Let the "Communion Wars" of 2020 Begin!

Happily, I have not had to deal with the self-professed “happy” non-bishop, Timothy Michael Dolan, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of New York since April 15, 2009, for quite some time. This is principally because I try very hard not to pay any attention to what he says or does. He is as irrelevant to the Catholic Faith and the spiritual well-being of Catholics.

Unfortunately, however, the “happy” pretend bishop, who hails from St. Louis, Missouri and had a stopover as the conciliar “archbishop” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, prior to his current gig at 1011 First Avenue, New York, New York, loves to flap his gums. He can’t help himself. He loves to yap, but what he says repeatedly betrays him as a shallow Modernist concerned more about not offending mere creatures while being completely tone-deaf about how he offends God and gives scandals to the souls who he believes were entrusted to his care by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI ten years, seven months ago.

Here is just a partial review of the Timothy Michael Dolan’s greatest hits, shall we say: April 15, 2009:

I aim to be a happy bishop, sharing joys and laughs with you. So you will see me at the St. Patrick's parade, and at the new Yankee Stadium, and at processions and feast days and barbecues across our almost 400 parishes. Being Catholic is not a heavy burden, snuffing the joy out of life; rather our faith in Jesus and His Church gives meaning, purpose and joy to life. I love being a Catholic, I love being a priest, and I fully intend to love being archbishop of New York while loving all of you in the Church in New York. (Timothy Dolan,  New Archbishop talks to News.) 

April 22, 2009: 

"This is awesome for me," Archbishop Dolan said.  "I have long admired the work of the Anti-Defamation League from afar, and now to receive your welcome and your assurances of our hope for future cooperation, which I enthusiastically share, means very much to me."(Press Release of the Anti-Defamtion League.)

The "work" of the "Anti-Defamation League" of B'Nai Brith has included, of course, the promotion of the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children and of "marriage" for those of the same gender. The "Anti-Defamation League," whose president, Abraham Foxman, denounced The Passion of the Christ as "anti-Semitic" and who has denounced both Bishop Richard Williamson, the Society of Saint Pius X and the unreformed Good Friday Prayer for the Jews and the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as anti-Semitic, has filed amicus curiae briefs in various cases to promote baby-killing and perversity under cover of the civil law. (See the compendium as found in (see Silence for a review of some of the legal briefs by the Anti-Defamation League in support of immorality).

June 19, 2010:

Timothy Dolan and his conciliar predecessor, Edward "Cardinal" Egan, attended a " Service of Rededication" at a den of the lavender collective, the Church of Saint Francis Xavier in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, listening as various speakers extolled the "LGBT ministry" at a parish, located in the western part of Greenwich Village, whose parishioners walked behind a parish banner in the annual parade of perversity that makes its insidious way down Fifth Avenue, passing right in front of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the process, on the fourth Sunday of June until Dolan told them not to use the parish banner. Parishioners still continue to march in the parade of perversity each year.

 November 25, 2010:

Thanksgiving is a time of the year when people are open to the Lord, and we don't think about ourselves. We're grateful to God. We're conscious that somebody, some call him or her, whatever you want, somebody beyond us is in charge, and we are immensely grateful. (Is 'Superman' Catholic?)

"Whatever you want"? Perhaps a little reminder from something called the First Commandment might get you to speak about God with reference and precision, not a breezy, flippant casualness that reaffirms, even if by inadvertence, Catholics and non-Catholics alike that it really does not matter what you call God or how or even if your worship Him if you participate in the spectacle of a "thanksgiving day" that features many Americans gathering around their turkey dinners "thanking" "God" that they live in land where they can practice "freedom of choice" when it comes to killing innocent babies, a land of "liberty and justice" for all except for the Sacred Rights of Christ the King and for the innocent babies themselves, a land where it really does not make difference you call God as long as you remember that this is, after all, "one nation under God" even though it does not matter Who this God is or what He has revealed to us or that every nation has an obligation to profess belief in the one and only true God of Divine Revelation.

Thursday, March 31, 2011: "Archbishop" Timothy Michael Dolan permitted a so-called "Mass of Christian Burial" to be staged for the late Geraldine Anne Ferraro Zaccaro at the Church of Saint Vincent Ferrer in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, despite Mrs. Zaccaro's open support for the chemical and legal slaughter of the innocent preborn.

February 14, 2012:

The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.

"I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy. (Top U.S. Catholic Bishop Vows Legal Challenges to Obama's Birth Control Rule.) 

Take a figure of Antichrist at his utterly worthless words? There's also a bridge that runs from lower Manhattan to the Borough of Brooklyn that I can sell Timothy Michael Dolan.

February 24, 2012:

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations. (Letter to "Bishops"From "Cardinal" Dolan.)

A God-given right? No, a heresy is more like it: 

"Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").

The Catholic Church: For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

April 8, 2012: 

BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to talk a little politics with you, your eminence back in 1960.

TIMOTHY DOLAN: I'm not surprised.

BOB SCHIEFFER: When John Kennedy became the first Catholic President, he made a speech during the campaign, because he said flatly, he wanted people to know and he wanted to assure them that he thought there was a separation between church and state. Here is the way he put it.

TIMOTHY DOLAN: Yeah.

JOHN F. KENNEDY (September 12, 1960): I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Now people in both parties have referred back to that over the years as-- as a good definition of church and state, but during this campaign year, one of the Republican candidates, Rick Santorum, said this about it.

RICK SANTORUM (November 11, 2011): If I had the opportunity to read the speech, I almost threw up. He should read the speech. It's-- in my opinion it was the beginning of the secular movement of politicians to separate their faith from the public square. And he threw faith under the bus in that speech.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Your eminence, where do you think the line should be between church and state? Is there, should there be a separation?

TIMOTHY DOLAN: You bet there should. You bet there should. That's good, that separation between church and state is good, not only for the United States, it's also good for the church. I'd find myself and give me a second to explain this, Bob, I'd find myself, believe it or not, agreeing with both of them. I would cheered what John Kennedy said, he was right, and I would-- I would find myself among those applauding that speech. That having been said, I would also say that Senator Santorum had a good point because, unfortunately, what John Kennedy said in September of 1960 to the Baptist Ministerial Alliance in Texas has been misinterpreted to mean that a separation of church and state also means a cleavage a wall between one's faith and one's political decisions, between one's-- one's moral focus and between one-- the way one might act in the political sphere. I don't think John Kennedy meant that and as you know recent scholarship has shown that John Kennedy was very inspired by vision, by character, by virtue, let's call that faith, let's call that morals. So I don't think John Kennedy meant a cleavage between faith and politics. He did mean a wall between state and church, and I would applaud that one, but I would agree with Senator Santorum that unfortunately that has been misrepresented to mean that faith has no place in the public square. That, I would, with Senator Santorum say is a misinterpretation not only what Senator Kennedy meant but with what the American genius is all about. (Page Three of the Transcript from Face the Nation, Easter Sunday, April 8, 2012.)

Applauding a "wall between state and church"? What an utter ignoramus: 

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Was Pope Saint Pius X wrong, "Cardinal" Dolan?

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, making it necessary yet again to turn to these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

Timothy Michael Dolan does not believe this. Aping his conciliar "pope," he wants all "religions" to have their say in society.

A generic attachment to "religion," however, is of the essence of Judeo-Masonry, not Catholicism. That it is "good enough" for the lords of conciliarism, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and "Archbishop" Charles Chaput, makes relevant once again this warning about Masonry and its ethos given us by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

April 8, 2012: 

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, there was certainly no duct tape on-- on-- on your mouth when the President came out and let it be known that his health care plan included Catholic institutions having to buy birth control pills for their employees at church-- in churches and in schools and in hospitals. I want to ask you about that because I interviewed the vice president last week and he told me that it all had been resolved. Here-- here is what he said.

JOE BIDEN: On the substance, the President ended up exactly where he intended, where he began. Which was that, one, every woman in America should be able to have insurance coverage for birth control if she so chooses and that the Catholic Church and other churches should not have to pay for it or provide it. That's exactly where we are now. 

BOB SCHIEFFER: For the record is that what you advised the President?

JOE BIDEN: Yes. But that's also where the President was in the front end.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So I guess that question I'd ask you, Your Eminence, are you good with that?

TIMOTHY DOLAN: No, although I appreciate very much the Vice President. He has been helpful and I-- I-- I have benefitted from his counsel and I look forward to talking to him again. So I am glad he weighed in on it but I would disagree with him. It hasn't helped us much, Bob, because-- because we still have to pay for it, because most of us are self-insured and we are still worried not just about our institutions but also the individuals. So we still find ourselves in a very tough spot, and we're still going to continue to express what we believe is just not a religious point of view but a constitutional point of view that America's at her best when the government doesn't force a citizen or a group of citizens in a religious creed to violate their deepest held moral convictions.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree with what the vice president seemed to be saying that this-- that the President really didn't change his position?

TIMOTHY DOLAN: Yes, I-- I think so. Although I am a little confused, because the President told me his convict--- his position, his conviction is that the government would do nothing to impede religion. And he-- he was very gracious, and especially complimenting the Catholic family in the United States in their work for health care charity and education. And he'd say I don't want this administration to do anything to-- to impede that. It's tough for me to see how the strangling HHS Regulations do anything but that. (Page Four of the Transcript from Face the Nation, Easter Sunday, April 8, 2012.)

Timothy Michael Dolan very much appreciates Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and has benefitted from his counsel? Huh? Appreciate Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., a pro-abort Catholic politician of longstanding? Appreciate Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.? (see Lest We Forget, Memo to Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Their Conciliar Enablers, Fact and Fiction, Fallacies Galore, Just A Personal Visit and "D" Stands For Demagogue).

Here's news for Timothy Michael Dolan: Pope Pius XI does not appreciate the likes of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. He would never have sought the counsel of such a man: 

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

February 24, 2013:

Before traveling to Rome to participate in the conciliar conclave that wound up electing Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the sixth in the current line of antipopes, Timothy Michael Dolan said the following at the Lincoln Square Synagogue in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York:

Shabbat Shalom!

Thank you so much for your generous invitation and warm welcome. What an honor and a joy to be with you here at the historic and renowned Lincoln Square Synagogue. 

Long have I been aware of the prominence of this community, as, during my graduate studies at the Catholic University of America, our course in American Religious History featured attention to Modern Orthodox Judaism, its flagship synagogue here, and the foundational efforts of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

Now what a privilege it is to be a part of the celebration of welcome as we thank God for this splendid new sanctuary! As your psalms pray, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who toil!” So, praise God:

I’d say “Alleluia” but I can’t because for us Catholics it’s our penitential season of Lent, and we can’t say that “A-word” until Easter!

Can I get a little personal here? Today is the fourth anniversary of my appointment by Pope Benedict XVI as archbishop of New York.

Four happy years…and the Jewish community of New York is one of the big reasons why. From the start you have welcomed and embraced me. I love you; I respect you; I need you; I thank you.

Tomorrow, the second Sunday of Lent, we always have the Gospel account of what we call the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mount Tabor. There, the Jewish fisherman, the Jewish first pope, St. Peter, said to Jesus, “It is good for us to be here.”

Those words I make my own this morning. (For my own commentary on this travesty, please see  "You're Not Supposed To Do This".)

I forgot. This is against his false religion, concilairism.

Mind you, these are only a few highlights of the past one hundred twenty-seven months of Timothy Michael Dolan's "reign" as conciliar "archbishop" of New York.

Oh, did I mention Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., above?

Yes, I sure did.

Perhaps you will remember that the very “happy” Timothy Michael Dolan gave what is called these days a “shout out” at the Cathedral of Saint Patrick on Palm Sunday, March 24, 2013, to the then Vice President of the United States of America, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.:

Timothy Cardinal Dolan preached at home yesterday for the first time since jetting to the Vatican to help pick a new pope — and received a surprise visit from Joe Biden during the Palm Sunday services.

“We welcome the vice president of the United States, Mr. Biden, we welcome him here,” Dolan told parishioners, celebrating the start of Holy Week at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. “You have a place in our thoughts and prayers.”

Thousands of parishioners packed Dolan’s standing-room-only Mass.

Many were craning their necks to get a good look at Biden, who was all smiles during the Sign of Peace, shaking hands with dozens of people and telling them, “Peace be with you.”

“He was very respectful. He sat in the rows with everyone else and didn’t bring any attention on himself,” said parishioner Marie Griffin, 50, of Yonkers.  (Biden attends Palm Sunday false liturgical service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with Happy Apostate Dolan.)

What support for the chemical and surgical destruction of the innocent preborn?

What support for "gay marriage."

What Obama administration ObamaCare mandate for all employers, including those of religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and other "family planning" services?

It was almost as though Timothy Michael Dolan was saying: "Joe Biden's a regular guy, right? Why not point him out and give him a little nod before he goes up to receive what he thinks is Holy Communion, thereby showing the world that he is in good standing with what is thought to be the Catholic Church and that one of his administration's critics treats him with the respect that he demands to be shown?"

Never mind the inconvenient little fact that such a warm greeting to an egregious, profane demagogic statist who supports evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance scandalizes "pro-life" Catholics in the conciliar structures and reassures fallen away Catholics and fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants in their own hatred of Catholicism. Yes, yes, yes, the fruit of the "new evangelization."

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Timothy Michael Dolan damned a conciliar prebyster of the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, the Reverend Robert Morey, with faint praise because he, Morey, rightly and courageously refused that conciliar authorities to be Holy Communion during a staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination on Sunday, October 27, 2019, which was the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic Church even though it was the twenty-ninth Sunday in “ordinary time” in the never neverland known as the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Washington D.C., Oct 31, 2019 / 04:58 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York has responded to questions about the denial of Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden last Sunday.

On an Oct. 31 interview with Fox News, Dolan said that he thought the incident was a good teaching moment about the Eucharist and the seriousness of denying Church teaching, but that he would not himself deny anyone reception of the Eucharist.

“So whether that prudential judgment was wise, I don’t want to judge him either,” Dolan said of Fr. Robert Morey, who denied Holy Communion to Biden. “I wouldn’t do it.”

“Sometimes a public figure will come and talk to me about it. And I would advise them, and I think that priest (Morey) had a good point, you are publicly at odds with an issue of substance, critical substance, we’re talking about life and death and the Church,” Dolan said.

Receiving the Eucharist “implies that you’re in union with all the Church believes and stands for. If you know you’re not, well, integrity would say, ‘uh oh, I better not approach Holy Communion.’ That’s always preferable than to make a split-second decision and denying somebody,” Dolan added. (                      .)

Comment Number One:

Split second decision?

Come on, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s longtime position in support of the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil has hardly been a secret since he reversed his formerly pro-life position shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of  the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton on Monday, January 22, 1973.

Split second decision?

Biden knows that most priests and presbyters within the conciliar structures lack the courage of “Father” Morey, who was in my acquaintance during the 1980s and 1990s (before his entry into a conciliar seminary, not that I would have known any better at the time) and for whom I pray without fail every day. Indeed, most conciliar priests and prebysters have served as enablers of Biden, and some are open admirers of this apostate supporter of two of the sins that cry out to Heaven, willful murder and the sin of Sodom. (Interesting that Happy Dolan did not mention anything that Biden’s trail blazing the path for his then boss, President Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro, to announce support for the nonexistent “right” of a man to “marry” a man and for a woman to “marry” a woman without regard for these words of Saint Paul the Apostle in Chapter 1 of his Epistle to the Romans:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.) 

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

Does the Catholic Church have to apologize for the Book of Leviticus, for the words of Our Lord Himself, for the writings of Saint Paul the Apostle and for that of Saint Jude Thaddeus, our dear Patron of Hopeless Cases, who was blessed to carry the Holy Shroud adorned with the Holy Face of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon it?

The conciliar officials are ever eager to avoid offending men while choosing, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to offend the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, Himself. What is even sadder, of course, is that these apostates and revolutionaries don’t even give the thought of offending God any consideration at all because their completely anthropocentric religion is focused on a Christianity without the cross and “pastoral theology” without demanding conversion except from those who are too “rigid” enough to cling to the past.

Well, back to the Catholic News Agency report:

Last Sunday, Morey denied Eucharistic communion to 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden at Mass at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina, because of the politician’s public support of abortion.

“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden,” Morey, who is the pastor of St. Anthony’s, explained in a statement sent to CNA.

“Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that,” Morey added. “Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”

In denying Biden communion, Morey was following a diocesan policy set forth in a 2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of Atlanta, Charleston, and Charlotte. The decree states that supporting pro-abortion legislation is “gravely sinful” and that public figures who do so must be denied communion until they repent.

Comment Number Two:

“Father” Morey is indeed correct.

Sadly for him, however, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., shot back in due course by noting that the Argentine Apostate and Friend of the Pachamama idols, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given him what purports to be Holy Communion from his own very unholy and un-consecrated hands:

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Friday called his denial of communion by a priest in South Carolina a “private matter,” but expressed regret that the priest had taken the issue to the press.

“That’s a private matter,” Biden told PBS NewsHour anchor and managing editor Judy Woodruff, when asked he if had been offended by the move.

“He went to the press about it. And it’s not a position that I’ve found anywhere else, including from the from the Holy Father, who gives me communion,” Biden said. (Biden Says Bergoglio Gives Him What They Think is Holy Communion.)

No, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., public scandal is never a private matter.

Once again, Mr. Biden, let me refer you to what Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, concerning the eternal punishment that awaits those in public life who support the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn under the cover of the civil law:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930).

Moreover, lest the sophomoric sophist named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., invoke the old “personally opposed but can’t ‘impose’ private beliefs upon others” canard, Pope Leo XIII anticipated that argument slightly less than eighty-seven years before Roe v. Wade:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

No, Joe Biden, public scandal is never a private matter.

It is a very telling commentary on the egregious effects of conciliarism’s error of “episcopal collegiality” that the novelty of national “episcopal” conferences as codified in the non-Catholic “Catechism of the Catholic Church” has so tongued tied supposed Successors to the Apostles as to make them prisoners of “bad press” rather than champions of moral truth both for the good of souls who defy such truth and for the good of one’s own nation, which is entirely dependent upon the state of souls.

The state of confusion within the counterfeit church of conciliarism is such that there exists no universal policy to impose sanctions upon malefactors such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, Andrew Mark Cuomo, Susan Collins, Rudolph William Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Durbin and, of course, the late Edward Moore Kennedy, Mario Matthew Cuomo, Thomas Philip O’Neill, Thomas Foley, Geraldine Ferraro-Zaccaro, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Christopher Dodd, John F. Kerry, Edmund Muskie, Loretta Sanchez Brixey, et al. All efforts at “dialogue” have failed. Yet it is that the conciliar liberals, following the classic Lockean construct of believing that the reform of societies depends upon the right “strategy” or the right “structures” and not upon the reform of the souls of men, believe that it is necessary to have more of what has failed, namely “dialogue.”

Thus it is that Joseph Zwilling, who has spun for John “Cardinal” O’Connor, Edward Michael Egan and Timothy Michael Dolan, has made it clear that the Archdiocese of New York in its conciliar captivity has no policy to deny what purports to be Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians:

Joseph Zwilling, director of communications in the Archdiocese of New York, told CNA that the archdiocese does not have such a policy.

Dolan told Fox & Friends he agreed with what Morey said, though he would not personally deny a public figure the Eucharist.

“I think what he said was very to the point, I thought that was a good teaching moment,” Dolan said.

The cardinal said the issue has never come up for him personally - he has never seen a public figure in his Communion line who he knew was publicly advocating for policies that violate Church teaching.

“I’ve never had what you might call the opportunity, or I’ve never said ‘Uh oh, should I give him or her Holy Communion’, it’s never come up. Sure could,” Dolan said. (    .)

It’s never come up?

Is this soon-to-be septuagenarian serious?

Here is what they call a “reality check”:

March 10, 2010: 

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York told an Albany television reporter on March 9 that he does not favor denying Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion and same-sex marriage.

“NEWS10's John McLoughlin asked Archbishop Dolan if he favored denying the Church's Sacraments to politicians, like Governor David Paterson, who are Roman Catholic but also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage,” WTEN-TV reported. “The prelate acknowledged that some of his fellow bishops might favor such a ban, but Dolan said he does not, preferring to follow the lead of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who said it was better to try to persuade them than to impose sanctions.”

Archbishop Dolan was in Albany to lobby on behalf of Catholic schools, which face increasing financial strain because of unfunded government mandates.

In Milwaukee, Archbishop Jerome Listecki said that he, too, would be averse to the idea of denying the Eucharist to a prominent abortion advocate, although he did exclude the possibility. The newly installed archbishop told an audience at the Milwaukee Press Club that his decision would take into account "the impact of whatever that person is doing." Before taking disciplinary action, he said, he would want to "help them come to an understanding of the teaching."

Archbishop Listecki said: "It's very difficult for me to see how somebody can be pro-choice knowing the teachings of the church" (Timothy Dolan Will Not Refuse "Communion" to Pro-Abortion Pols.)

Consider, if only for a moment, the fact that we are now just two months, seventeen days away from the forty-seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The time for “persuasion” has long since passed. Exhortation should have been tried for a time in 1973. Failing that, however, the conciliar “bishops” (there were many true bishops in 1973, of course) had the duty to excommunicate each and every single pro-abortion Catholic politician, including Edward Moore Kennedy and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.  They did not do so because most of them did not want to do so, and that was because at least some of them, pro-Bergoglians, shall we say, supported the nonexistent “freedom to choose” what to do with a “problem pregnancy.” It is no accident that most of the so-called “peace and justice” crowd amongst the conciliar “bishops” and their apparatchiks in chancery offices and in the ever-evolving National Conference of Catholic “Bishops/United States Catholic Conference/United States Conference of Catholic “Bishops” were homosexualists, if not homosexuals, feminists, statists, globalists/Marxists-Leninists, environmentalists and outright pantheists.

Alas, sanctions in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are reserved principally, although not exclusively, for those who dare to reject its multiple apostasies, most especially upon presbyters who dare to leave the conciliar structures as they reject the nonexistent "legitimacy" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” and also upon those who dare to utter any word that offends the sensibilities of the conciliar church's "elder brothers in the faith." 

Persuasion?

I suppose it's easier to convince oneself of this empty canard than to run the risk of daily ridicule in the secular media.

Well, back to the Catholic News Agency article:

Dolan faced heavy criticism in January from Catholics who felt that he should have explicitly barred from communion New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had signed into law an expansive abortion bill.

On his radio show Jan. 29, Dolan said that sacramental disciplinary measures against the governor “would be completely counterproductive, right?”  

“Especially if you have a governor who enjoys this and wants to represent himself as a kind of martyr to the cause, doing what is right. He is proud to dissent from the essentials of the faith. He’s proud with these positions."

"For me to punish him for it? He would just say, ‘Look at the suffering this prophet has to undergo,' the cardinal added.

Dolan said Oct. 31 that he frequently sees public figures at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and that he “admires” them when they do not approach the Eucharist out of their own awareness of their sin and separation from the Church.

“They seem to know - ‘I shouldn’t do that. That could be hypocritical at this moment,’” Dolan said.

“On the other hand, we also remember Pope Francis. We...I personally can never judge the state of a person’s soul. So it’s difficult, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not up there as a tribunal, as a judge, distributing Holy Communion, I’m there as a pastor, as a doctor of souls,” Dolan said.

“So it’s difficult to make a judgment on the state of a person’s soul. My job is to help people make, with clear Church teaching, make a decision on the state of their soul and the repercussions of that.” 

When asked if priests could refusing other people communion because of their sins, Dolan said that communion is intended for sinners.

“If only saints could receive Holy Communion, we wouldn’t have anybody at Mass, including myself, alright?” Dolan said.

So sinners are who Holy Communion is for, it’s medicine for the soul, it’s an act of mercy, so it’s intended for sinners...but sinners who want to, who are sorry and want to repent. Then anybody’s welcome, come on up,” he added.

Comment Number Three:

Stop right there.

This what I wrote earlier this year after Timothy Michael Dolan wrapped his feeble-minded rationalization for not punishing pro-abortion politicians:

As per usual, therefore, Timothy Michael “Cardinal” Dolan is refusing to consider excommunicating Cuomo, who is living in sin with his paramour, Sandra Lee, and those members of the New York State Senate and New York State Assembly who voted for the bill as he fears that to do so would make them “martyrs” in the eyes of the public:

NEW YORK, January 25, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan responded to calls for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's excommunication for his role in enshrining a “fundamental right” to virtually-unlimited abortion in the state, saying via a spokesperson that excommunication is "not an appropriate response."

Asked by CNN Religion Editor Dan Burke about the calls for Gov. Cuomo to be excommunicated over New York's new abortion bill, Dolan’s spokesman said he would “not discuss any individual,” but that “excommunication should not be used as a weapon.”

“Too often, I fear, those who call for someone's excommunication do so out of anger or frustration,” Dolan's spokesman said in the statement.

Two Catholic bishops, however, are calling for the excommunication of Cuomo for championing and signing the so-called Reproductive Health Act (RHA), earlier this week on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The radical abortion bill codified legal abortion up to birth in New York state law, an act of preservation by pro-aborts should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Knoxville, Tennessee, Bishop Richard Stika and Tyler, Texas, Bishop Joseph Strickland both indicated that if Cuomo lived in their jurisdiction they would take action. Strickland urged Cuomo’s ordinaries to do so.

“Someone asked me today if I would issue an excommunication of a Catholic Governor under my jurisdiction if the Governor did the same as in New York,” Stika tweeted Thursday afternoon. “I think I might do it for any Catholic legislator under my jurisdiction who voted for the bill as well as the Governor.”

“Enough is enough,” said Stika. “Excommunication is to be not a punishment but to bring the person back into the Church. It's like medicine for them. But this vote is so hideous and vile that it warrants the act. But thankfully I am not in that position. Very sad.”

Bishop Strickland followed up in the early hours of Friday, and mincing no words he said the radical abortion law amounts to legalized "infanticide."

“I’m with Bishop Stika,” he said. “I’m not in a position to take action regarding legislation in New York but I implore bishops who are to speak out forcefully. In any sane society this is called INFANTICIDE!!!!!!!!!!”

Catholic commentator Thomas Peters said that Dolan's statement indicates that some Church leaders are more concerned about public image than shepherding souls.

Thomas Peters

@AmericanPapist

 “We don’t want to excommunicate people who will wear excommunication as a public badge of honor” is an admission that leaders of the church see themselves as PR managers not the shepherds of souls.

Withholding excommunication when it should be applied is actually uncharitable!

Daniel Burke

@BurkeCNN

I asked @CardinalDolan's spokesman about the calls for Gov. Cuomo to be excommunicated over NY's new abortion bill. While emphasizing that this should not be considered a comment on any specific person, he said excommunication "should not be used as a weapon." Full statement:

After years of campaigning by pro-abortion activists, the New York state legislature - now under Democrat super majority since last November’s midterm elections - passed the so-called “Reproductive Health Act” (RHA) Tuesday, preserving a supposed “fundamental right” to abortion in state law and eliminating protections for the unborn until birth.

Washington D.C. priest Monsignor Charles Pope also called for Cuomo to face penalties.

“There comes a time when something is so egregious and boldly sinful that it must be met with strong ecclesial and canonical penalties and remedies,” Pope wrote Wednesday at the National Catholic Register.

After detailing of the “terrible bill,” Pope said, “Even worse, the “Catholic” governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, not only signed the bill on the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but decreed a celebration.”

I will not discuss any individual. Anything that follows is a statement of some general principles, and should not be considered to be a comment on any specific person.

First, excommunication should not be used as a weapon. Too often, I fear, those who call for someone's excommunication do so out of anger or frustration.

Second, notable canon lawyers have said that, under canon law, excommunication is not an appropriate response to a politician who supports or votes for legislation advancing abortion.

Third, from a pastoral perspective, if a pastor - and a bishop is certainly a pastor of a diocese - knows of a grave situation involving a parishioner, it is his duty to address that issue personally and directly with the parishioner. That was the approach of Cardinal O'Connor and Cardinal Egan (both of whom I served), and it is Cardinal Dolan's approach as well. 

Fourth, and finally, from a strategic perspective, I do not believe that excommunication would be effective as many politicians would welcome it as a sign of their refusal to be "bullied by the Church", thinking it would therefore give them a political advantage. (See, for example, the case of Bishop Leo Maher and Lucy Killea). (Dolan Says Excommunicating Pro-Abortion Politicians Not An Options.)

As for Dolan’s initial reaction to the New York State baby-killing bill, it is not unfair to ask the following question: What kind of “political advantage” can Andrew Mark Cuomo obtain after winning the governorship of the State of New York in 2010, 2014 and 2018 by overwhelming margins?

Dolan’s spiel this time around,with respect to "Father" Morey's refusing what purports to be Holy Communion to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is the same as it has ever been, and it is entirely self-serving and helps to embolden pro-aborts in office currently and to communicate to those who aspire to office that they can do almost anything without being criticized or punished by the conciliar officials save for supporting the death penalty, opposing globalism’s agenda of open borders and opposing socialized medicine and other statist programs of coercive income redistribution.

Timothy Michael Dolan's fear of making "martyrs" out of pro-death Catholics in public life by refusing them what purports to be Holy Communion is entirely misplaced. He believes that he is a Catholic bishop (he is neither a bishop or a priest). He believes that Our Lord comes down on the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic NovusOrdo Cranmer tables. He has an obligation to defend the integrity of what believes to be the Most Blessed Sacrament no matter who is made out to be "martyr" by the secular media or by other dissenting Catholics.

So what?

Saint Tarcisius laid down his very life to protect the Blessed Sacrament that he was carrying on his person. Shouldn't this inspire man who believes to be a Catholic bishop want to do the same? That Timothy Dolan believes it is "prudent" to keep giving what he thinks is Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholics is just another sign of the era of apostasy that is upon us.

Nothing ever changes within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The current donnybrook about the courageous action taken by “Father” Robert Morey calls to mind the events of fifteen years ago when none other than the then prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a chap named Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, made a mess of things by sending out a letter to Theodore “Cardinal” McCarrick, the disgrace of a “bishop” who was then the Archbishop of Washington, District of Columbia, that offered supposed “guidelines” for denying what purports to be Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo abomination of desolation.

Readers with exceptionally good memories might recall that it was Raymond Leo Burke, who had to be overturned by the authorities in the conciliar Vatican when, as the "bishop" of La Crosse, he permitted a man who had undergone a "gender change" operation to enter the consecrated religious life as a woman, was very outspoken in 2004 when United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) received the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left," the Democratic Party.

The then “Bishop” Burke said publicly that Catholics in civil life who supported the surgical assassination of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs should be denied what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo abomination of desolation. This caused quite a controversy as most of the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America, including Theodore "Cardinal" McCarrick, then the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, openly opposed such a penalty to be imposed upon pro-abort Catholics in public life. McCarrick and other American non-bishops preferred "dialogue" to "confrontation."

After a fair deal of typical confusion with what passes for decision-making in the conciliar Vatican, including the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's seeming to support Burke before issuing a statement that McCarrick brandished at a meeting of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004 that seemed to support his position.

Confused?

So was I at the time! 

Here is a timeline of these confusing events, written when I subscribed to the "resist but recognize" view of that saw me write an article in Catholic Family News criticizing "Cardinal" Ratzinger before thinking that I had been wrong, concluding ultimately as I had wrote at the time, "never mind, I was the right the first time”:

June 4, 2004: The Most Reverend Donald Pellotte, the Bishop of Gallup, New Mexico, reported that Cardinal Ratzinger had told a group of American bishops during their ad limina apostolorum they should "proceed cautiously" in the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

June 17, 2004: A Catholic World News report indicated that Cardinal Ratzinger had sent a private letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Wilton Gregory, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, that provided guidelines for the American bishops on the matter as they deliberated on it during their semi-annual meeting, held in Englewood, Colorado. The initial report was sketchy, but it indicated that Ratzinger had seemed to side with the stands that had been taken by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke and Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan. The details were shrouded in mystery. It appeared that Ratzinger's remarks could have served either side of the issue, typical of the conciliarist penchant for ambiguity and uncertainty.

June 17, 2004: The American bishops voted overwhelmingly to adopt a statement of "Catholics in Political Life" that was essentially an agreement for the bishops to disagree with each other, stating that each bishop had to approach the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholics in public life on his own.

July 3, 2004: The text of what was purported to be Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the American hierarchy is published by a well-respected Italian reporter of Vatican affairs, Sandro Magister. The statement, though raising a lot of questions, seemed to indicate that Catholic pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion after an undefined period of "instruction" on the part of their pastors (although who specifically is defined as "pastor," whether a parish priest or a diocesan bishop). Apart from a very important and much needed clarification between the issues of abortion and the imposition of the death penalty, the statement contained a horrific Note Bene which basically undermined the likes of “Archbishop” Burke and “Bishop” Michael John Sheridan, who had said that Catholics could never for a pro-abortion candidate, stating that Catholics could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for public office if they did for "proportionate reasons" despite that candidate's "permissive" pro-abortion stance and not meaning to endorse such a stance. In other words, it was the status quo ante.

July 4, 2004: Thinking I had gotten the story wrong, I did a mea culpa and wiped the egg off of my face to apologize to his non-eminence for suggesting in Catholic Family News that he had sided with the likes of Cardinal McCarrick and Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, both of whom had said that they would not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I did raise a number of questions about the ambiguities contained in the statement. However, I thought that the Ratzinger statement was released to make the American “bishops” look bad and to give a sort of back-handed endorsement to the approach taken by Raymond Leo Burke and Michael John Sheridan. Sandro Magister's article was entitled, "What Ratzinger Wanted, but Didn't Get."

July 6, 2004: Theodore Edgar McCarrick says that the Ratzinger statement, which he said at the time that he had not seen, was not the whole story, that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith had sent a cover letter to the statement (never mind the apparent contradiction between McCarrick saying that he had not seen the Ratzinger statement and that a cover letter had been sent with it) that gave the American “bishops” great leeway to decide the matter for themselves. McCarrick implies that a series of phone conversations with “Cardinal” Ratzinger had given the American “bishops” the same impression.

After July 6, 2004: A series of articles were published by prominent Catholics to praise Cardinal Ratzinger's “firmness” and to criticize most of the American “bishops” for failing to follow the Ratzinger statement. Several of these Catholics strained at gnats, trying to convince themselves that the Ratzinger statement was more or less binding on the American “bishops,” that his satement that Catholic pro-abort politicians "must" be denied Holy Communion was an absolute mandate. Others overlooked the problematic Note Bene, wherein Ratzinger basically gave Catholics carte blanche to vote for pro-abortion politicians, something that I pointed out in an article posted on the Daily Catholic website on July 9, 2004. The matter had become a typical postconciliar mess. “Bishops” arguing with each other. Well-meaning Catholics attempting to grasp at straws to prove that their hero, “Cardinal Ratzinger,” was defending the integrity of what I thought at the time to be the Holy Eucharist.

July 13, 2004: After more days of confusion and contradictory statements, “Uncle Teddy” Cardinal McCarrick released a letter, dated July 9, 2004, by Joseph Alois Ratzinger which stated the following:

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement "Catholics in Political Life," approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting.

The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (The letter can be found archived at the Office of Communications of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

Thus, the June 17, 2004, statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," was merely sent "as a fraternal service to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue—in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations." It was not binding on the “bishops.” It did not have the force of law. It was simply another empty “white paper” from the Vatican that has been trumped by the machinations of those bishops in the United States of America who do not support the position taken by Burke and Sheridan. Once again, a threat to the error of "collegiality," which has done much to undermine the good of the Church and thus of souls, had to be resolved by the papering over of differences between the Holy See and many of the American bishops, including the perverted McCarrick and his allies.

In other words, I was right in my July article in Catholic Family News. Ratzinger was neither a defender of the Faith or of the Eucharist. He is a propagator of many doctrinal (Jews look "expectantly" for the Messiah) and pastoral errors that are symbolic of the entire state of confusion ushered in as a result of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. If apologies had been owed to anybody, they are to be given to McCarrick, of all people, who turns out to have been telling the truth, evidently, when he said in late-July of 2004 that Ratzinger had affirmed privately what the American bishops had decided in Englewood, Colorado. McCarrick is wrong on the stand he has taken with respect to this issue. Then again, so was Ratzinger's June 17 statement. The only fitting way to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians is to excommunicate them all, not to engage them in more "dialogue" as babies are killed both chemically and surgically. (From Never Mind! I Was Right the First Time, 2004.)

Yes, yes, yes. Sure, sure, sure. I had a lot to learn. I permitted myself to played like a fool by this charade, thinking that the conciliar officials were legitimate “bishops” and that they held actual positions of authority within the Catholic Church, which they do not.

Thus, you see, it is the case that the brouhaha over “Father” Morey’s will pass in due course, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio is sure to offer Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., some kind of show of support, quite possibly in the form of a photograph opportunity showing him smiling with the renegade Catholic as he had in 2013 (see Joe and Jorge).

As interesting as this matter is, therefore, it stands as a reminder that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a jumble of confusion because it is not and can never be the Catholic Church. Although the courage of “Father” Robert Morey and of the brave, articulate and truly zealous Alexander Tschugguel (see Man who tossed Pachamama in Tiber explains why it was ‘right decision’ in new video) are admirable and could very well signify the beginning of a genuine revolt within the conciliar structures that might lead them on the path to embrace the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal, there is also the possibility that these events might wind up convincing more believing Catholics that it is necessary to “fight the pope” and to save what they think is the Catholic Church from him.

In this regard, therefore, it is important to pray, fast and to make sacrifices for those of good will in the conciliar structures to recognize these stark truths that compel any honest Catholic to realize that the conciliar apostates are spiritual robber barons who had seized the buildings of the Catholic Church to perpetuate the greatest fraud known in salvation history:

When the Lord, as we read in the Gospel, asked his disciples who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe him the Son of Man to be, blessed Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And the Lord answered and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven: and I say also unto thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. But the dispensation of truth perdures, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he hath received, hath not relinquished the position he assumed at the helm of the Church.

In the universal Church it is as if Peter were still saying every day: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. For every tongue which confesseth the Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the Faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bonds of his prisoners. This is the Faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. This is the rock which God hath fortified with such ramparts of salvation, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. And therefore, dearly beloved, we celebrate today's festival with reasonable obedience, that in my humble person he may be acknowledged and honoured who doth continue to care for all the shepherds as well as sheep entrusted unto him, and who doth lose none of his dignity even in an unworthy successor. (As found in Matins, Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Clement, November 23.)

With only one exception, all of the documents which attest Clement's intervention in the affairs of distant churches have perished with time; but the one that remains shows us in full action the monarchical power of the bishop of Rome at that primitive epoch. The church of Corinth was disturbed with intestine quarrels caused by jealously against certain pastors. These divisions, the germ of which had appeared even in St. Paul's time, had destroyed all peace, and were causing scandal to the very pagans. The Corinthians at last felt the necessity of putting an end to a disorder which might be prejudicial to the extension of the Christian faith; and for this purpose it was requisite to seek assistance from outside. The apostle had all departed this life, except St. John, who was still the light of the Church. It was not great distance from Corinth to Ephesus where the apostle resided: yet it was not to Ephesus but to Rome that the church of Corinth turned. Clement examined the case referred to his judgment by that church, and sent to Corinth five commissaries to represent the Apostolic See. They were bearers of a letter, which St. Irenaeus calls potentissimas litteras. It was considered at the time so beautiful and so apostolic, that it was long read in many churches as a sort of continuation of the canonical Scriptures. Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation., translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

No, “partial credit” does not cut it to retain one's membership in good standing within the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church:

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way." (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

Pope Pius XI, writing in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, also rejected any notion of a distinction between "fundamental" and allegedly "non-fundamental" doctrines of the Catholic Faith:

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.  (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

“Pope Francis” is not the “pope” as it is impossible for a Catholic to adhere to his teaching without defecting from the Catholic Faith as he, Bergoglio, did in his youth in Argentina.

Moreover, each of the conciliar “popes” and “bishops” have violated the First Commandment by praising false religions, participating in inter-religious “prayer” services and even, in the case of most of them, esteeming the symbols of false religions themselves. The Pachamama scandal was just the denouement of a regime of sixty-one years of apostasy, sacrilege, heresy, error and betrayal that is now culminating in a frank, outright admission that the dogmatic evolutionism condemned in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the [First] Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, April 24, 1870, Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis, April 12, 1950.

Although we may not live to see the resolution of this era of apostasy and betrayal, we can continue to try to plant the seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and the vanquishing of the heresies that abound at this time as we pray as well that Catholics of good will in the conciliar structures will respond to Our Lady’s graces with alacrity to see the truth, something that it took me much too long—inexcusably long—to see and accept.

We can do this by offering up our entire liberty—everything—as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of  Mary, being content to let her make use of whatever merits we might earn according to her sweet dispositions that are to be found in the depth of her maternal heart that longs for the children redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son’s Most Precious Blood to save their souls. All we need to do is to live more penitentially by offering up to her Divine Son through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart our acts of reparation for our many sins as we beg her for the graces of final perseverance.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

We have nothing to fear.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

All Saints, pray for us.