The obvious reason for all of the recent attention to this specific alleged angelic prophecy is the upcoming scheduled Presidential Inauguration scheduled for this January 20th--just 2 weeks away from this writing. For his part, just yesterday Charlie published an article entitled "A Decisive Conundrum" which addresses this matter, in part.

This particular prophecy is the first of a series of alleged angelic prophesies concerning the world that are to occur mostly this year (2017). And since we are delving into this subject of alleged "Angelic" messages given to Charlie, it should be pointed out that the Angel whom has purportedly visited Charlie from childhood is the Archangel Gabriel, as was specifically revealed to Charlie during one of the "visitations". The other predictions that Charlie insists upon are highlighted in his article entitled "Go Forth". In it Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur::

"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Together these predicted events constitute for humanity what Charlie calls "The Storm"--a series of events which he states is already well underway. As of today (January 7, 2017), the most obvious observation concerning the prophesies above is that time is really running out for them to all happen before the miraculous Rescue in late 2017. Thus, from an intellectually reasoned perspective, it is probably readily apparent to many that such predictions are already a failure, given the time-frames involved for such things to occur in "real" time. But then, who really knows just yet? For God is not limited by our human constraints and He is always full of surprises.

It should be noted that the "Presidential prophecy" is NOT part of the eight public prophesies that Charlie insists upon. I don't know what bearing that may have, if any, in the upcoming days and weeks.

"God has appointed that this be a sign to you"
In his article "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

Of course for now the big question at this point is whether or not the purported angelic prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process will come to pass as foretold in the remaining two weeks before the scheduled Presidential inauguration on January 20th. And the obvious implication in the opinion of many people is that this prophecy is key in determining whether Charlie is truly an authentic prophet, or not. For as the saying goes "A prophet is judged by his prophecies", or as Scripture tells us:

"And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

For his part, Charlie has stated numerous times that if this particular prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term were to fail, with the presidency successfully transitioned to Donald Trump, that he will post one last post on his blog, then go away:
Charlie Johnston during a presentation in July 2016
charliej373 says:
"If there is a peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump, I will go away. If there is not, be not afraid, God has a plan."

or again:
 charliej373 says:
December 17, 2016 at 2:54 pm
"Now, as I have said, if the inauguration goes on without incident, I will go away. "

or again:
charliej373 says:
"Certainly, if we have a normal inauguration a month from now, I will retire from the field, for that prophecy will have been objectively wrong. I take full responsibility for that. But it won’t change what you are called to do.

Noting that I do and will take responsibility, your standard would require you to dismiss St. Joan of Arc as a false prophet for the times she erred on saying how the battle would go – and many of the Old Testament prophets who were often off on their timing, sometimes by years. I do not say this to try to justify any error on my part. I strongly urge you to examine yourself and consider what God calls you to. But yep, a month from now if we have a normal inauguration, you can give me a big old thumbs down."

charliej373 says:
January 8, 2017 at 9:21 pm
"If the inauguration comes off, I will leave the public scene, because that is what it means to honorably take full responsibility. "

And so, even though this "Presidential prophecy" is not one of the eight public prophecies that Charlie insists upon, according to several statements he has made he does believe that if it fails to come to pass as foretold, this would be significant enough to merit and declare himself "unreliable" and "leaving the scene". Time will soon tell how things turn out. For his part, Charlie has "laid it on the line", so to speak. We need only wait, watch and pray. Events, or the lack thereof, will reveal the truth concerning Charlie's purported private revelations.

Given all of the recent interest in this particular prophecy as of late, along with the popularity of the original article here on this website concerning Charlie Johnston, I thought I would publish this new article so that those interested can comment on this matter freely and directly here. As always, all comments are published immediately on this website, without moderation. I only ask that commentators be charitable and considerate in their comments.

***UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2017: Archdiocese of Denver: "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages"

3,065 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   2801 – 3000 of 3065   Newer›   Newest»
L Spinelli said...

I take that back. Looks like Charlie is preparing for a Jericho March after all. The site will turn into coverage of this event and the people he rallies along the way.

I mean this in a sincere way: the man has completely lost it. Keep him in your prayers.

Anonymous said...

CHARLIE'S LATEST:


"I have been working on “The Ballad of the Ordinary Man.” What started as a trenchant piece has evolved into a sort of manifesto. It goes into detail about where we are, what we are called to, and how to fortify ourselves to get there. It will be in three, or maybe even four, parts. My intention is that you be able to print it out and, perhaps, take heart from it when the convulsions come. The spark that sets off the strife could come tomorrow – or could we could limp along until mid-summer.

"As of the first of this year I ceased to make any new prophecies. I certainly continue to analyze political and cultural events. But I want you to know that never, for a moment, did I abdicate what I perceive to be my duty before my God. In her better days, America has been a beacon of liberty to the world. If she were divided, that would be the beginning of the end of the hope that a self-governing people could endure in liberty. She cannot be divided: to do so would be to break faith with those citizens of the states, formally part of this union, who this nation promised to secure liberty for and to uphold their God-given rights against all assaults, foreign and domestic. If the precedent of such a division were established, than anytime a tyrannical group took control of a state in the free nation (as has happened in California), we would just let her go, too, abandoning our solemn commitment to secure the blessings of liberty for ALL Americans. Soon enough, there would be no free states left, just the American Balkans.

Therefore, before I begin the publication of the “Ballad,” I want you to know that, if the left succeeds in its coup attempt, I will begin the Jericho March I described a year and a half ago. For as long as it can, this site will cover my progress and the people I meet along the way – and those who join me in our march on an illegitimate government. With God’s help, I will stand resolutely against tyranny until death. If the leftists fail in their coup attempt – and make war as they threaten to do (and again, have already begun bureaucratically) I will stand as a faithful patriot with the lawfully elected government of this nation. Understand something: American liberty was not secured by establishing elections; it is secured by establishing elections while ensuring that officials may NOT trample people’s fundamental rights. I love and am devoted to my country. I hold much of the government of that country right now in utter contempt. I will do my duty, to the best of my capacity to see my duty, until death, praying not that God is on my side, but that I ever remain on His side.

L Spinelli said...

Charlie makes the same mistake that Raymond Arroyo of EWTN is doing, something that we probed here: holding a right wing political agenda at the same level (and beyond) as Catholic social teaching.

This article from the blog Where Peter Is explains why this way of thinking is harmful to ordinary faithful Catholics - part of the audience Charlie seems to be so desperately trying to recapture.

https://wherepeteris.com/raymond-arroyo-policy-over-fidelity/

I focused on these three figures (my note: one of them is Michael Savage, whose program being blacked out was cited as Charlie's first reason for a Jericho March), but could have chosen from many, many guests who espouse a right-wing ideology that is often in defiance of Church teaching or sound moral principles. This list includes but is not limited to: Mark Theissen and his defense of waterboarding, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, climate change skeptic Mark Morano, Senator Rand Paul, Mel Gibson, and of course Donald Trump.

It should scandalize Catholics that the flagship program of the only national Catholic television station in the United States places such great emphasis on right-wing politics. As someone who (in alignment with Catholic teaching) holds conservative views on issues including abortion and marriage, I understand the desire to promote public figures who support these values. But it cannot come at the cost of ignoring the wisdom of the Church on care for the environment, immigrants, and the poor. It certainly doesn’t excuse inviting guests who describe the mass slaughter of civilians as “the fruits of peace.”

Furthermore, why has this gone unchecked? Where are the Bishops?


Anonymous said...

Hi Jack;

I do agree with you. Charlie Johnston's delusions definitely aren't mine/ours to fix. However, I do believe it is in the interest of the common good, especially amongst Catholics, to monitor false prophets, such as Charlie. They do represent a danger to our Catholic faith, especially for weak or needy people, who seem to be in constant search of a seer. By continuing to shine light upon Charlie's nonsense, perhaps we can help to inform/warn somewhat needy Catholics to stay clear, and, more importantly, to remind everyone that our Catholic faith does have real miracles, such as Fatima, Lourdes, and Knox, to name just a few. IDK. We seem to be in dark and confusing times. Rome is NOT helping the situation at all; so, maybe our illuminations upon seer Johnston and other false prophets can serve to remind everyone of genuine Catholic transcendental apparitions.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Off topic but interesting...Netflix is showing a documentary,"Wild Wild Country." It concerns the 1980s takeover of a small Oregon town by the Rahneeshi cult; those of a certain age may remember news stories of mass poisonings by followers of an Indian guru who owned 90 Rolls Royces. It deals with the dynamics of cult recruitment and the way true believers are created. Charlie Johnston could never aspire to that level of control over people, but Rajneesh certainly attempted to gain political power in Oregon, something Charlie would relish...

Also about Charlie, Spirit Daily blog mentioned him again earlier this week in a post on possible conflict with Russia and China. Sadly, Michael Brown called Charlie "extremely insightful"...

Anonymous said...

Michael Brown recently described Charlie Johnston as "extremely insightful"? Really? That's a huge disappointment. Snake oil salesmen are NOT extremely insightful. I generally like 'Spirit Daily' and respect Michael Brown, and the good job he does. That just lowered his stock - considerably. 'The Final Hour' by Michael Brown is also loaded with false predictions, none of which transpired. So, IDK. Deeply troubling, folks.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

I don’t think Seer Johnston will be getting many more followers beyond those who already believe.in him. Look at the responses to his latest post...it’s most posts about squirrels, chipmunks, and Morty Python. How could I have been so stupid to have possibly believed in his nonsense.

L Spinelli said...

Charlie's battle cry only has 42 comments. That's one that would have generated 400+ in his heyday.

He also claims that ASOH is ranked 272 out of "the top 300 conservative sites". No link to where that information came from.

What I see is a man who doesn't have a purpose (remember his "My Purpose" manifesto) and is scrambling to find one after his two game changing prophecies tanked.

Fred Keyes said...

Jack, in answer to your April 10 entry:

First an observation about the logic involved in our disagreement: Any conclusion, however well-reasoned, is completely dependent on the underlying premises upon which the argument is based. Just to be clear, our discussion is really about the premises of our arguments and their truth or falsity.

To wit: The priest you accuse of lacking good judgment may in fact be exercising excellent judgment as follows in this example:

Father Empathy, knows Ms. Justine well. For years she had been in an abusive marriage, as Father E knew from being her confessor over those many years. Despite what he knew, Father E also knew that everyone in the community thought Ms. J’s marriage was rock-solid, even though their three children were already showing signs in school of the problems at home. The counseling Fr. E had recommended went nowhere. Finally, unable to sustain the hypocrisy, Ms. J, having lost faith that her Church could help her, divorced her husband and for a time left the Church as well.

She remarried to a good man—unchurched but living a life filled with much love of everyone he knew, including two of his own children whom he had fathered with a past girlfriend. Their relationship was solid and the impact on all five of the children was noticeable--their grades were improving dramatically and they got along well. And say what you will, one of the elements of their successful union was a committed and joyful sex life.

After a few years Ms. J came back to Father E wanting to rejoin the Church. She confessed all and indicated her complete repentance for her decisions. Given the circumstances, Fr. E could see clearly that Ms. J would have a successful path to an annulment, and Ms. J was fully prepared to apply for the annulment which needed to be prepared and submitted to the diocesan marriage tribunal. But it would take time, for many reasons. Proof of her first husband’s unfitness to enter a marriage contract freely would have to be developed, including psychological assessments. Evidence of a lack of maturity (a raging temper, well-hidden but caused by a bipolar condition) would need to be developed—not an easy thing to do.

You can see where I’m going with this. Putatively, she was free to marry given that her first marriage was a sham—God very likely did not put that first “marriage” together.

In such a situation Pope Francis wants the repentant person back in the Church without delay. No doubt in the back of his head he hears the thrice-repeated words told to Peter: “Feed my sheep!” Still of course, the annulment and conversion process needs to be followed to confirm what those involved already know. IMO *that’s* Christ’s mercy in action at the level that counts¬¬--not tied up in the slow procedures of the Diocesan marriage tribunal and the Roman Rota (even, by the way, with the newer expedited process). There’s nowhere better to embrace the prodigal son or daughter than at that point, and at a confessor’s level.
Details of my hypothetical can be different, often greyer. But mercy, freely given, trumps doubt. (What is the proverb? “A thousand difficulties do not create a doubt?”)

This doesn’t mean that a more conservative approach isn’t the way to go sometimes and indeed the best way to go in situations where no resolution to right the ship is evident and the facts strongly suggest a different result will come from the annulment process. Think Henry VIII. Circumstances alter cases.

Note in my hypothetical that there is no disagreement whatever with existing Church doctrine. The only thing at issue is how to handle the kind of situation Pope Francis had in mind. What John Paul II describes as "the current practice."

Fred Keyes said...

RE: Charlie J.

I doubt that the Church--CJ's bishop or any one higher up--needs to say anything about Charlie and his crackpot ideas. I say this because L Spinelli's observation shows that Charlie has been firmly rejected by an overwhelming majority of those who followed him. That's what's known as the "sensus fidelium" in the Church. God's People have it in them to detect the truth and falsity of those who teach falsehoods.

Per V-II's "Lumen Gentium" we have the power to detect the truth. See here from the CCC, Para. 91-93: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM#-2K

Congrats, y'all. We did it!


Jackisback said...

Fred,

In the excellent detailed example you provided, the Bishops in Phoenix and Philadelphia would, by their guidelines, prohibit any Priest in their diocese from granting absolution (and thereby prohibit the penitent from receiving the Eucharist in good conscience/without sacrilege) absent a pledge of complete continence - until the Tribunal annulment process was completed. Note, these Bishops pat themselves on the back for yet encouraging the penitent to participate in the life of the Church by attending mass, participating in works of charity, but not participate in any sodality of the Church (no Knights of Columbus for the husband, no becoming Eucharistic Ministers for either husband or wife, no joining the Church choir, no getting involved in the Parish Council). This has been their practice for generations upon generations, and they point to A.L. as buttressing the case for their way of doing things. Pope Francis does NOT tell them they are wrong for doing this.

The Bishops in Buenos Aires and San Diego, on the other hand would, by their guidelines, encourage their Priests to grant absolution (and thereby permit the Eucharist again), not require a commitment to continence, or even a seeking out of a tribunal annulment, and therefore not require re-confession of the sin of adultery (vis-a-vis future sexual activity with the new civil spouse) after that first confession. They would in no way be barred from participating in any/all sodalities of the Church. One wonders what their incentive is to follow through with an annulment process with the tribunal. Pope Francis has indicated that this result is fine and dandy.

This is no way to run an airline.

Paul's words from this past Sunday were striking to me:

The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Those who say, "I know him," but do not keep his commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis could end this debate very quickly. He should just declare, or attempt to declare, that AL is infallible teaching. Either the Holy Spirit will strike him mute (or dead) or he will utter those words and then we will know that AL is the teaching of God.

Jackisback said...

Timely article that addresses some aspects of our conversation:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/st.-john-paul-ii-the-churchs-fidelity-to-truth-of-marriage-will-come-at-a-h?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=b4fbd647dd-Catholic_4_12_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-b4fbd647dd-402281177

Fred Keyes said...

Jack, so now this issue of practice is the Lord's "commandment?" If so, by Anon's reasoning at 6:38, Pope Francis should have been struck dead by now.

Don't forget, practice in the Church does evolve and always has. The Holy Spirit is leading us to all truth as Christ said He would.

Bedtime....I'll catch up later...

Fred Keyes said...

The article on Life Site is interesting although it has a "sky is falling" feel to it. Some of it reminds me of one of the lines from "A Princess Bride." To paraphrase—"you keep saying that, but I do not think it means what you think it means."

Pope Francis IMO is humanizing Christian doctrine, not changing it. He is Jesus at Jacob's well. Again, JMHO, all of the recent popes--including and especially St. JP II are firmly in his camp, happy that the gospel message is advancing in wisdom. Time will tell.

As an aside, given the organization this article is coming from, I have to wonder to what extent it comes from hearts that feel hurt by the fact that an abortion is not worse than any other serious offense against God's Law, especially sins against the living poor and the stranger.

Anonymous said...

One point that has been made before, but needs to be strongly reiterated, is: St. John Paul II has already provided a solution, i.e. living as brother & sister, until an annulment has been granted. This was done for the good of the children. The problem, as Jack has clearly laid out, is that people can now have NO intention of either living as brother & sister or of even seeking an annulment at some future point. That's the heart of the matter. Living as brother & sister is not exceptionally difficult. Many married couples already do so, or very close to it. The intention, even an anemic one, to reform one's life, is lacking. Therefore, any absolution would be invalid and any future Holy Communion a sacrilege.

Tommy

Jackisback said...

Fred,

It has been your expressed opinion that you prefer the Buenos Aires method - because it is "more merciful," etc.

But I ask you about the core question: what is adultery? If the woman in your example never was truly married to the first husband, because, as you framed it, God couldn't have put that marriage together, that it was a sham, and that this is self evident, then what need is there for any formal Chruch rules on the matter at all, or a marriage tribunal, especially given your other concerted opinion that the primacy of her subjective conscience rules the day?

Why should she not just "come back" to the Church without even confessing to Father Empathy about any "so-called sin of adultery" with the new husband? Because Fred, if God truly did not put her first marriage together, and her subjective conscience is prime with respect to deciding that question, then she was never, at any point, actually married to her first husband, and she was never, at any point, out of a state of grace when she divorced her first husband and began having sex with the second (after the state law marriage). She was, at all times, free to marry another. She only got remarried via the state because the bar of Church recognition was an onerous, and in her conscience, incorrect hurdle. And since she knows she was never married to her first husband, her conscience is clear and she only craves official Church recognition of her state law marriage (which according to her conscience she ought to be free to request from her local Priest, if not from the Pope himself while on a private jet). In your example, her only sin was that she stopped coming to mass for a time. So if her subjective conscience prevails over all else, then she only need confess her sin of not regularly attending mass on Sundays in order to begin receiving the Eucharist again.

The problem she faces in your example is that the Church, having publicly recognized the first marriage, refuses to publicly recognize the second one without a tribuanl annulment - as it is a bridge too far, even in Buenos Aires, for now. But why should she concern herself with that? In her conscience she knows her first marriage wasn't valid. Ergo, she wasn't sinning when she married her second husband via the state and commenced having an "enjoyable sex life" - instead, the Church is wrong in its practice of refusing to recognize that second marriage as valid - because in this refusal, the Church is wrongfully overriding her subjective conscience, which must be respected over all else.

Wouldn't the more merciful course of action be to find an even more progressive-minded Priest in Buenos Aires that will see things her way, and thereby agree to publicly marry them, because she has determined in her own conscience that her first marriage was void ab initio? After all, if her subjective conscience is prime, then a tribunal annulment is really unnecessary, and this tribunal thing is, in reality, only a matter of Church "practice" - one for which, in the spirit of A.L., can/should be thought of as one where "no single rule can be applied to all situations."

Oops, I forgot, this end result is pretty much what Henry VIII did. And there's the rub, Fred. By over-focusing on mercy, we find ourselves near the very bottom of the slippery slope, at the end of which is "Catholic divorce."

Anonymous said...

Truth be told, we're pretty much there, i.e. at 'Catholic divorce'. This is an example of moral relativism. This isn't new in the Catholic Church at all. What IS new is that Rome is actually promoting this. That IS the truly scary part.

Under these new guidelines, Henry VIII could have used the internal forum to confess n to receive Holy Communion. He's en route home, no? What's the distinction? There is none. The EXACT circumstances that caused the Anglican break is now being allowed in San Diego & Buenos Aires. And, Rome is encouraging this! Rome isn't simply allowing this; She is encouraging this! Francis winks at San Diego & Beunos Aires, yet, officially, clarifies nothing. We are in unprecedented and very dark waters.

Tommy

Fred Keyes said...

Well, what can I say? We are at loggerheads. The Pope is not Charlie Johnston and its ludicrous to cast him that way. That in effect is what you're doing, because if Francis is as wrong as you say he is, he is far, far more dangerous to the Church Universal than CJ ever was. And if that's so, why haven't the hundreds of cardinals and bishops sounded an alarm that corresponds to such a dire threat? Even Cardinal Burke and friends haven't gone that far.







Fred Keyes said...

By the way, Tommy: You say "Living as brother & sister is not exceptionally difficult. Many married couples already do so, or very close to it."

Have you done this? First hand experience?

I say there is no such thing as living as "brother and sister." A healthy unrelated man and woman living together can't be compared to a cohabiting brother and sister who have a healthy aversion to mutual carnal desires. The unrelated couple can be celibate, but for most it would take extraordinary effort to do that. Of course with respect to a cohabiting brother and sister, incestuous situations are not unheard of, but again comparing such a brother and sister to an unrelated couple is apples and oranges.

Fred Keyes said...

Best argument in support of the Pope I have seen yet:

http://timstaples.com/blog/defending-pope-francis-pt-2

Jackisback said...

Fred, you said:

The Pope is not Charlie Johnston and its ludicrous to cast him that way. That in effect is what you're doing...

Not so. And I dare say, it is beneath you to recharacterize the argument in a way to put words in my mouth, to infer something that I did not imply.

Then you said:

...if Francis is as wrong as you say he is, he is far, far more dangerous to the Church Universal than CJ ever was. And if that's so, why haven't the hundreds of cardinals and bishops sounded an alarm that corresponds to such a dire threat? Even Cardinal Burke and friends haven't gone that far.

I think I have made the case that it is not for me to opine whether or not the Pope is, per se, wrong. I simply observe the chaos that we now have, and I have made the case that the Dubia are enough to make the point I am making about the doubts raised on indissolubility. Remember the Dubia are not conclusions, but actual questions to His Holiness. The Dubia are on point, they are proportionate, and they were respectfully submitted to the Holy See. But they go unresponded to, entirely. Because they go unanswered, both Phoenix and Buenos Aires co-exist, pretending to be part of the same Body of Christ, however unable to speak with one voice.

As for not having hundreds of cardinals an bishops sounding an alarm, I don't think that is required. All I need is a cogently produced argument that raises the question to the level that it ought to be raised (IMHO) such as this argument/question raised by Josef Seifert:

https://onepeterfive.com/josef-seifert-pure-logic-threaten-destroy-entire-moral-doctrine-catholic-church/

I'll respond to your Staples piece in a minute, I hope...

Anonymous said...

Fred,

For medical reasons my wife and I lived as brother and sister for almost 12 years. To make it easier on ourselves we kept separate bedrooms and was careful not to watch her dress. And of course it was difficult and sometimes I "fell" and needed get to confession. But I can tell you from personal experience it is possible.

Jackisback said...

Fred, respectfully, your Staples piece unwittingly makes my points for me, as oppposed to the points he intended. Example, he points to these quotes from Francis regarding indissolubility:

"In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur:..." Staples thinks this defends indissolubility? The notion of marriage as something which the Church should propose as a "full ideal" waters down a sacrament as an "ideal to be proposed," rather than an unbreakable covenant.

"...“Young people who are baptized should be encouraged to understand that the sacrament of marriage can enrich their prospects of love and that they can be sustained by the grace of Christ in the sacrament and by the possibility of participating fully in the life of the Church.” Yes, marriage can provide these things, but this is non sequitur vis-a-vis indissolubility.

"A lukewarm attitude, any kind of relativism, or an undue reticence in proposing that ideal would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also of love on the part of the Church for young people themselves." This is a straw man argument. The defenders of indissolubility aren't doing this, quite the contrary. Certainly no Priest does this during pre-Cana. Ironically, as a result of A.L. it is the Buenos Aires method that displays, by example, a lukewarm attitude of relativism toward indissolubility.

"To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being." "Never?" In Buenos Aires, the light of indissolubility is definitely being dimmed, under the guise of "understanding." This statement again describes marriage not as an unbreakable covenant, but as an "ideal." Even if one concedes that understanding may be warranted "in the face of exceptional situations," the example you have proposed (with Ms. Justine and Fr. Empathy) is NOT exceptional; it is commonplace. Jesus didn't "offer" the concept of indissolubility as something to choose to accept or not (in situations that were exceptional or not) - He reminded us that "from the beginning, it was never like this." When Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for employing the exceptions of Mosaic law (dare I describe those exceptions as displays of "understanding" in those ancient times?) in order to divorce their wives, the only exception He mentioned as legitimate was the discovery of the wife's lack of virginity (the Greek word "porneia") - a condition precedent to the marriage - discovered afterward when attempting the consumate the marriage.

Staples then belabors distinctions of culpability, the only one of which makes sense is the description of sinners who truly are not fully cognizant of the grave nature of a sin - because they lack knowledge. This wasn't in play in either your example or mine. So there's no application of this concept of a lack of culpability from lack of knowledge. Staples' remaining distinctions of culpability involve "exceptional cases." As we have already discussed, this is not in play in our commonplace examples. Staples employs this thinking to reduce the commonplace adultery of civil remarriage as a venial rather than a mortal sin.

Staples then makes a non sequitur analogy of "practice" as sometimes in line with, and sometimes distinguished from, divine law - describing scripture passages and even Council of Nicea documentation of the practice of standing rather than kneeling during Pentecost. Sorry, neither standing nor kneeling in church is a sin. Adultery via civil remarriage is a grave mortal sin, and no one needs a Bishop to tell them that, much less a Bishop who will engage in hair splitting, reducing it down to a venial sin in unexceptional circumstances.

Jackisback said...

Fred, another example from Staples' piece:

The pope made quite clear that he is not giving any sort of approval to adultery. In paragraph 297, he says:

[I]f someone flaunts [flouts] an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Matt. 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the gospel message and its call to conversion.

Our Holy Father uses the language of excommunication here! I don’t know if he could have been any more forceful of the fact that he is not changing doctrine other than to say anyone who were to attempt to do so would be guilty of something that could merit excommunication.


Do you, Fred, know of or have ever heard of, a Catholic penitent flaunting their civil remarriage as "part of the Christian ideal?" Have you every heard of anyone demanding, or communicating to their pastor that they feel entitled to the Eucharist because their civil remarriage is a social good that should be recognized as such? I haven't, and, I'll wager you haven't either. There's a reason for that: this is a straw man argument. His Holiness assures us that someone who does such a thing will be excommunicating themselves. This is an easy way to sound forceful, like the proverbial "bad cop," because the situations do not come up, and such imaginary people don't exist.

In A.L., this particular straw man fallacy serves, effectively, as a set up for the later, more merciful "good cop" tone when Francis implies that exceptions might be warranted for those in exceptional circumstances, who lack "true" culpability, and who approach their pastors discreetly and with humility and sincerity - meaning, without specifically saying so, virtually every Catholic penitent wanting to receive the Eucharist after having remarried civilly without a tribunal annulment.

The "bad cop" paragraph cited by Staples also provides cover to the Bishops of Buenos Aires when they publish guidelines making it very easy for penitents, in unexceptional circumstaces, to obtain the Eucharist again. They can point to this paragraph by Francis and pat themselves on the back for the fact that they are not planning on catering to the really "bad" parishioners among them who might indignantly express an arrogant expectation for being granted absolution and the Eucharist on the very day of the civil remarriage, for example. Heavens no! They will steadfastly refuse to do that!

So Staples is technically right that the Pope "is not giving any sort of approval to adultery," but the remainder of A.L. has been co-opted and twisted by the Bishops of Buenos Aires to forgive continuing adultery in a civil remarriage, so long as the penitent is humble and discreet about it.

Let's go for a logical extension of the Buenos Aires issue. It is an objective mortal sin to have more than one spouse at the same time, whether or not the government in whose jurisdiction I live would permit such a thing. If I, a lifelong, well-catechized, church-going Catholic, approach a pastor in Buenos Aires, sincerely and discreetly, but explain to him during my time of accompaniment how I have three children by three different spouses, whom I feel obliged to continue living with more uxorio and I plead my case that a greater sin would be incurred if I permanently departed from any two of them, and a greater sin yet if I terminated sexual relations with any of them, and that this is an exceptional situation (which it certainly is, by definition) do you think my Buenos Aires pastor should agree to grant me absolution and the Eucharist under the Buenos Aires guidelines? If not, why not? Before you answer, remember the Pope's assertion that there cannot be one rule that applies to all situations.

Anonymous said...

Umm, Fred;

With charity, your points are absurd. Not well reasoned at all. First, we're not animals and we can control ourselves. Yes, I have done so, i.e. living as brother & sister, for over a year once due to marital problems. FYI.

Second, NOBODY here is comparing our Holy Father to the crackpot Charlie Johnston. That is ridiculous.

Third, right is right, even if very few, including clergy, see it as such. Objective truth can't change. BTW, many clergy do, but are afraid to speak out.

Please, brother - because you are - respond on the merits, and don't appeal to emotion. That's beneath you and this thread.

Pax Tommy

Fred Keyes said...

Tommy, you made MY point. You said it was difficult and that you were careful not to watch her dress. My point exactly. I promise you if I were to live with my sister I would not want to watch her dress, but only because I would be embarrassed. It would not be difficult at all to be lustful toward her since I have that natural aversion that most people have to incest. I am not saying continence for a heterosexual, opposite sex couple is impossible, but it is a difficult thing and not one everyone can live up to and keep their family on an even keel.

Fred Keyes said...

Sorry. It should read "NOT to be lustful"....

Fred Keyes said...

Jack, quoting you:

"Adultery via civil remarriage is a grave mortal sin, and no one needs a Bishop to tell them that, much less a Bishop who will engage in hair splitting, reducing it down to a venial sin in unexceptional circumstances."

"Our Holy Father uses the language of excommunication here! I don’t know if he could have been any more forceful of the fact that he is not changing doctrine other than to say anyone who were to attempt to do so would be guilty of something that could merit excommunication."

Not quoted, your last horrific example of the really bad bigamist.

All right, as the logic expert tell me why these examples are not the fallacy of relative privation?

Anonymous said...

Fred;

You're mistaken. I never wrote such. Someone else did. I'm NOT making your point. I'm refuting it. I wrote that I lived married, as brother & sister, for well over one year. It's a easy, realistic goal. We're not animals. These new guidelines are being implemented in Buenos Aires & San Diego in one way and everywhere else in a totally opposite way. This is NOT Catholic unity. It's chaos. And it's coming from Rome, tragically. The exceptions are already beginning to become the norm. Invalid confessions and sacrilegious holy communions!

Tommy

Fred Keyes said...

Tommy,

So you are arguing because it was easy for you to live as brother and sister it is likewise that easy for everyone else in a similar situation?

Fred

Anonymous said...

Fred;

I'm opining that it IS a viable alternative to, wink - wink, allowing civilly 'married' couples to publicly celebrate their adultery. The same ridiculous argument could be made for anyone, who 'needs' satisfaction. NG.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

Hello People:

A lot of very intelligent people offered opinions on this. Why don't we just call it what it is? A Catholic divorce. I can't compete with the deep arguments made by a lot of you folks. But, I do know the Moasic law allowed for divorce, and so do the Orthodox, who do have seven valid sacraments. This is Catholic divorce, apparently being permitted in some places, but not in others; all allowed by the Vatican. Let's just call it what it is.

Jackisback said...

The next few days are hectic for me, so I'll have to get back to you, Fred, on relative privation. Very interesting.

But before I even do the research & analysis required to talk intelligently about that, let me just say that I have very much enjoyed our friendly debate on these matters.

Anon at 11:49 AM's perspective is interesting as well. While I try to avoid the use of cliche expressions, Anon is, in a way, pointing to the protestations from Rome and Buenos Aires (which claim to be four-square defenders of indissolubility) and opining that the "emperor has no clothes."

I do not necessarily agree that what we have is per se "Catholic divorce," for if that were true, the Bishops of Buenos Aires might dispense with nullity tribunals and their laborious efforts to find a fact that made a marriage invalid ab initio (i.e., precedent to the original, valid, public, marriage ceremony). And if no tribunal were needed to do that, one could proceed from the Confessional to a public wedding in a Catholic Church with a new spouse. But Anon's point is that the public life of civilly "remarried" Catholics is one where they live their lives more uxorio (meaning, as husband and wife, publicly) and when such folks are given absolution and return fearlessly to the Eucharist, that makes things certainly appear to an outside observer as having the tacit effect of a "Catholic divorce."

What I have discovered through experience is a commonality shared by most all of humanity: the need to hold fast to one's illusions. I am no different in this regard. My illusions just happen to be different than yours, Fred.

As you say, we are at loggerheads. But that doesn't mean I don't respect your stance and your honest desire for unity where mercy is given more emphasis. I do. As I say, I would benefit personally from this approach, if only His Holiness would mandate it across all dioceses throughout the world.

But my goal in these conversations is to be the Thomas More advocate for the defense of indissolubility as expressed by JPII and his predecessors, and the Christ Himself (against my own interests) until my points are overwhelmingly and convincingly refuted such that, like Acquinas, I conclude the other way. I'm not saying it can't be done. But we're not there yet. Perhaps researching the relative privation fallacy will get me down the road a bit. We shall see.

God bless you, Fred.

Anonymous said...

Fred, you said to Tommy:

So you are arguing because it was easy for you to live as brother and sister it is likewise that easy for everyone else in a similar situation?

Fred, whether it's easy or hard is not the question. Sex outside of marriage is objectively a mortal sin. Christ said we would not be tempted beyond our strength. Was Christ lying about that? But if someone does fall, then they go to confession, and try not to sin again in the future.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 8:35—that's a good question.

Let me give you an example that is the moral equivalent of the situation you just posted:
Take a coming-of-age young girl. She has never had a single "talk" with a parent or teacher about the "birds and the bees"--she is totally in the dark. She meets a boy a little older than herself with whom she gradually learns the intensely good feelings she can have with sex...and she indulges freely. She knows that what she is doing feels vaguely wrong, but really doesn't know why and writes it off to just feeling embarrassed to admitting how little she understood what was happening to her physically.

Clearly, objectively, what the young woman has done is a mortal sin--several in fact.

Was she being tempted beyond her strength? I would say no—what strength did she have to begin with? She was utterly unaware that there was even a moral issue to begin with. Subjectively there was no sin other than the fact she was ignoring a small voice that was telling her something *felt* wrong, but didn’t know what it was and had no way of knowing without instruction.

You can say she was not tempted beyond her strength because she had no strength to begin with, and in fact there was no temptation at all—she was just following a natural biological urge. It was something that if you think about it is a good thing in itself; i.e., our biological process of reproduction. The evil of course is not the sex—it’s the absence of a marital commitment. But she knew even less about that.

That illustrates what’s at play here. It’s not as simple as it seems on the surface.

Anonymous said...

Fred;

IDK. That example is fine as a stand alone, but it is absolutely not relevant to the cases we're discussing. The vast majority of these civilly remarried couples have at least a working knowledge of what they're attempting to do, i.e. a Catholic divorce. Even the minority of those who don't......recall, all of them were previously married in a Catholic Church wedding, so they all went through pre Cana and were initially properly instructed..........are now sitting down with a priest and discussing - and being informed, yet again for a second time. So, your example, while good reading, is not analogous to these cases at all.

Anonymous said...

It appears that our favorite seer, Charlie Johnston, is looking for, in fact begging for, an audience. His new site is tanking, except for Mrs. Hesse, i.e. Beckita. He still won't acknowledge his dangerous fantasies were just that. The people whom he hurt were foolish to follow his nonsense; however, I still feel bad for them.

PS Re. Buenos Aires & San Diego vs. the rest of the world.......I for one am very confused by Pope Francis' permitting of two diametrically opposed pastoral practices, both of which have a direct & dramatic impact upon the Sacrament of Matrimony. It's damn close to being Catholic divorce, in my opinion. Rome is fueling two, as of now, very different voices within our Church. That's NOT unity. That's unprecedented and dangerous, in my opinion.

Jim D.

Fred Keyes said...

Jim D. and @ 2:16, can we at least agree that we should calm down because the Holy Spirit will straighten this thing out, the way He always has? Saving the world is not our job, right?

(Not CJ's either, to keep this relevant...)

Pax vobis.

Anonymous said...

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said this week:

"The worst thing we can do ... is to soften or downplay the hard parts of our faith, those teachings where we encounter the most resistance or hostility in our culture," Cordileone said.

"We leaders in the Church do a grave disservice to our people by giving them excuses for taking the easy way out, such as misleading them with the false idea of what conscience means or failing to assist them in forming their conscience correctly," he noted.

Cordileone added that false appeals to conscience undermine fidelity to the Cross.


Fred, does the Archbishop speak the truth or do you believe it is a Pharisee?

Fred Chavez said...

The debate goes on. Excerpted from an article in today's online America magazine re: Bishop McElroy, my bishop here in San Diego:

"Using Pope Francis’ 2015 address to the U.S. Congress as inspiration, Bishop McElroy said Catholics, especially church leaders, must “reassess” how they “carry out the mission of evangelizing the political culture of the United States” and lamented that the church’s views are often used not to promote the common good, but to score political points.

“Catholic teaching has been hijacked by those who break down the breadth of our social doctrine by reducing it to the warped partisan categories of our age and then selecting those teachings for acceptance which promote their partisan worldview,” the bishop said."

P.S. Please provide an example of anyone who agrees with Pope Francis AND has disagreed with the doctrine on conscience (please, not just *your* opinion about what someone else has said). True as Bishop Cordileone's statement is, Jack might have referred to his concern as a straw man argument vis a vis the Pope's teaching.

Fred Chavez said...

P.S. @ 11:59——What does "...do you believe it is a Pharisee?" mean?

Anonymous said...

I meant to say:

Fred, does the Archbishop speak the truth or do you believe he is a Pharisee?

Anonymous said...

Well Fred;

Docility is always a benefit; I agree. However, I feel we should also fight for Catholic truth. That's sometimes can get a bit messy. Calm, down? Not necessarily. But, always with Catholic charity; always.

I know Charlie is old news. I concur, but I also believe that it never hurts to shine the light of truth of false prophets because, as W.C. Fields said: THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE! We should, I believe, serve as watchdogs, because Charlie, and ilk just like him, are hurting people; some irrevocably.

Jim D.

Lioness70 said...

Some interesting reading as Charlie, who seems to be a Catholic populist, posted the first of his "Ballad of the Ordinary Man" pieces.

(His daily readership is down to around 900 people, a sixth of his old site.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/catholic-populists-trump-pope-francis-vatican/527766/

Most importantly, as Sarah Posner has noted in the New Republic, right-wing American Christians view Trump as a protector of their traditional way of life. Similarly, Italian Catholic populists are nostalgic for a time when Europe had a strong Christian identity that served as an unquestioned moral compass—a time when borders were clear and indisputable, when women used to be women and men used to be men. They see Trump as a defender of a cherished order, which they believe is threatened by immigration and changing gender roles.

Given these premises, it is perhaps not so surprising that they see Trump as a torchbearer for their cause—and may see themselves reflected more in the American president than in their own pope.

Anonymous said...

I’m still waiting for the arrival of Menses on the world scene. Boy, was I a dope for believing Seer Johnston.

Anonymous said...

Anon above;

Don't feel too bad. Charlie Johnston is a pretty convincing teller of tall tales. He's a fraud and a con man, but he's quite good at it. A lot of smart people were taken in by this snake oil salesman. I was also, but only to a small extent. You're not alone.

Jim D.

L Spinelli said...

Jim and Anon, he still has his core nutters snookered, but luckily, he lost 88 (!!!) percent of his former audience.

I say luckily because those people are feeding Charlie's seemingly insatiable ego with silliness like this:

Charlie, this is really great! When I first started reading I thought, oh no, this is going to fly right over my head- so I had to read it twice… and should probably read again at least 5 more times. I have never read anything so jam-packed with info, and the way you stitched it all together is amazing. Homeschooling parents could use this!

As homeschooling parents of 7 soon to be 8, we are always on the lookout for new material, as we are always teaching our kids about American history and how great America is even with the upheavals of today.

I was made for these times – and so were you…and so with all the ordinary men who God will use to show He is the source of life and light and laughter.

Yes, I believe with every fiber of my being that the ordinary men and women throughout this country and throughout this world will answer the call and we will see a new birth of liberty, a new birth of joy, a new birth of justice under God throughout God’s great earth.

Charlie minted and forged this writing as another arrow in our quiver, a sword tucked in the sheath… to hold in our minds and our hearts as we hold our Rosary and Holy Scripture in our hands!

Charlie, love all of the content, and especially how you wrote it so anyone who is American, or knows of our principles can read this and relate to some or all of it. I am past worrying about offending anyone so I am sharing across all communication lines I have; this is a piece that can be share in public school Civics class (well, for at least a day before CNN foo foo’ed it), and our kids would learn more than most current text books would share…

Charlie, This needs to get into the hands of every authentic educator left in our country (not many these days). Flood the high schools through colleges with this work! I hybrid-homeschool my children. I just printed this out, Guess what I am going to discuss with my highschooler tomorrow? She is currently studying ancient history and Plato. Your work adds greatly to what she has been learning about human nature, principles and governing!

It began four days after President Trump’s inauguration with Dennis Praeger’s piece, America’s Second Civil War. My Goodness! It was as if Mr. Praeger was a TNRSer. As authentic news continues to be reported, I echo your statement – with a slight adaptation, for we have only been publicly exposed to it on the TNRS website since its inception 5 years ago, but Charlie was saying these things more than twenty years ago to his spiritual directors as he sought their counsel and submitted himself to Holy Mother Church. How true it is: This is exactly what Charlie Johnston has been saying for more than twenty years.

Honestly Charlie, I am praying that your influence goes well beyond ASOH. All of America needs to understand this.


Charlie still thinks he's going to influence American politics, even after numerous prophetic failures. And these crazies keep egging him on. That place is completely infected with insanity.

Anonymous said...

Dear L. Spinelli,

Charlie isn't special and his followers aren't crazier than lots of others cult followers. Compared to some recent news stories, Charlie is really small-time.

Drudge has linked to stories on a sex-slave-branding cult in upstate New York led by a middle-aged personal growth guru. The second in command was an actress on "Smallville," a teen Superman show, and actresses, heiresses were followers. Then there was the Wild, Wild Country documentary on Netflix about the Rajneeshi cultists in Oregon back in the '80s. That attracted fanatical followers, also with a female second in command. Not to mention the ongoing stories that keep circulating about Scientology, especially from Leah Remini on A&E.

Charlie is a cult-leader wannabe. He's only taken walking-around money from these people himself, free room and board from misguided believers. He's in it for the adulation. Though he keeps trying to make himself politically relevant, it ain't gonna happen. (Look at his comments on Disqus, he's ignored on mainstream websites.)

Anonymous said...

Charlie is a delusional, non apologetic, and arrogant snake oil sales man. The main mistake he made with his cult was to make predictions with specific dates. If he'd omitted those dates, I wonder if he'd still have a huge (TNRS) following. He's not just a failed prophet, but he is also combative.

I agree he's a cult - leader wanna be and he's small potatoes. But, one very significant distinction with him is that he pretends to be a devout Catholic. IDK what his personal beliefs and/or practices may be, but he's not operating under the supervision of the Magisterium, or with the permissions of his bishop; not even close. He's a Catholic cult leader wanna be. That makes him worthy of both continual monitoring and inspection. He's in it for his cult's adulation; no question. But I assert that good ole Charlie is a potential danger, if only to his core nutters.

PS Remember, long ago, he told people that he'd saved a family from a burning car and that he'd single handedly foiled an armed bank robbery? Several people reported this. Suuuure, Charlie.


Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Ah, another wretchedly repetitive ad hominem rant, as if there's anyone left here in this scantly visited thread that doesn't get the gist of your position, Jim. Find something to build up, rather than tear down, lest 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 convict you as a resounding gong... a clanging cymbal... nothing... gaining nothing.

L Spinelli said...

If it's so scantily visited, MP, why are you still here?

It's too bad for you that you choose to stick with a nationalist Catholic cult, small as it is.

BTW, the Pope isn't too fond of nationalism. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/01/24/what-catholic-response-rise-nationalism

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5:14:
With charity, my critiques of Charlie Johnston are spot on, and he HAS hurt people, who foolishly followed him. He was a real danger. If you don't like my critiques, I could care less; don't read them. That's just too bad. We have an obligation to expose frauds, especially nominally Catholic frauds. I've told you true!

Anonymous said...

That's I, above.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Jim D, when people are confronted with what's coming out of their mouths (from the keyboard in this case), I always find their retorts to be telling. A couple of specific retorts most telling. Either "leave me alone," or "I don't care." Of course you care what others think, or you wouldn't keep up the repetitive CJ bashing, ad nauseam. You're obviously hoping that your cronies agree, of course, but knee-jerking defensively the second you get some blowback. Hey, we get it already, you think CJ is a fraud. And just in case you're not paying attention, the handful of others left here aren't jumping to defend your rants. Maybe even they have the good sense to blush for you at this point.

Hey, at least Spinelli tried a different tack. The nationalistic 'cult' thing. That would be funny, Spinelli, if I didn't find it so narrow minded. Of course if you're just baiting, I suppose you'll suggest I'm not listening to the Pope next, disobedient to The Church, etc... at least that was your insinuation.

Maybe take up that whole thing Jim was ranting about earlier... exposing nominally Catholic frauds. Just use the Bible and CCC and the best reference sources.

Not Joe C. Not MP. I've visited Glenn's site for many years to read other features, but definitely bored with this thread. I do hope everyone gets to the truth of the matter eventually.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon;

God bless you too. I'm gonna post as I please, whether you, and everyone, or no one for that matter, concurs. it's called freedom of expression. I respect your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'm not going to let up on reporting upon CJ, who is a 'Catholic' fraud, even should you disagree. Pax.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Jim, L. Spinelli and all the others who continue to expose CJ for the fraud that he is!

L Spinelli said...

Once more, I wouldn't have an issue with any of this IF Charlie had gone and stated away like he said he would. But we all know by now that he can talk his way out of almost anything. (E. g. his retirement date changed from 7/5/18 to never. His explanation? The angel never confirmed that July 5 was the date. OK then.)

It might have seemed hard to rebuild his Catholic nationalist cult when the guy lost close to 90 percent of his followers AND all his prophecies from the Birmingham Dinner in 2015, the Presidential Prophecy, the Rescue and even prophecies prior to 2014 tanked. But facts be damned, the core nutters keep it going.

Anonymous said...

Jim D;

I'll wager that that above Anon poster is a member of the CJ cult. You, sir, are correct to post vs CJ; he IS a fraud!

Anonymous said...

But facts be damned, the core nutters keep it going.

L Spinelli...........you're correct. I must admit, CJ is a very talented liar. He really is. That's not really a compliment at all, but he really can talk his way out of anything.

Anonymous said...

Either "leave me alone," or "I don't care."

Well, I do care and I respect everyone's right to express themselves. Thank you to the above two positive comments. My attacks are not ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks attack someone on a personal level, w.o. factual basis. Umm, false. My comments regarding CJ are NOT personal at all. I'm commenting upon his record, and his repeated lies and delusions. He misled many people, denigrated real Catholic prophecies, and hurt numerous people financially. Who is speaking for or even remembering them? He IS a snake oil salesman, and a very adroit liar. That's NOT ad hominem. That's only based upon his failed & dangerous record.


Jim D

Anonymous said...

Jim D;

You're correct. CJ put all this garbage out there in the public domain; he gets what he deserves. He needs monitoring. If he doesn't receive it, he'll be back to mislead more needy Catholics. Tragic but true. I've told you true!

Joseph J said...


I personally think that the information and discussion provided here has been very beneficial for those who were discerning Charlie's extraordinary predictions. Obviously at this point everyone can now see that Charlie's predictions were a complete and utter fail in every single respect.

As for myself, the one good thing that I can draw out of this whole experience is that I am now much more prepared financially and materially (think food, heat, survival supplies etc.) for what may very well be coming down the road at some point, given the current state of world affairs and the overall economic state of the USA and global economy. For quite a few economists have been warning for some years now of a global debt crisis along with a worldwide stock market bubbles, which apparently could cause a very severe economic downturn throughout the globe, similar to the Great Depression. We shall see. In the meantime, its not a bad idea I think to have some physical preparations in place considering this fragile food delivery systems we now have in place.

Best wishes to everyone here. Joseph J.

Anonymous said...

Jim D., I was taken in my Seer Johnston but I don’t think we can say with absolute certitude that he lied. Nobody knows that for sure. Certainly all his prophecies were FALSE. But it is possible Seer Johnston has a mental health problem, or a very active over imagination in which he believes the self-talk in his head are locutions from the Archangels.

Jack Gallagher said...

The concept of fraud includes the latin term "scienter": i.e., intent to deceive.

Any third party observer needs persuasive evidence in order to prove that CJ had the requisite intent. There is the notion that we cannot precisely know the heart of another. Then again, even the Christ said, to paraphrase, what is in the heart comes out of the mouth.

In the beginning of my contributions of my opinion on the original thread back in 2015, I never found it necessary to address this aspect, and instead, I found it more valuable to simply test CJ's claimed locutions after having assumed his professed belief that he was communicating with heavenly sources at face value.

Of course, there is the question of what did CJ communicate via his blog after the fails? CJ, being a professed intelligent person, knew that God, whom he thought was the direct source of the information (see especially his old post "From the Father") is not capable of lying. So the question arises: after the fails, why has CJ persisted with stating that his claimed locutions were true, but only misinterpreted by him?

Does that persistence reveal evidence of intent to deceive on CJ's part (knowing that God couldn't have been the source of deception)? Alternatively, is that persistence due solely to the seemingly unquenchable need to hold on to his illusion (now objectively a delusion) that he was speaking with God, for reasons that may seem obvious to us (e.g., giving up that delusion after so many years of sticking to it would be emotionally invalidating that he just couldn't bear it) or for other reasons not so obvious to us?

For me, Catholic charity calls for me to shrug and ask whether it truly matters any longer (even if it did matter in the past)?

Jean - "The Hawk" said...

For me, I haven't visited his site in months, I don't plan to, and I would encourage others not to, Charlie has had a 0% public prophecy record, that's a 0.00 percent record, you can not get any lower even if you guessed prophecy, he should leave the scene and be private.
So why is he around? Is he making money off the followers he has, his visits, etc. - no one knows, but the sports announcer said it best when its not about the money, its about the money, when is about the money, its about the money - its always about the money!

Anonymous said...

"Of course, there is the question of what did CJ communicate via his blog after the fails? CJ, being a professed intelligent person, knew that God, whom he thought was the direct source of the information (see especially his old post "From the Father") is not capable of lying. So the question arises: after the fails, why has CJ persisted with stating that his claimed locutions were true, but only misinterpreted by him?

Does that persistence reveal evidence of intent to deceive on CJ's part (knowing that God couldn't have been the source of deception)? Alternatively, is that persistence due solely to the seemingly unquenchable need to hold on to his illusion (now objectively a delusion) that he was speaking with God, for reasons that may seem obvious to us (e.g., giving up that delusion after so many years of sticking to it would be emotionally invalidating that he just couldn't bear it) or for other reasons not so obvious to us?

For me, Catholic charity calls for me to shrug and ask whether it truly matters any longer (even if it did matter in the past)?"

Jack, excellent points. I actually agree with your wise discernment. The only caveat I'd add is that CJ's motivation for remaining is less important than the fact that he is, in fact, remaining, with a cult - like following, and is still occasionally making predictions.

True, he's beyond irrelevant, but, I assert, is still a potential danger. This danger is most manifest to vulnerable Catholics and genuine Catholic prophecy, whose veracity is absolute, yet tainted by CJ's nonsense. This is especially true for non Catholics, who'll be inclined to dismiss genuine Catholic prophecy as mere fantasy, especially in our secular world. Also, could conversions to our Sacramental faith be diminished by CJ and his cult? I believe some of his former followers told non Catholics of CJ's predictions, hoping that their realization may cause some of them to become Catholic. That, we all know, is not the best means to convert non Catholics. However, after Fatima, many non Catholics did in fact become Catholic. CJ may well be responsible for the opposite. Just a thought.

Jim D.

L Spinelli said...

Jack,

My long-held opinion on why CJ is forging on dovetails with yours. He went through 50+ years of so-called "training", only to see it all fail. This is too large of a delusion for him to handle, so he defaulted to doing things as he always has - hence the "Jericho March" proclamations and pushing back his retirement date to, um, never.

(Recall again 2 Peter 1:20–21: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” If only I'd found that passage sooner. The whole way the "angel" went about the "training" was a sham all along, according to Scripture!)

It was a bit alarming when Charlie encouraged his followers to go against the Texas Bishops a couple of months ago. But then I realized that's how all these apparition based cults work. They forge on, regardless of what their local bishop ruled. A couple of them (Bayside comes to mind) still have devoted followers YEARS after negative rulings. Charlie is a small cog in a larger danger: putting the "teachings" of unapproved apparitions over public revelation, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium.

Anonymous said...

L Spinelli;

Yes, true. Charlie Johnston CAN'T handle the truth. It's that simple. The fact that he encouraged his cult to rebel against the Texas Bishops, after all these so called prophecies tanked, is very telling. He can NOT accept the objective reality that his so called mission is a total failure and delusion, so he forges on, pretending it was simply a misinterpretation. Concur. Sad. I think I'd be more sympathetic if Charlie wasn't so combative and totally unapologetic.


Tommy

Anonymous said...

2 Peter 1:20–21: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Damn. I hope CJ sees this passage, not that it'll matter to his cult. Excellent quote.

L Spinelli said...

@Tommy, absolutely right. Charlie can't accept that his whole mission didn't come from God. (Remember that he admitted the Presidential Prophecy didn't come from God back in January 2017.) I'll be honest, that's a lot for anyone to handle. Charlie, being very combative and possibly a narcissist, took the hit harder than most people would. He gave up a good chunk of his life and having a steady career for nothing. Guess that just goes to show how crafty demons are. They used his personality quirks and manic episodes against him.

That's why I still keep him in my prayers. I don't like him and would probably like him less if I ever met him in person (though I was fooled by his "kind and caring" mask before it slipped), but a victim of demonic delusions still needs prayer.

Anonymous said...

L Spinelli & Tommy;

Agreed. Charlie is very combative, and not the least bit apologetic. In fact, he's arrogant. I won't judge him personally, but I will judge his behavior. His behavior was put - by himself - into the public forum. Therefore, it's subject to examination. I agree with this - Demons are definitely using his personality quirks and manic episodes against him. As such, yes, he does need prayers.

Jim D.;

You raise an insightful point regarding how genuine Catholic prophecy may be damaged by CJ's rants, especially if observed by a non Catholic, who may be thinking of converting to Catholicism. These nonsense predictions DO discourage converts to our Sacramental faith and do diminish belief in real Catholic prophecies such as Lourdes & Fatima. Who'd benefit from these facts? Hmm. I think we have an answer.

Anonymous said...

L. Spinelli,

I question your comment about a steady career. Charlie was a failed political consultant when he left Illinois, he hadn't gotten any of his candidates elected to Congress, he worked as a car salesman often as not. The radio host/newspaper editor days were long past; he'd never been that successful in either. His habit of talking endlessly about himself and his incredible feats (rescuing families from burning cars, stopping bank robberies) surely alienated reasonable people who knew him professionally. When he went public with his chosen prophecy, that ended any possible media/political future. I still see him as willfully misleading. He knew his prophecies were "inaccurate" because he'd made some to Michael Brown and to his spiritual director(s) that just didn't pan out--before he went public. Demonic delusion plays a part, I've no doubt. So does vanity and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

Anonymous said...

Anon above;

Damn. All true. Several people reported that CJ had bragged about rescuing a family from a burning car and single handedly foiling an armed bank robbery. Really? Anyone believe those two tall tales? If he knew that some prior prophecies were bogus, than.........to Jack Gallagher........yes, that does make him a liar, with the clear intention to deceive. his status as a cult leader is becoming more solid day by day. Prayers are definitely needed for his cult.

Fred Keyes said...

Great catch with the 2 Peter quote, Ms. Spinelli. Can't go wrong with Peter—and the Chair. "Whatever you bind on earth..." etc.

L Spinelli said...

@Anon 2:19, you're right. I meant to say that Charlie gave up having a steady career to pursue these delusions. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

L Spinelli said...

Something I've long wondered about is why anyone who knew Charlie, personally or professionally, before he went public as a "seer" never commented on this whole thing. Did he hint about lawsuits? He was known to toss around threats of them from time to time on the TNRS site.

Anonymous said...

I still see him as willfully misleading. He knew his prophecies were "inaccurate" because he'd made some to Michael Brown and to his spiritual director(s) that just didn't pan out--before he went public. Demonic delusion plays a part, I've no doubt. So does vanity and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

Anon @2:16;

You're correct. He knew this was doubtful at best.

Also, bragging about stopping a bank robbery & rescuing a family from a burning car.....all signs of a narcissist who will NOT accept reality. Facts and failed record be damned. His cult doesn't care.

Jim D.

L Spinelli said...

Answering why Charlie went public after a couple of prophetic failures: he likely thought they came from Old Scratch to deter him from announcing the Storm and Rescue. But after his mission bottomed out last year, he found himself with no purpose. So he defaulted to his old talk show host mode mixed with his delusions.

It's ironic that he's back to proclaiming that taking a far right stance is the way to reclaim the country for God, when he was saying that politics was "a dead man walking" and "it's all going to fall" just three years earlier.

Anonymous said...

L Spinelli....spot on. That's exactly, or very likely, what happened.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

"His habit of talking endlessly about himself and his incredible feats (rescuing families from burning cars, stopping bank robberies) surely alienated reasonable people who knew him professionally."

Interesting, @ Anon., above. Does anyone really believe that CJ rescued a family from a burning car or stopped a bank robbery? No way in Hell. He is definitely a narcissist, combative, a chronic liar, and perpetually refusing to abandon his delusions. I also believe demons are feeding off his status.

It must be crushing to see clearly that your life's mission has tanked, totally. No 'storm' or 'rescue'. But, facts & record be damned, CJ still frequently hints at the prophetic, fueled by his core nutters. He HAS damaged real Catholic prophecies, and may well have dissuaded others from converting to our Catholic faith, as has been mentioned several times in this thread. I agree with that, and that's a real shame.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

"Now I’m ruined and lost thousand of dollars. Are you happy now Mr. Charlie Johnston? …Who will give my money and stuff back? There are other guys like me in the same condition. Are these the good fruits?"

Good question, sir. What a shame. Seer Johnston & his cult won't help you; at least, I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Seer Johnston say that tanks would be rolling down the streets rounding up people into FEMA camps? In fact one of his posts addressed how best to escape with your bug out bag to avoid capture. What a load of crap.

Anonymous said...

Three points of observation:

- Charlie Johnston is a total fraud, but he's a very convincing liar, capable of talking his way out of anything.

- The fact that hes was able to hoodwink so many intelligent people astounds me.

- He continues, totally unrepentant, unapologetic and defiant.

Amazing in a sad, dark kinda way.

Tommy

L Spinelli said...

A snippet from Charlie’s latest:

The reality is that May and June are critical. If we can get through these next two months without widespread violent strife breaking out, we have a chance of slowly and organically reclaiming the culture. Yet I don’t much believe it. My two big prophetic interpretive errors slightly seduced me into hoping that we would not have to undergo the full measure of scourging I saw through this Storm.

A few things. 1) This isn't the first time he mentioned violent strife breaking out, and it didn't. 2) Prophectic interpretive errors...well, see again what 2 Peter 1:20–21 said. 3) No need to look at them, but the articles he cites to support his POV come from obviously biased far right news sources. American Greatness? The Federalist? Politico? Zero Hedge?!? 4) His sheeple cite MAGA and this article from Townhall: Why Science and Experience Command That You Buy an 'Assault Rifle'.

Someone called Charlie God's mouthpiece in the comments, BUT since all of this is the typical far right battle cry...what does ANY of it have to do with God?

Anonymous said...

"The reality is that May and June are critical. If we can get through these next two months without widespread violent strife breaking out, we have a chance of slowly and organically reclaiming the culture. Yet I don’t much believe it. My two big prophetic interpretive errors slightly seduced me into hoping that we would not have to undergo the full measure of scourging I saw through this Storm."

Seer Johnston is at it again! I always knew he'd return to his old nonsense. Once a false prophet, always a false prophet! Come early July, he'll just ignore this, by then failed, prediction, and fixate upon / latch onto something else. Unbelievable.

Jim D

Anonymous said...

I don't much comment here, but I will add that Charlie Johnston is merely playing to peoples' collective fears. He's feeding off many people's worries about an increasingly volatile world. He is a con man, with a not so fresh message of impending doom. I agree; he's beyond irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Seer Johnston is now getting his core nutters all worked up into a frenzy telling them that May and June are critical. Mark my words...in a few weeks he will be saying that July and August are critical. What a load of crap this fellow is shoveling.

Anonymous said...

This is from the Gospel for Ascension Thursday:

He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.

So if Jesus said it’s not for us to know the times or seasons, then while is the archangel Gabriel giving seer Johnston the dates of the chastisement and rescue?

Anonymous said...

Haven’t looked this blog for ages. Just took a look and same old, same old. No new articles of substance since January and people still decrying CJ. Disappointing.

L Spinelli said...

CJ should have stuck to his pledge that he'd vanish if the Presidential Prophecy failed. (Though he gave himself an out to return with the "if things blew up, I would return to work" comment.) He came back just four months later, and a year after that, has his core nutters all riled up about marching to Washington. The man seems hungry for publicity and recognition, which it seemed like he thought he was going to get if this Regency happened. (Don't forget his stunt pilgrimage, which looking back, also seemed like a way to draw attention to himself. The "Storm" starting was dependent on him going up Mt. Meeker. Kevin O'Brien dismantled this seeming like a publicity stunt.)

He can't accept that his so-called mission is a failure, so he remains to stay relevant. It's pathetic at this point. It would have been wise for the Archdiocese of Denver to shut this guy down completely after the Rescue prophecy also failed. But I said once and still believe that they have more pressing concerns than a now completely failed prophet. Without any authorities coming down on him, he's free to do whatever he wants...and he does the maximum.

Anonymous said...

One observation - Charlie Johnston offers nothing; nothing at all. His record is one of total failure, and his new site is merely his own rantings. Yet, he maintains a small core following, and continues to generate comments here. I find this somewhat interesting. He has, and still does, offer nothing at all. Yet, his scarcely read blog continues, as does this site, which rightly criticizes and monitors his failed record. My only additional observation is that, in my opinion, hes very soon to be worthy of being totally ignored. His rantings are just that, and simply aren't worth any further attention.

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston walked across America. Charlie Johnston rescued a family from a burning car. Charlie Johnston foiled an armed bank robbery. Charlie Johnston made plenty of false predictions. Charlie Johnston seems to be able to talk his way out of anything, and not to be held accountable. Pathetic, yet fascinating.

Anonymous said...

NOBODY believes that Charlie Johnston saved a family from a burning car or foiled a bank robbery. Pure nonsense. Nobody believes his so called walk across America ever occurred. Blogger Kevin O'Brien proved this as a fabrication, via social media. Charlie Johnston's only real talent seems to be that he's a convincing liar, and tha't no compliment to him.

Anonymous said...

I think that deep deep down even his core nutters know the bank robbery and burning car stories nonsense.

L Spinelli said...

I still wonder why none of Charlie’s ex-colleagues and ex-lovers never came forward after he went public with all of this crap. That would have given good insight on how to discern him and his message. I have my theory about why they didn't: lawsuits. Anyone else have any insight on why not?

Anonymous said...

L Spinelli, What I’m wondering is why haven’t his three Opus Dei priests stepped forward, and why did his Bishop issue such a fuzzy statement? The Bishop could have stopped this dead in its tracks but he chose not to.

Anonymous said...

I guess this is off-topic as it doesn’t pertain to Seer Johnston but check out:

http://spiritdaily.com/specialrepintropulse.htm

It’s almost as if this fellow is teasing you with the predictions to get you to subscribe to his monthly service. I think I’m done with mystics, prophets, seers, sages, and soothsayers.

Anonymous said...

I think I’m done with mystics, prophets, seers, sages, and soothsayers.

I agree. Frauds and smooth liars, such as Charlie Johnston, are just that, but do harm legitimate Catholic prophecy. I'm very sure a number of people attempted to convert others to the Catholic faith via seer Johnston's nonsense, and were made to look like superstitious fools, at best, and nuts, at worse.

I like Michael Brown. However, he published 'The Final Hour', which was loaded with many unfulfilled prophecies. He also, wrongfully, endorsed seer Johnston once upon a time. These facts do diminish his otherwise good work.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

The fascinating and compelling point here is not why Charlie Johnston is a false prophet and liar. Who cares; they're a dime a dozen. The much more troubling point is why intelligent people and otherwise devout Catholics fell for these deceptions. That's the real quandary, which will linger for a long time.

Jim D.

L Spinelli said...

Jim,

Charlie is a competent salesman. I'll give him that much. I was fooled by his slick talk way back when he first went viral (late 2014), but I came to my senses fairly quickly.

He never prefaced his prophecies with "this may happen if we don't repent". No, it was "this is going to happen, you can't do anything about it, but oh, here's the plan God gave to me." Scary stuff, but he was able to sell it. "I was truly sent by God." Not after all these failed prophecies, buddy. (And how he could claim he was sent when he gave Michael Brown a prophecy that bombed BEFORE HE WENT PUBLIC should have given his spiritual directors a pause...)

What's the reason he still has hangers-on? Because of the political climate. He fooled a lot of people with his political stance. They figured, this guy has been in contact with Heaven for so many years, he thinks like us, so God must approve." As I pointed out a while ago, Charlie is part of a larger problem: conservative Catholics aligning with far right political viewpoints and nationalism, even though they're not endorsed by the American bishops or Pope Francis. And as long as Charlie keeps writing about this nonsense, he'll always have a small but devoted following among people who believe everything Fox News, EWTN (which has veered off to the far right), Brietbart, etc.

Anonymous said...

L. Spinelli;

I completely concur, but personally believe that it's mainly the cult of personality. Charlie is a cult leader, and truly can talk his way out of anything. Even though he's way beyond irrelevant, his small band of core nutters remain. The 'sign' did happen; we just missed it. The 'rescue' is actually occurring, but is simply drawn out over time. Every prediction tanked, and his hard & fast dates....came and went. Nothing, of course. 'I told you true'.....yep. All right then; you sure did Charlie. In 2018, clever liars still mislead many, who are desperate for anything to 'save' them.

However, Michael Brown is a reputable guy, and does very good work. His endorsement of seer Johnston does diminish his credibility somewhat. I still can't comprehend how so many educated, intelligent Catholics fell for Charlie's double talk and clever deceptions. There are two tragic observations I must make: 1. Charlie's nonsense DOES diminish real supernatural occurrences, such as Fatima, Lourdes & Knock, and 2. People believing his lies shows that they aren't sufficiently nourished by the Sacraments, as they could & should be. Tragic; yet, seer Johnston defiantly goes on, his head held high, unapologetic.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

As has been noted above, seer Johnston is now predicting tumultuous events for the months of May & June, 2018. Then, I guess, when nothing occurs, it'll be July & August, 2018? Then, when nothing happens as usual, good ole Charlie will simply ignore yet another failed prediction and be fixated on something new. He really can talk his way out of anything.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

Tommy, Charlie is just following the news. In May and June there will be revelations from the Justice Dept. Inspector General about the Hillary email investigation and also the misuse of the FISA national security court. It doesn't take a "seer" to read the alt-right conspiracy theories on Twitter and regurgitate them. BTW, Charlie posted the second installment of his "Ballad for the Ordinary Man" and it is a big nothingburger with a topping of humblebrag...

L Spinelli said...

Charlie not so subtly compared himself to St. Augustine and bragged how he sprinkled quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas in his old writings to make critics and "supposed experts" look stupid in this latest humblebrag pie.

Nice guy. Oh, and it looks like he defends torture as well, something the Vatican doesn't accept under any circumstance.

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Charlie Johnston 10 days ago

Non-lethal and non-maiming interrogation techniques are NOT torture, regardless of how uncomfortable they make the suspect feel, current revisionism notwithstanding. I would take the left's virtue-signaling more seriously if it was accompanied by actual virtue.

Fred Keyes said...

My desire to come here has faded almost completely. CJ has entered the annals of nutters (love that word) who had a moment....and then became largely irrelevant...except for the nutter followers who prove P.T. Barnum's (alleged) adage--"There's a sucker born every minute." One can hope they will be saved by virtue of their invincible ignorance.

A Former Core Nutter said...

Despite the fact that EVERY prediction that Seer Johnston made has failed, in his latest blog post he states:

“...my eschatology was fundamentally sound.”

Jackisback said...

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of eschatology
plural eschatologies
1 : a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind
2 : a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment


From the Catholic Dictionary hosted by catholicculture.org:

Term
ESCHATOLOGY

Definition
The branch of systematic theology that treats of the last things: death, particular and general judgments, heaven, hell, and purgatory. All the essentials of eschatology have been clearly defined by the Church, notably the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the constitution Benedictus Deus of Pope Benedict XII in 1336. (Etym. Greek eschatos, uttermost + logos, discourse on.)


I could cite more definitions from other sources, but the above will do. One must wonder if CJ actually knows the meaning of the word. I say this only because CJ's self avowed purpose did not have to do with "last things." He forcefully made the point on several occasions that his "storm & rescue" meme was not about, and was not intended to be about, "final events in the history of the world," or "the end of the world," or "the ultimate destiny of humankind," or "the Second Coming," etc.

Recall the Denver Archdiocese'd stinging, though subtle, rebuke of CJ's "prophecies," in March 2016:

For those who are disappointed by this finding, the archdiocese encourages them to seek their security in Jesus Christ, the sacraments, and the Scriptures. The faithful should also remember Christ’s words: “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mt. 24:36)."

In the wake of this, CJ's followers howled in protest that the Archdiocese had completely missed the boat, defending CJ's writings as having not at all been about the end of days.

In any case, if CJ were to insist that his former prose was eschatological in nature, then we can say emphatically that his ideas are far away from what was taught by the Christ, while He lived on earth. CJ's notions are categorically different from those defined by the Fourth Lateran Council. We have not been in need of any "new eschatology," especially one replete with presumptuous "prophecies" and "locutions."

Jean - "The Hawk" said...

He's irrelevant, completely irrelevant, haven't been to his site in a long time, I gave it up for Lent and haven't been on it since.

Jackisback said...

Jean,

Here, here!

(my shortest post ever...)

L Spinelli said...

He's more than irrelevant, but getting him to go away and stop trying to make a name for himself (the Jericho March) is proving to be impossible.

Taking cheap shots at Mark Mallett, though, might get some of the obstinate core nutters to finally peel away. There was a lot of disagreeing on this latest offering - one where the real Charlie peeks out from behind the kind, caring, "aww shucks" mask.

A Former Core Nutter said...

Seer Johnston said in latest post:

I said I would publicly announce no new prophecies. I did not say I would completely repudiate my whole life. I candidly acknowledge my two serious misinterpretations, but I never said I would not reference what has gone before. I think a difficulty some folks have is that while I candidly acknowledge my errors, they cannot candidly acknowledge that on the large sweep of things my interpretation has been almost dead on.

Let me get this straight...25 million dead - FALSE PROPHECY, war with China - FALSE PROPHECY, economy collapse with money worthless and a return to the barter system - FALSE PROPHECY, the rise of Menses - FALSE PROPHECY, no US Presidential election - FALSE PROPHECY, tanks rolling down the streets, the collapse of law and order, and FEMA camps - FALSE PROPHECY.

So exactly how has Seer Johnston been correct in the large sweep of things?

Anonymous said...

In the "grand sweep of things" Charlie Johnston has been correct. By that I mean the world continues to embrace and celebrate evil including homosexuality and abortion, and has become increasingly dangerous as more regimes attempt to get nuclear weapons.

I just can't figure out why he needed 50 years of angelic direction from St. Gabriel himself to have figured this all out.

Heck, I don't have locutions, nor have I ever communicated with a being from beyond the veil, and yet I can tell you that evil will continue to increase until heaven intervenes. Maybe I should start my own blog.

Anonymous said...

In his latest post, CJ says:

"On Easter of 2008, I saw the Lord at the Vigil. He said to me, “Now the hour of darkness comes upon the world, but be not afraid: the darkness will not prevail.”

How can his followers trust that Jesus really spoke to CJ on Easter 2008 since all his prophecies have failed?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like he is slithering his way back into prophecy, which he said he was done with. I wonder if his archbishop still has someone reporting on Charlie's blog?

Jackisback said...

Anon (June 2, 2018 9:51 AM)

You said:

In his latest post, CJ says:

"On Easter of 2008, I saw the Lord at the Vigil. He said to me, “Now the hour of darkness comes upon the world, but be not afraid: the darkness will not prevail.”

How can his followers trust that Jesus really spoke to CJ on Easter 2008 since all his prophecies have failed?


Does anyone know for certain when CJ had previously made references to "the Lord," that he was referencing Jesus as opposed to God the Father?


Anonymous said...

Jack,

I assumed when he said "the Lord" he was referring to Jesus, but perhaps he meant God the Father.

L Spinelli said...

Jack, there was one instance where Charlie said, Jesus will appear to me if I'm in the midst of folks. Someone asked if his angel appeared to him during his talks, I think. Don't remember if it was the "Birmingham Dinner" transcript or a comment at his old site.

Is anyone surprised by how many promises this guy has reneged on by now?

(Speaking of which, he talks about the July 5 retirement date again in the latest comments section. I think the "serious theologian" is Peter Bannister, who can't be taken too seriously if he believes Vassula Ryden.)

L Spinelli said...

Well, not only does Charlie attract Charismatics and conspiracy theorists, he also has a poster who advocates for a Catholic Monarchy. Wow. Talk about the fringe. Are flat earthers and geocentrists next?

In times past the governments were royal, in this day they are democratic. In our former age responsibility or fault rests in the royal court, in this day it rests in the people’s court. In every land that has chosen to be ruled by the people came streets full of blood & horror with the US as the only true exception. In times past the chastisements & responsibility fell to the king as the representative of God. This is both privilege & when things go wrong a personal chastisement to the king himself. Satan will always come bringing all the things you seemingly want & desire. It is far easier to replace a wayward king than it is a self imposed democratic bureaucracy. In times past the fault falls to me, in this age however the fault falls to thee. You can keep the rights of man, enlightment, your democracy, your fascism, your communism, your totalitarianism, & your neosovietism. We will keep our Catholicism, our royal place, & submit ourself to the holy will of God through our Church. Alas the age of republics with all of its atrocities is finally near over.




Anonymous said...

Why are people even still talking about this guy? It is obvious that he is a fraud and there is no debating the matter in the light of the facts.

L Spinelli said...

He won't go away. Simple as that.

This guy needs to stop tinkering with his retirement date and be the person of their word that the LttW locutionist was. Both missions failed. Have the honor and the decency to admit you were completely wrong and fade away gracefully. Charlie won't and keeps tinkering with excuses as to why he's needed. What's really needed (which will likely never happen) is for Archbishop Aquila to tell him to go away for good.

L Spinelli said...

From the Mother of God forum:

12/7/17

Best to leave Charlie alone.

He may very well be a good man, but because of his long history of claiming visions which made false predictions we know they either do not come from God or he was mentally off.

There are plenty of good people to place our time in.

I believe Charlie said if he was proven wrong he would retreat into the background now.
That was a good idea, he should stick to it.

9/4/17

Also having promised not to post, Charlie is posting, we need to be people of our word.


Wise words that Charlie won't heed.

L Spinelli said...

And here's very recent proof that delusional thinking can't compete with common sense and decency (i. e. shut it all down). :

charliej373
June 1, 2018 at 7:07 pm

My lifelong self-perception has been that I was called to give people hope, to be a light during the Storm, to show all the promise of light to come. How can you not be cheery when life gives you the chance to fully live your vocation?

Notice the total contrast between what he thinks of his "vocation" and what outside observers think.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight...25 million dead - FALSE PROPHECY, war with China - FALSE PROPHECY, economy collapse with money worthless and a return to the barter system - FALSE PROPHECY, the rise of Menses - FALSE PROPHECY, no US Presidential election - FALSE PROPHECY, tanks rolling down the streets, the collapse of law and order, and FEMA camps - FALSE PROPHECY. Amen & all true.

Seer Johnston simply will NOT retire, ever. He must feed his ego, as fueled by his core nutters. He never merited his 15 minutes of fame, and now he won't man up and retire into obscurity, where he belongs. He's beyond irrelevant, but he & all other false prophets merit observation.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

LTTW's seer had the grace & dignity to fade away; not Charlie. So long as his core nutters support him, he's gonnna hang in there. Period. And what's worse, he's now slowly morphing back into false prophet mode. Pathetic.

L Spinelli said...

Mother of God, 1/10/17


Also one curious thing regarding this prophecy which seems to be about to fail Charlie comments that God has 'rebuked him in similar fashion many times in the past. Well the obvious question arise, 'How'?' By making prophesies that never happened?'

I am not taking a dig at Charlie but it reminds of the stars who do very last performance tours sixty zillion times. I think if you say you are going to go , then give the last performance and leave the stage, don't drag it out. Let our yes be yes and our no, no. There's nothing more annoying than the guy who says goodbye to everyone in a pub but keeps coming back again.

It's time to say Sayanara, Charlie and mean it.

Anonymous said...

To the poster above, does anyone really think that Charlie was “rebuked by God” or are those claims simply part of his overactive imagination?

Anonymous said...

Charlie is referencing his good ole failed prophecies days! incredible; he was mostly correct. No words.

Once a false prophet, always a false prophet.

L Spinelli said...

Anon @ 11:37, I honestly have no idea. I'm not interested in trying to figure out what was/is going on in Charlie's mind. The real issue is getting him to go away for good. No one needs him - or should I say no one ever needed him...?

(With the exception of Beckita, that is. She plainly stated that she needed Charlie in one of the recent posts. She's his number one excuser and enabler. And that, folks, is why he won't go away.)

Joseph J. said...

Looks like the monumental meeting of President Trump and N. Korea's leader Kim puts another nail in the coffin of all of Charlie's now completely failed prophecies, given that one of his key predictions surrounded N. Korea being the "dragons tail" leading us into a war with China prior to the great "miraculous rescue" by the end of 2017.

Well, now we call all see that the real truth is that the current events surrounding N. Korea and China are now more peaceful than in the past 50 years, thanks to the joint diplomacy of President Trump, China and S. Korea.
Joseph J.

Anonymous said...

Charlie of course has commented on this, Joseph J., trying to head off people who notice such small inconsistencies! Of course, his claim that he told the "commission" this can't be disproved!!

"One fellow suggested that if peace breaks out with N. Korea. it will obliterate one of my most long-standing prophecies; that the Storm would break through North Korea, but not be centered in North Korea. I will gladly take any opprobrium that comes my way in exchange for a real chance for peace. But I ought to let you know, as I let the commission that investigated me know several years ago, that though I don’t contradict people on the subject – because God often works in echoes and layers, that prophecy was already fulfilled in May of 2009. N. Korea did a nuclear test that month that was actually an audition: representatives of Iran and another rogue Middle Eastern state were observers – and N. Korea became nuclear arms merchant and technical advisors to those regimes. I pray, knowing full well the dangers yet to come, that this is the beginning of real peace and will nullify what has been a key component in Iran’s nuclear ambitions as well...

L Spinelli said...

Teddy
June 13, 2018 at 4:48 am

Guys…please don’t forget the not too distant past. This site was suppose to focus on politics from a Catholic point of view, with very little to no prophetic issues being discussed. Charlie was very wrong about some of the things he predicted in the past and some guys got too wrapped up in it and lost their shirts or fell into despair. Don’t let this happen to you! No one knows when, including Charlie. Its not “on the horizon” for sure. Pray to your guardian angel for help in discernment. God bless and Mary protect you.

Anonymous said...

Seer Johnston is talking about his “visitations” and conversations with the angels in his responses to the latest TNRS post.

But aren’t these the same other worldly beings who gave Seer Johnston all his failed predictions?

Anonymous said...

Charlie can't stop, and he won't stop, so long as there's even one core nutter, such as Beckie Hesse. He's back to conversing with his 'angel' once again, I see. His new post is not doing well, so he's returning to false prophet mode. His record of total failure aside, the secret knowledge to which good ole Charlie is privy is all that attracts / retains any readers. This is the ancient heresy of Gnostocism repackaged.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

YEAH, CHARLIE, WHAT'S UP WITH THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON????

CHADPRO123
June 15, 2018 at 7:43 pm


I remember in the summer of 2016 (July i think it was) hearing a talk that you (Charlie) gave and at the end of it you started ticking off names of prominent democratic leaders and power brokers briefly stating their crimes and then stating emphatically “They going to jail!” As i watched the video i remember thinking “Amen!” as you methodically listed off the names and crimes of some of the most corrupt individuals in head government positions. Virtually all Obama appointees.. At the time, i felt that justice was imminent and the Benevolent D would drop some heavy justice on our feckless and moribund ruling class.

But then the election happened, then Trump’s inauguration and now we’re 500+ days into his first term i i’m not so sure anything is going to happen. I hope it happens but i’m not holding my breath. I feel that as this point we are well beyond political solutions. I do not believe that our corrupt leaders will be driven out by the non-corrupt leaders but by the citizens themselves.

In other words, i await the March. Because that’s really the only thing that;s going to fix any of this. Nothing less than the active and forceful action of the people that love this nation and the principles it was founded on.

Equivocating press conferences don’t fix anything. But boots on the ground? That’s a start.

L Spinelli said...

Charlie has gone all out with his "it's time to choose - and choose the Right" meme.

He thinks the right is preserving faith, family and freedom. Not with what is currently going on.

One of his nutters posted this: The current mania concerning the separation of children from people who may or may not be their parents at the border is at such a fearful emotional pitch. It is the epitome of virtue signaling. The devil knows his time is short and seems to be going all in with this play.

If they can't see the cruelty and madness with that...they're hopelessly lost in what the far right fever swamp is telling them.

The Bishops are opposed to all this...but wait. Charlie subtly encouraged the nutters to oppose them for the second time, in the piece before this one.

Charlie IS leading this admittedly small group away from the Church. What a tragedy.

I also wrote to Denver after the last piece. They have a new vice chancellor who never heard of Charlie. If no one's monitoring him, little wonder he's saying this crap. I really wish someone would put the kibosh on him already.

Anonymous said...

Yes, L Spinelli, they remain nutters, but... it's heartening to see some of the hard-core followers post about how Trump is being used by God to lead the country out of the swamp. Trump, not Charlie, is signaling the Rescue. Trump, not Charlie, is like King Cyrus, an imperfect man doing God's work... Without the prophecy con, Charlie is losing steam and Trump is winning hearts and minds, even among the hard-core nutters (not Beckita, of course!!)

Anonymous said...

Just wondering if Glenn Dallaire is slowly winding this website down. No new articles since January. It just seems to subsist on the Charlie Johnston saga which has been going on for years now which is so negative. Was hoping for something new and uplifting.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for your comment. As a matter of fact, a new article was just posted on this website today entitled "St Mary Francis of the Five Wounds of Jesus--Italian mystic and Stigmatic."

In addition I have been developing a new website...but more on that later.

Thanks again and may God bless all who visit here.
Glenn Dallaire

Fred Keyes said...

I've believed for a long time now that for Charlie this was not a religious thing, it was all aimed at radical anarchy. He is clearly a member of the hard right and his enlisting God-fearing people was a cynical attempt--too successful in many cases--to enlist gullible folks in his true love, a lily-white, Nazi kind of America.

Anonymous said...

Fred, have you read his latest post at the new website?

Anonymous said...

It’s pretty boring over at TMRS without the prophecies of imminent collapse, doom and gloom. There’s some chatter about the Jericho March, but overall nothing interesting.

Former Core Nutter said...

In the latest post Seer Johnston says:

Remember then that I have, on several occasions, been badly wrong on details while simultaneously telling you absolutely true on the great sweep of what is before us. We are now in the midst of a global civil war fought on cultural lines, as I spoke of more than two decades ago.

I seem to recall that Seer Johnston told us true there would be tanks rolling down the streets, people would be herded into FEMA camps (and remember how he even gave us advice on how to avoid being captured during the roundups), that there would be a worldwide economic collapse, we would return to a barter system, there would be a World War with China, and that all these events would happen by the end of 2017.

But based on this latest post, these very specific prophecies supposedly given to the Seer by the Archangels themselves are now dismissed as mere details.

Anonymous said...

Hello Former core nutter!
Good point, but according to Charlie what we all apparently are not understanding is that even though Charlie has literally gotten every single one of his "Eight public prophecies that he insists upon" wrong as listed on this blog, he has "been absolutely correct on the general sweep of things".

So wrong but yet SO RIGHT! You see the problem is that we are all just seeing it from the wrong perspective. Its not the sum total of the individual prophecies which are all now a complete fail, but it is the grand sweep of things that he told us true about! So never mind the eight public prophecies fail....

L Spinelli said...

Hey folks, today was supposed to be the day Charlie retired from service!

He was supposed to stick around for "mop-up" services, none that were needed obviously, because nothing he predicted happened.

As you know, he talked himself out of disappearing on 7/5/18. Maybe he's waiting for the Second Civil War to start (it was supposed to yesterday XD ) so he can start his Jericho March and be on the path to glory and recognition.

Anonymous said...

Charlie was supposed to 'quit the scene' by now. Why is this false prophet, who can boast only of a record of totally failed prophecies, still around?

Tommy

Anonymous said...

So long as even one core nutter, such as Beckie Hesse, fuels his huge ego by giving him what he craves, i.e. attention, he'll never, ever quit the 'scene'. Charlie can talk his way out of anything. A 100 % failed record is ignored by some; yet Charlie remains, grasping onto his, totally unmerited, 15 minutes of fame. Pathetic.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Jim D.

Seer Johnston does admit he was wrong on the details but correct on the great sweep of things.

From his previous post:

Remember then that I have, on several occasions, been badly wrong on details while simultaneously telling you absolutely true on the great sweep of what is before us.

Anonymous said...

If we are to believe Charlie Johnston, he has been in angelic training by the Archangels for over 50 years. These angels, who can neither lie nor deceive, told Charlie TRUE prophecies, however Charlie misinterpreted the details of these prophecies, such as the World War, economic collapse, Regent running the USA, Menses, etc. As such, Charlie communicated false prophecies with his signature imprimatur that he has told us true.

Certainly the angels would have known in advance that despite 50 years of training Charlie would misinterprete every single prediction that gave him. So are we to believe that these angels gave Charlie these predictions regardless simply so he could amass a small core of followers and assure them he was correct in the "grand sweep" of things?

L Spinelli said...

Fred, this Charlie thing was more about him becoming a political and cultural leader than anything to do with Our Lord and Our Lady. That's why I came to believe this whole thing was orchestrated by demons many years ago, to play on his failures, frustrations and grandiosity.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree. Demons are at play here; playing upon Charlie's life failures and numerous frustrations, of which he has many. We all have regrets, but Charlie has used secret knowledge - all of which has been false & absurd, btw - to attract and retain a following of core nutters, who apparently seek to share his secret knowledge. Holy angels can neither lie nor deceive. Yet, he TOLD US TRUE, and it all tanked. We can all view the grand sweep of things. No need for Seer Johnston to help us view that. Charlie is both arrogant and totally unapologetic for having promulgated this garbage. He holds his head high; no shame at all, none. That alone speaks volumes about his character.

Tommy

L Spinelli said...

With everything coming out now about Russian spies infiltrating the Religious Right and the National Prayer Breakfast of all things, anyone with any sense who's left at the TNRS/ASOH cult should RUN.

Jackisback said...

How the worm turns.

Once upon a time it was a badge of honor from the point of view of our political left to be a sympathizer of not just Russia, but the then Soviet Empire. Entire editorial boards of New York magazines (e.g. The New Yorker) were absolutely in love with Trotsky.

The most recent editions of leftward "love" for Russia were when our own Secretary of State gave a "reset" button to Sergei Lavrov, and then in the 2012 Presidential debate, Obama's famous reply to Mit Romney's claim that Russia was our biggest "geopolitical foe": "The '80s just called, they want their Cold War policy back."

Those sentiments have fallen out of favor, for now, but I have no doubt that they will make a return when the left eventually comes back into power in our White House.

My only point in raising this is that anyone who tells you that "Russia is our friend and they're here to help us," is someone you should run from, whether they be on the left or right side of the political divide.

What the left seems to have going for it, for now, is that they don't appear to have any Catholic so-called prophets that make the types of claims as CJ makes, with an end scenario that includes Russia coming to our rescue. But hey, there's always next year.

But if they did have such a character, would that be disqualifying of leftward political thought/beliefs/values?

I get the point that there is a view that CJ's machinations are potentially fraudulent from the outset, and that the inference is that his "prophesying" is not really genuine, but rather a segue toward promotion of his far right political goals. It's fairly clear to me that some of his die-hard followers are 100% invested in CJ because of their rightward political alignment.

Yet I am one example of a person fairly firmly on the political right who never believed CJ's so-called "locutions" irrespective of the issues where CJ's views might be in alignment with mine. It is possible to segregate things. Just sayin'.

God bless all here. Heading off to do some fishing with 28 members of my immediate and extended family. Just call us bass-aholics.

And for any of CJ's fans out there who would take this opportunity to lambast me for "killing innocent fish," we are a catch and release outfit for all but two nights in a seven day stretch when we "eat what we catch." There's that, and the fact that largemouth bass are nowhere close to being on the endagered species list.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hey Jack,
Its nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comments.

I agree in that I think that the prevailing ideology of the modern "left" (liberalism) for the most part excludes the possibility of a serious christian prophet/leader. There is simply just too wide a gap between accepted Christian doctrine/principles and the beliefs of the modern left.

As for Russia, I tend to side with Trump in that it would be much better to try to build bridges and common ground, then to view and treat them as enemies. I think we have more in common with Russia and the Russian people than a good many of our other (apparent) allies.

Hope you are enjoying your fishing trip---it sounds like fun (especially keeping in mind the old saying that even a bad day of fishing is still better than a good day at work!)
May God bless you and yours,
Glenn

Anonymous said...

Russia seems to be much more of a Christian country than the US or Europe, and they don’t have homosexual marriage.

Anonymous said...

I also, truth be told & kinda ironically, have much politically in common with CJ, yet I have NEVER accepted him as any kind of prophet. The two issues are separate and distinct. I'd have respected him, had he stuck to politics, and simply offered his political views.

Is he far right? Sure, and so what? There are numerous on the far left, who shove their beliefs down our throats. I've taught as a college professor since 1995. Academia is so far left; it's deeply troubling. If one says anything against gay 'marriage' or unrestricted abortion, you're marginalized, called a bigot, or worse. The APA is on the verge of classifying 'homophobia' as a mental disorder. Years ago, homosexuality was considered the mental disorder. The far left is weaponizing and politicizing mental health.

As far as CJ is concerned, we may substantially agree on many, but not every, political issues, but that does NOT at all give him a pass regarding his delusional con game and numerous failed 'prophecies', which hurt many people. CJ is a very adroit liar, who can seemingly talk his way out of anything. However, his lies blew up in his face, and his new blog is drying up, except for the core nutters. ASOH has one sixth the readership of the old site, TNRS. CJ's ego must be fed. CJ saved a family from a burning car and single handedly foiled an armed bank robbery. Anyone but those whoppers? See a pattern here? That's what this is all about. Sad.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Jim mentions how the left accuses Christians of homophobia. That’s nonsense. We aren’t afraid of homosexuals, rather we’re repulsed by the behavior of two men engaged in sodomy. This may be a poor analogy but there’s a mental health condition called Coprophilia. Believe it or not, this is where a person is aroused sexually by feces. What’s next...calling people Coprophobics who are repulsed by sickos who engage in sexual activity with feces?

Former Core Nutter said...

I remember how Bishop Young Duk used to chide any of us who dared question Seer Johnston. Yet the Bishop would never reveal his identity. Then the good Bishop disappeared from the scene and when questioned as to what happened to him Beckita said he was very busy with his activities. How busy could this Bishop have been given that WW3 was imminent? How stupid I was for following and believing Seer Johnston’s nonsense.

L Spinelli said...

It was 18 years ago this month that my angel tersely told me, “You must tell them true, and they must choose or perish.” I am, indeed, shocked, that so many have chosen to perish.

Perish means choosing the left, despite everything that's come out.

Charlie's new all out defense of the right and the Russians:

I am shocked that so many in the middle who have not firmly chosen sides yet are not marching in the streets, demanding simple justice. I don’t understand. The left has openly chosen to weaponize the law to punish opponents and reward allies. Whether the full force of the law will be brought to bear against someone is entirely dependent on where they stand on Trump – or whether they are serious Christians. This cannot last. Our whole culture is on a knife’s edge, tottering between a return to objective standards of law and morality or descent into the abyss of unending war for power. In the temporal realm, I do not know which will prevail. It certainly isn’t looking good for the rule of law. Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, Lois Lerner, Andrew Weissman and a host of others should not just be out of a job; they should be in prison. But up is down and down is up.

He asks again, who are you going to believe, me, the man who still insists he was talking to angels despite YEARS of proven failed prophecies, or your lying eyes?

He's no better than the "top conservative sites" he claims to be among. Lifesite News also all but said, choosing Trump is choosing God. Too many good Christians fell into this trap. They need to flee these sites and NOW.

L Spinelli said...

Just for the record, I threw this up on his site. I doubt he'll publish it, or if he does, hell do so to say I'm doomed or something. 🙄

Choosing God doesn't mean choosing Trump or choosing right over left. It's far more complicated than that. You have no business saying that people who didn't go with your chosen allegiance - the hard right - will perish. That's not for you to decide. Oh, and your credibility was long gone with the revelation that prophecies you sent to Michael Brown before you started your TNRS blog in early 2014 failed to manifest. Quit gaslighting people and steady your own mast.

L Spinelli said...

I'm posting this just seven minutes later, and no, my comment didn't get past his censors. 😁 It was already deleted. 😂

Anonymous said...

Anon 7-21-18 @ 2:43 PM......
You obviously have very little experience in academia. If anyone questions anything re. gay 'rights', you are automatically suspect. You're branded as a 'homophobe'; yes, even for questioning sodomy, while respecting and loving one's fellow human beings. Free speech on college campuses is afforded only to the left. A 'Justice for Mumia' poster, referring to an admitted cop killer in jail for life in PA, is fine. Try posting a 'Make America Great Again' poster.

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Hi L Spinelli,

Charlie is probably blocking you by your IP address. Try posting from Starbucks (although I bet he hates Starbucks too)!

L Spinelli said...

He let one of them through!

This pastor chose to leave Trump and the Republicans behind. He held the same views as much of this readership. So you’re inferring that he’s choosing wrong and will perish?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2182718928426252&id=908009612563863

Liked by 1 person
Reply

charliej373
July 23, 2018 at 12:25 pm

As long-time readers know, I was not a Trump supporter. His style still often grates on me. But this is not about Trump. I remain a supporter of truth, evidence and facts. When I was in the media, I would defend opponents when facts and evidence supported them. You have bought into the nonsense that this is a battle between pro-Trump and anti-Trump. If you think it is acceptable to use any lie, to twist any fact, to ignore all evidence in order to vent your spleen at a person, you entirely miss the point. Objective standards of evidence and justice require that we give those we do NOT like their due when the evidence justifies it.

Read the article again. I am saying that those who choose to accept lies and reject evidence to smear those they don’t like will perish. Period. I have warned people here many times against putting their faith in Trump, even as I largely respect much of what he has done. But when your hatred burns so bright that you will abuse any tool at hand, when you are willing to destroy objective standards of justice, when you are willing to foment violence to win merely political arguments, you have chosen the dark side.

I don’t care whether you support or oppose Trump. I do care that whoever you support or oppose, you do so with objective, honest evidence.

But with several of your comments I deleted, I suspect you intentionally set up this straw man, that the issue is support or opposition to Trump, rather than support of objective standards of evidence and analysis.


There's more to that exchange. It's just about impossible to trust any media outlet to give the real Story. Most are too biased. Charlie himself, though he says he goes to source documents, always favors the right.

These was posted in different discussions on that thread, ironic in light of the one Charlie didn't let through:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s belief.

If I thought all has been revealed that God intends, I would already be marching. I am grateful that God gives more time for people to change their choice. There is a frenzied madness that develops that can prevent people from seeing clearly until the frenzy has passed. Pray that the frenzy passes, for many souls are in deeply dangerous territory now.


How can Charlie say that with confidence when the evidence Jack, Fred, me, Glenn, Mary H and others compiled points to him NOT talking to the Archangels?

L Spinelli said...

One more thing that's been on my mind for a while: Charlie’s record of supporting the right goes back past his talk show days to the time of Watergate (he posted about that recently), but I wonder just what was said on this talk show. I found hardly anything about it through a Google search, and no one from his time in politics or radio ever stepped forward to provide any glimpses into what he was like before he went public with his "visitations".

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston is entitled to his far right opinions. However, his repeated & grandiose deceptions via these bogus 'prophecies' combined with his complete unwillingness to accept responsibility for his failures make him an unrepentant fraud. He simply fabricated tales of his past experiences, which never occurred, wherein he's the hero, of course. What I can't fathom is how many otherwise intelligent people could be deceived by this snake oil salesman. That's a larger topic, I suppose, than this thread.

Tommy

Mary H said...

L. Spinelli,

I doubt many people heard Charlie's radio show. It was on a small station that also broadcast high school sports; the station was sold after Charlie left and became a pre-programmed Spanish language station. A nothing burger, like his newspaper career, which ended with Charlie suing his old employer for libel. Considering none of his candidates ever made it to Washington, I doubt many of those who hired him in politics would sing his praises today.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's all true. Charlie Johnston had a mostly poor professional career, i.e. he was a failure by most objective litmus tests. Many people are; he's not alone. What most bothers me about Charlie is that he refuses to accept this failed record as being what it is. If Charlie wants to improve himself, he should go back to school, pursue a professional certification, learn to paint, or teach. Put in the hard work and then make your contribution to society. But, nope. Charlie wanted a short cut, i.e. the easy way out.

First he fabricated a past that never happened, i.e. having saved a family from a burning car and single handedly foiled an armed bank robbery. Yeah, ok. Then, these bogus angelic visitations, which hurt many folks, even financially. Every grandiose and absurd so called prophecy failed, despite 'having told us true.' Yet, Charlie refuses to 'quit the scene', as he swore he would. He can't relinquish his brief & totally unmerited fifteen minutes of fame. Charlie remains both unapologetic and defiant. His sad saga has implications far beyond an aging man with a failed record, who pathetically clutches his failing blog. Rather, it challenges us to try and discern why, to my amazement, Charlie's absurd fantasies hoodwinked many educated & intelligent people. That a fraud such as Charlie could so easily mislead so many in our so called modern era is the real quandary.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

Tommy, I think the Seer has a mental health disorder. The real question is why do his followers hang on? These folks impress me as “apparition-groupies” who thought they had the inside track to future events by following a Seer who claimed to be talking to angels. Now that has been proven false, the latest comments on the Seer’s blog by his followers are on Garanbandal, Medjagorie, and other unapproved apparitions. They are grasping for another mystical straw to keep themselves living on edge. It is almost cult-like.

Jackisback said...

Re: L Spinelli's post from July 24, 1:43 P.M.

I very much "chuckled sardonically" when reading CJ's reply contained in your post, L.

You're right to point out the gaslighting, of course. There's also the failure to address the initial critique, while in turn answering with criticism (tu quoque fallacy), plus too many other logical fallacies to count; so I won't bother with my usual exercise of exposing them and then knocking them down.

But here's my attempt to bring forth more positive thoughts - with a fish picture from my trip, featuring my daughter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w1qwHjQ5of7KWakgxphjstbk6K26oOPV/view?usp=sharing

For those able to view the photo, it is a largemouth bass weighing in at 3.24 pounds (from a digital scale). Since we don't keep any fish over 3 pounds, this beauty was gently replaced in the lake for future anglers. And, before anyone asks, no, I'm not going to tell you where we caught this. ;-)


Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:59 on 7-28-18: Exactly. ASOH is a cult, wherein Charlie Johnston initially claimed angelic visitations; ignored the total failure of all these supposed prophecies, spun, when they totally tanked, re wrote history regarding his failed predictions, and attacked any legitimate criticism. Yet, his moonies hung on, in desperate hope of gleaning something seen as predictive of the future. in time, even his core nutters will leave, probably because CJ will simply run outta steam. All he really does is recycle the same core ideas, with a few novelties added in, over & over. This can only last so long. CJ never really brought anything to the table, absent his delusions, all of which failed. But this shows that in 2018, there still exist those desperate & foolish people who search for secret knowledge, not satisfied with sacred scripture and the Sacraments. They'll always exist, I guess. SMH.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

I don't comment here much at all. My one observation is that the real victims of Charlie Johnston and his ilk are genuine Catholic prophets, who are tarnished by frauds like Charlie.

Anonymous said...

"What I was told in the Spring of 2008 was that Barack Obama would win that year's election, that he would not finish his full term, and that the next stable national leader would not come from the political system."

"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Yeah, OK Charlie.

Jackisback said...

" - The mass conversion of most Muslims"

This claim has been cited by CJ as already having been fulfilled. It falls into the category of claims where anecdotal stories told by one or more Catholic priests located in, or near, the middle east, or in Europe, without hard evidence, and, in almost the same breath, the dubious claim is made that such conversions are kept secret due to safety concerns, so we shouldn't expect actual data to show any increase in such conversions.

The Pew Research Center differs with such anecdotal evidence.

In an article published January 31, 2017 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/ their research shows that the 2010 estimate was 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, and that by the year 2050 they estimate the population of Muslims will grow to 2.76 billion, which will account for 29.7% of the world's population.

In the U.S. they estimate that Mulims will double in population here in the United States from 0.9% (in 2010) to 2.1% by the year 2050. In a separate article http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/ published January 3, 2018, the Pew center shows a graph of the Muslim population of the U.S. - showing growth from 2.35 million in 2007 to 3.45 million in 2017. In 2050, the total Muslim population is projected to be 8.1 million in the U.S. While that will be only 2.1% of our total populaton, they will be the second largest religious group in the U.S. after Christians.

Here's a nice factoid: "Since then, [2011] the Muslim population has continued to grow [in the U.S.] at a rate of roughly 100,000 per year, driven both my higher fertility rates among Muslim Americans as well as the continued migration of Muslims to the U.S. Religious conversions haven't had a large impact on the size of the U.S. Muslim population, largely because about as many Americans convert to Islam as leave the faith. Indeed, while about one-in-five American Muslim adults were raised in a different faith tradition and converted to Islam, a similar share of Americans who were raised Muslim now no longer identify with the faith." [emphasis mine]

That's not mass conversion to Christianity. What we really have is a "push," i.e., equal numbers of Muslim converts/apostates here in the U.S., where it would be relatively safe to convert to Christianity without fear of being beheaded or stoned. That's a big nothing-burger.

More details in the U.S. surface in this January 26, 2018 article: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/. Here are the money quotes: "A 2017 Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Muslims, using slightly different questions than the 2014 survey, found a similar estimate (24%) of the share of those who were raised Muslim but have left Islam. Among this group, 55% no longer identify with any religion, according to the 2017 survey. Fewer identify as Christian (22%), and an additional one-in-five (21%) identify with a wide variety of smaller groups, including faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, or as generally “spiritual.”

"Among those who have converted to Islam, a majority come from a Christian background. In fact, about half of all converts to Islam (53%) identified as Protestant before converting; another 20% were Catholic. And roughly one-in-five (19%) volunteered that they had no religion before converting to Islam, while smaller shares switched from Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism or some other religion." [emphasis mine]

There you go. Not only is the conversion rate to/from Islam a "wash," but the most recent numbers from 2017 show that more Christians convert to Islam than Muslims convert to Christianity here in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what it'll take for CJ's core nutters to wake up? I guess in time they'll tire of good ole Charlie, and be off to their next guru. SMH.

Anonymous said...

Today Charlie posted a very thorough and powerful analysis of Pope Francis. While I question whether he really talks to angels, there is little in his latest post I can disagree with.

L Spinelli said...

@Anon above, and there lies the most dangerous aspect of Charlie.

With everything going on lately, those poor people left at TNRS will cling to an oft-failed prophet who converses with Lord only knows what. What he writes may ring true, but it isn't Divinely inspired.

Old Scratch accomplished his goal there, just as he gets other souls ready to leave the Church.

Anonymous said...

Charlie's writings always puff himself up. He is as interested in self promotion as he is in morality. He lied to his followers in the past. Do you believe this?:

"I hear from as many – or more – Priests these days (and, quietly, a few Bishops) from across the country as I did when my prior site was at its peak readership. These are very hard times for them. It is frequently agonizing..."

And then this, "I'm better than those bishops!"

"I well know about the pleasures of the flesh – and am no harsh puritan. In more innocent times, I was actually considered soft on homosexuality. I have always been skeptical of the idea that they choose their orientation. Celibacy is a tough cross to bear, but that makes it a particularly worthy offering. I was sexually active most of my life. It was always with women (even in my disorder I am fundamentally orthodox). I got serious about celibacy 14 years ago. It was brutally hard the first six years, but I have lived as a layman what some of these prelates had no intention of living... I look at these predatory Priests and Bishops and wonder, where is their fear of God? Do they even believe in God?"

Charlie tells the tale of a bishop, humbled by a letter Charlie had written him about the priest sexual abuse crisis, apologized to Charlie -- years later! The bishop had memorized Charlie's letter!

"To his credit, a few years later in a very small meeting where the Bishop recognized me, he stated that the way he handled his part in the matter was one of his greatest regrets. He then started repeating swaths of my letter, frequently looking at me while stating what he should have done. It was noticeable enough that the fellow who had accompanied me asked afterward what the weird sub-theme was between the Bishop and me. It was a sweet and grace-filled moment. I have held that Bishop in affection ever since then..."

If you believe this, you believe Charlie stopped a bank robbery in progress and rescued a family from a burning care -- in front of McDonald's!

Anonymous said...

More tall tales from good ole Charlie Johnston. Younger n stronger, Charlie foiled an armed bank robbery and rescued a family from a burning car. Sure, Charlie. Now older and wiser, but no less heroic, Charlie stops corruption in Holy Mother Church, via his wise counsel and prudent admonitions. More nonsense from the ultimate spin master. I swear, Charlie can talk his way out of or into anything.

Tommy

Anonymous said...

I wonder why "Bishop" "Yung Duk" or whatever his name is never posts on Charlie's site anymore.

Jack Gallagher said...

And in thinking about CJ's opinions on Pope Francis' recently published view on capital punishment, is it not relevant to question CJ's previous pledges of complete solidarity with Church authority?

And wouldn't his clear break from the new Catechism then undermine any claim to being a true prophet?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Charlie now is contradicting the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. No surprise there. Charlie maked up his 'heroic' history; his 'visitations', and now his CJ Cathecism. Once you go off the rails, there's no stopping it .

Jim D.

Anonymous said...

Charlie seems to be following his readers lead this time. Even though he tosses in an alleged visit from the Blessed Mother to him years ago to give himself some moral authority, he's all right-wing talking points. I don't think the Blessed Mother would ever talk like this about the Vicar of Christ, do you?

Pope Francis likes to be seen as the Pope of Mercy. No doubt he is indulgent and solicitous of enemies of the faith. The Vatican has honored abortionists, population control advocates, authoritarians, totalitarians, and advocates of normalizing sexual dysfunction under his watch. Where, though, is the mercy for orthodox clerics and laypeople? All he has for them is scorn, insults and, occasionally calumny. He has mocked large families which are generously open to life. He consistently ridicules and insults traditionalists. I am not a traditionalist, myself – and certainly I am tart with those rad/trads who use their faith as a club with which to bludgeon others. But that is not what we’re talking about here. I know and have become friends with many who are traditionalists, who find soaring beauty and transcendence in the traditional Latin Mass. Why would a beautiful and authentic expression of faith offend anyone? Yet Pope Francis regularly denounces them as rigid, inflexible, and some sort of weirdos. This disdain for orthodox worshippers offends me. Where is the mercy? Just a few months before the hideous McCarrick scandal unfolded, Pope Francis responded to reports of great scandals in Chile by insulting and smearing the victims. Where is the mercy? The Vatican has sought to curry favor with the Chinese Communists by breaking faith with the Catholics in China those communists have been persecuting, even to torture and murder. It is one of the most rank betrayals in the history of the Church. Where is the mercy? Apparently, reserved only for enemies of the faith.

Anonymous said...

"Back in 2002 when the Dallas Conference was announced to address revelations of abusers in the Church in America, I was delighted. I thought the Bishops would get serious about addressing ills in the Church – and, frankly, that I would yet manage to get out of ever having to speak publicly about my visitations. Alas, the week before the conference began, Our Lady appeared to me (it was early afternoon, while I was grabbing something off the floor of my son’s bedroom while he was at school.) She was as sorrowful as I had ever seen her. She told me, “Dallas will show you how bad things truly are: they will scarcely acknowledge my Holy Son.”

In his latest piece, Seer Johnston once again refers to a heavenly visitation. Once a false prophet, always a false prophet. Charlie can't give up tales of visitations. Every one tanked, of course, but, hey, who even remembers?

Tommy

L Spinelli said...

It's disingenuous of Charlie to move himself into a questionable leadership position (solely because he supposedly talks to angels), using the quagmire the Bishops are in to solidify it.

This is the danger we've been warning about all along. One woman begged Charlie, who talks to who only knows what (we're all fairly convinced that they're not angels), and Beckita, along time apparition chaser, to use their leadership to rally their cult. People who were already deep into the apparition scene are now far more prone to listen to questionable seers than Church leadership. "And I saw Satan laughing with delight..." (Don McLean, American Pie)

L Spinelli said...

Two quick hits.

The Vigano translations and source articles have been done at my home over the last month, by a Rome correspondent, who is our frequent house guest. She is a very holy, prayerful, consecrated lay single with an advanced theology degree. She speaks with Vigano and many other global Church leaders from our kitchen table almost daily. We help QC their articles.

A member of a failed prophet's cult is hosting a driving force being this Vigano thing? This is frightening. Not that anything will or can be done about it.

Next week, Charlie is publishing a list of bishops who HE finds credible and trustworthy. The irony there is delectable.

As was discussed a few times, Charlie's appeal was never in the prophecies, though they drew in the apparition chasers. It was in his being a right wing culture warrior. That's the only reason he's still going now. Note how no one over there makes any mention of any of his failed prophecies? He successfully rebranded himself for them.

Anonymous said...

No one over at Charlie's blog seems to remember Pope Francis was chosen as "the Pope for Our Times" to guide us through The Storm. Charlie backed Francis to the hilt. Surely you'd think his followers would count that as a big miss for him, right? As for the international correspondent who makes her way to Beckita's kitchen in Missoula, where else would someone like that run a campaign and be in touch with "global Church leaders." Glad to hear Beckita is willing to "QC" influential articles...

Anonymous said...

A 100% failure rate, apparently, does not matter. Charlie bold face lied, grossly distorted the truth, and spun his way out of every one of his failed, so-called prophecies. Blogger Kevin O'Brien proved, via social media, that Charlie's so-called walk across America never happened. Charlie also rescued a family from a burning car and, single handedly, foiled an armed bank robbery. Charlie has no shame; he could and can lie his way out of anything. Anything.

Charlie still, with ever increasing frequency, mentions his 'visitations'. Once a false prophet, always a false prophet. He's now apparently reinvented himself, yet again. His real record is irrelevant. His cult will hang on; his core nutters won't ever leave.

The reason that the Sacraments and the authentic Magisterium aren't enough for many contemporary Catholics, excluding Charlie's cult members, is the real issue here, and that quandary will continue to trouble me for a long time.

Anonymous said...

I must opine that Charlie is a very adroit snake oil salesman. True, and that's no compliment to him.

Jim D.

L Spinelli said...

October 2014:

"When final crash comes (and as I said, it is imminent. Do not be deceived even if things smooth out for a month. It is here), there will be a period of utter chaos for, I believe, about four to six months."

September 2018:

"I have a hard time seeing how we avoid serious strife or, even, open war after the mid-terms. If the Democrats lose narrowly, they will double down on their rioting and violence. If they win, they will go right back to trying to force the conscience of normal Americans with a vengeance, quickly trying to make up with authoritarian brutality for what they briefly lost. Normal Americans will have to fight or consign their children to a dark future of poverty, misery and slavery – or fight once more for freedom. The climate has been cultivated for a Rwanda-style conflict. Even if Democrats are overwhelmingly repudiated, how do we reconcile a leftist movement that reserves to itself the right to riot, lie, cheat, steal, pervert justice and use unapologetic violence to accomplish its aims? I think we are going to have to seriously consider establishing exile islands and territories for a time."

Charlie just won't quit recycling dystoptic predictions. (...after summer comes the fall, and great will be the fall...) Enough already. And that closing line about exile islands is simply crazy talk - but honestly no different from his Jade Helm, FEMA camps and tanks rolling down suburban streets crazy talk. With the abuse crisis in full swing and seemingly no one keeping an eye on him, he continues his shtick of saying and doing whatever he wants. Nervy, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

With the abuse crisis in full swing and seemingly no one keeping an eye on him, he continues his shtick of saying and doing whatever he wants.

True. Good ole Charlie saved a family from a burning car and single handedly foiled an armed bank robbery, in progress. Haven't you heard? He's definately a hero in his own mind.

His cult seems not to care about almost 20 totally false & totally failed prophecies. It's simply written off to history. OK.

Charlie seems to keep people hanging on by, occasionally, re introducing some secret knowledge of soon to transpire cataclysmic events. It kind of reminds me of daffy duck continually drawing and re drawing a line in the dirt, daring bugs bunny to step over it. The real difference was that the cartoon was amusing; Charlie isn't. Charlie has misled many people. True, they very foolishly followed him, but it's still astonishing Charlie forges on, totally un apologetic. The arrogance of this man is staggering.

Tommy

L Spinelli said...

Charlie's at it again with mentioning visitations. This time, he referenced his interpretation of Fatima's third secret (which he said was confirmed as more accurate than the Vatican's - nervy!) and two of his three "great visitations". Well...I thought these are all moot now, since we can't be sure if ANY of them came from God due to the Presidential Prophecy failing. I knew the guy was in deep denial about this whole experience, but this is absurd!

L Spinelli said...

From Spirit Daily:

But Johnston does not believe the secret has fully played out, concurring that the secret represents the Virgin halting the sword of justice wielded by the angel but implying that this intercession is not yet complete. He "respectfully" differs with the Vatican interpretation of the rest of the secret -- which pictured a "bishop in white" (largely thought to mean Pope John Paul II, who as bishop of Rome wears white) ascending a mountain, "at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark. Before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him."

While the Vatican has interpreted that image as a symbol of the many priests, bishops, and religious who were martyred under Communism and also considers it a premonition of the 1981 assassination attempt on John Paul II -- which occurred on the Fatima anniversary day of May 13! -- Johnston believes it more directly relates to current crises in the Church and the former broadcaster, who claims visions over the past forty years, (which caused him to convert to Catholicism from fundamentalism), asserts that this interpretation was confirmed through his allegedly mystical experiences.

Anonymous said...

This from "Real Votes, Fatima and Other Signs of Hope":

(Disclosure: Since the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops ordered Parishes not to co-operate with TRTL earlier this year, I have frequently and significantly offered advisory counsel to TRTL).

Yet The Texas Right to Life people haven't heard of him! Try contacting them!

Befuddled said...

From his latest post, Seer Johnston says:

You must understand that the simplest, most seemingly direct messages from God have layers, facets, of meaning…so I never assume I understand exactly what I am shown.

If he never assumes that he understands what he is show why was he so adamant that there would be an economic collapse, a return to the barter system, tanks rolling down the streets, people being rounded up into FEMA camps, WWIII with China, and the rise of Menses?

Something smells here and it ain’t roses.

Anonymous said...

CJ says today:

“Last Sunday was a very important anniversary – the first of the great Revelation 12 event of a year ago, the event I count as the beginning of Rescue.“

L Spinelli said...

Uh, yeah. He described how he saw what the Rescue would look like in a vision. Then when he saw it wasn't going to happen, he glommed onto Fr. Richard Heilman's interpretation.

Jack Gallagher said...

I haven't read much of CJ's new website - as it has been reportedly been mostly political delirirum of the far right, some snippets of which, strictly politically speaking, I might actually agree.

But it always leads back to justifying some erroneous prior "prophecy." Ergo, it's not worth my time to indulge in rebuking him, as it is a task that is, first and foremost, way too easy to accomplish from a logical perspectice and, second, one that could simply suck me into the sin of pride or inappropriate schadenfreud.

But I fell compelled only to point out one or two things every now and again - whenever CJ reportedly attempts any justification of his failed rescue "locution."

For example, note that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the USCCB ("United States Conference of Catholic Bishops") recently attended an audience with Pope Frances - along with a delegation of nine (I think) other members of the USCCB. The express purpose of the audience was to formally request that His Holiness grant an "Apostolic Visitation" and in doing so, appoint a lay council of experts to investigate and get to the bottom of the Cardinal McCarrick scandal, specifically to determine, if all that we have heard of McCarrick is true, how it is that such a scandolous personal history was no impediment to being raised up in the Church from priest, to monsignor, to Bishop, and to Cardinal. Note especially well: the audience was a failure. Not only did His Holiness refuse to grant the request of an Apostolic Visitation, he reportedly requested that DiNardo cease and desist from the November meeting of the USCCB where they are supposedly going to launch an investigation into McCarrick's history vis-a-vis the Vigano letter's assertions.

To DiNardo's credit, he is apparently going to proceed with the November meeting in any case. But the refusal of His Holiness has this signficance: without an Apostolic Vistation being granted, the Vatican and the Nunciature of Washington D.C. (where the purported McCarrick history files are contained) will not be cooperating with any document requests made by the USCCB. Transparency? Not.

So the DiNardo/USCCB investigation will be doomed from the start with its inability to obtain any of those documents which would reveal the truth concerning McCarrick.

It is up to all in the laity to judge for themselves the decisions of His Holiness in this regard. I make no personal judgment here. That is not my point. My point is only that, if the "rescue" began a year ago, as CJ proclaims, solely due to an observation of planetary and stellar alignments that have a habit of recurring every few thousand years, we seem to be going in the opposite direction that such a "rescue" would imply.

What are your thoughts, L? Fred? Tommy? Jim D.? Glenn?

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hello Jack, LSpinelli, Tommy and everyone else who visits here,

Firstly I would like to thank everyone for your ongoing feedback and commentary.

Personally, like Jack, I have very rarely visited Charlie's "new" site since he created it this past January--I would say that I have visited it maybe 7 or 8 times total. For me the complete failure of every one of his prophecies, particularly the "Storm" and the so called miraculous "Rescue" that he specifically predicted for late 2017, along with the "presidential prophecy" double fail in 2016/2017, in addition to the war with China, toppling of governments, mass conversions, and all the other predictions that have all failed--for myself they have provided very ample evidence that his alleged heavenly prophecies were definitely not of God, as time and the complete lack of predicted events has obviously proven them all false. And so it is that since this past January I personally don't spend any time visiting his blog.

I did however run across a very interesting article here about truck driver from Belleville, Illinois named Ray Doiron who in 1994 claimed that the Virgin Mary was appearing to him on the 13th of each month at the National Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville--a place where I recall Charlie himself said he had visited on numerous occasions (for those unaware Charlie lived in Belleville in the 1990's, including during the time frame of the events that very publicly occurred in the aforementioned article, and numerous other articles on the internet).

According to the reports, thousands from across the USA came on the 13th of every month to witness the reported visions to Ray Doiron, and pray at the National Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville. During these reported visions, rosaries allegedly turned to gold when believers say Virgin Mary appeared to Mr. Doiron.

While reading the article that I link to above, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of influence, if any, these sensational events may have had upon Charlie, given that they occurred in his hometown and were extensively reported upon--could they have perhaps influenced his own decision to go public with his own alleged visions of Jesus and Mary? What, if any, influence did this purported visionary and the remarkable events have on Charlie, one wonders....

Thanks again to all who comment here. May God bless everyone who visits this website
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Hi Jack;

I feel the truth has already mostly come out, in regards to the abuse crisis in the Church. Charlie may be partially correct when he asserts that the Vatican is not facilitating this investigation, and that is wrong.

When Charlie runs out of steam, he tends to reference old (and all failed) prophecies. This is all he has to fall back upon, to keep his cult afloat. Failed though his 'prophecies' may have been, Charlie is still able to use them to stoke the interests of his core nutters. Once a false prophet, always a false prophet.

He did after all save a family from a burning car and single handedly foil an armed bank robbery. The an has no shame. On whopper after another. It amazes me that Charlie holds his head high and is totally unapologetic. I know it shouldn't, but it does. That's arrogance.

Jim D.

«Oldest ‹Older   2801 – 3000 of 3065   Newer› Newest»

Follow by Email

ShareThis