Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a very busy apostate. It seems to be that this most wicked of demons loves to “make a mess” around Pentecost Sunday as it was just last year (Sunday, June 8, 2014) on this great feast that celebrates the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in tongues of flame upon Our Lady, the Holy Apostles and others gathered in the Cenacle, thus signifying the birth of Holy Mother Church and the beginning of her mission to convert everyone on the face of the earth as members of her maternal bosom, that the Argentine Apostate held an “interreligious prayer for peace in the Middle East jamboree in the Vatican Gardens (see Antichrist and His Anti-Pentecost and Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card? Do You Care?).
Bergoglio is still at his work of “making a mess” this very day, Pentecost Sunday, May 24, 2015, as he celebrates the “beatification” of a Marxist-sympathizer and as he prepares to issue his “encyclical letter” on “climate change” that has been written for him by his fellow pantheists.
Yes, “Pope Francis” has taken the time to send a letter yesterday, May 23, 2015, the Vigil of Pentecost, to the conciliar “archbishop” of San Salvador, El Salvador, José Luis Escobar Alas, on the occasion of the “beatification” of Oscar Romero, a man who was impressed with Marxist “insights” and whose apostasy was celebrated the promoter of his “cause,” “Archbishop” Vincenzio Paglia as follows:
“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council." (Romero To Be "Beatified" Soon.)
This is what I wrote at the time:
Whether or not he realizes it, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia has made quote a statement by stating that his church is one that flowed from the “Second” Vatican Council and not the Wounded Side of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Blood and Water flowed forth out from the cardiac sac surrounding His Most Sacred Heart. As a conciliar presbyter noted to me in an e-mail in 2004, the “Second” Vatican Council represented what he termed was an “ecclesiogensis,” that is, the springing forth of a new church that had little to do with the one that preceded it.
This is indeed quite correct. What has flowed forth from the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” has been nothing other than a polluted stream of apostasy that originated from the poisoned wells of Modernity and Modernism. Countless hundreds of millions of people have been poisoned by it enough to have had their minds poisoned against any mention of the “old faith,” especially as expressed and protected in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Although it would be an over-simplification of the matter to say that “Archbishop” Oscar Romero was a Marxist-Leninist, he did come to believe that what he thought was the Catholic Church could “learn” from Marxism while rejecting its atheistic ideology. Romero had sympathies for the Marxist “perspective” and did give comfort to those who believed in what he thought was a “proper” understanding of “liberation theology.”
Romero came to this position over the course of time. By the time of his assassination, however, he had become a lightning rod in behalf of what was said to be temporal justice during the midst of the El Salvadoran civil war, which pitted Cuban-backed, armed and trained guerillas against the brutal El Salvadoran military, which featured the death squads commanded by Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, who was directly responsible for his death. Romero fell into the trap created for him by “liberation theology” and Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick’s “preferential option for the poor,” believing that the Catholic Church could defeat Marxism by showing its solidarity for the poor and the oppressed. Indeed, he told us so in his own words:
Nonetheless, with such condemnations, Romero believes that people can learn and employ either Marxist or capitalist thought for their technical, scientific means. If they do so, they must understand the limitations of such an endeavor. It is to be done for concrete, real-world situations, looking at the positive aspects of such teachings, without confusing the practical use of such research as proving the ideology. “When listening to, and rendering its judgments upon the various ideologies it [the church] is influenced in the first place by the moral concerns proper to the faith. It is not so much moved to give technical judgments about the concrete proposals that spring from different ideologies” (77). Thus, what he makes clear about Marxism can also be said with other ideologies: “It can be understood as a scientific analysis of the economic and social order” (146). And with all sciences, it must not be seen as a complete presentation of the situation (something politicians often forget).
This realization can explain why one can have a practical engagement with ideologies like Marxism or capitalism. Romero points out, however, that one should not ignore the inherent dangers of doing so. “Such political praxis can lead to the absolutization of popular political organizations. It can dry up from the Christian inspiration of their members, and even cut them off from the church, as if the church had no right to exercise, from the perspective of its own transcendent ideology, a critical function in relation to political activities” (146). Thus the problem is turning any ideology into an absolute, which is what most often happens in the modern political situation and its desire to engage in political reductionism. “The church is not dedicated to any particular ideology as such. It must be prepared to speak out against turning any ideology into an absolute” (78).
Romero believed, as with the Church, that Marxism was a great threat for South America. He wanted people to understand it in all of its senses. This will help one understand why the Church’s teaching is not Marxist, even if, at times, there might seem to be some similarity between what a Marxist would want and what the Church’s prophetic teaching requires (the same, of course, is true with capitalism: the church affirms private property in a very limited sense, but many use the limited support and absolutize it in a way the Church does not). But, Romero points out, the only way the Church can defeat Marxism is to fully follow its social doctrine: “The best way to defeat Marxism is to take seriously the preferential option for the poor” (146). That, he believes, is the only way the temptation of the poor to become Marxist can be overcome. (Romero on Marxism.)
Oscar Romero was a fool, a complete creature of the false religion that flowed out from the “Second” Vatican Council as he sought to find ways that what he believed was the Catholic Church, she who has nothing lacking in her Divine Constitution concerning true knowledge of the errors that would rise up until the end of time, could “learn” from Marxism and to “adopt its social doctrine.”
Pope Pius XI, to whom “Archbishop” Romero was supposedly very personally dedicated, taught otherwise, explaining in Divini Redemptoris, March 17, 1937, fully forty-two years before Romero’s assassination by Roberto D’Aubisson’s death squad, that the supposed “scientific” nature of Marxist economics and philosophy had been disproved:
14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.
15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask, that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world's goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 17, 1937.)
Pope Pius XI thus condemned every single one of “Archbishop” Oscar Romero’s contentions about what can be “learned” and then adapted from Marxism-Leninism. Romero had succumbed to its false ideals, seeking as conciliarists do to find "good" in error and and to adapt oneself to it. The false church that flowed from the "Second" Vatican Council is all about adapting itself to error to such an extent that truth itself becomes hated. Those who adhere to the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith must be denounced as "rigid" and uwilling to "move with the spirit." Jorge Mario Bergoglio has perfected this sort of demagoguery as no conciliar "pope" before him has been able to do.
To be clear, Communism is a false ideology with which there can never be any compromise or toleration. No word of approval can be given to it. No encouragement to “learn” from its diabolical falsehoods can be offered. Pope Pius XI explained in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, that no one could claim be a sincere Catholic and a socialist at the the time. The two are mutually exclusive, something that Roncalli/John XXIII, Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Bergoglio/Francis, Oscar Romero or Vincenzo Paglia never accepted:
We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. . . .
120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)
Oscar Romero did not possess the Catholic Faith. It is generally a nifty thing for one whose cause of "canonization" is under consideration to have possessed the true Faith without any deviation whatsoever.
What does this mean to Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
Nothing, which is why he offered the following words of praise for Oscar Romero yesterday:
The beatification of Archbishop Óscar Arnulfo Romero Galdámez, who was Pastor of that dear Archdiocese is a cause for great joy for the Salvadoran people and for those who rejoice by the example of the best children of the Church. Archbishop Romero, who built peace with the strength of love, gave witness to the faith with his life, given to the extreme.
The Lord never abandons his people in difficulties, and has always shown Himself solicitous with your needs. He sees oppression, He hears the cries of pain of His children, and comes to their aid to free them from oppression and bring them to a new land, fertile and spacious, that “flows with milk and honey” (cf. Ex 3, 7-8). Equally he chose Moses one day so that, in His name, he would guide His people, He continues to raise up pastors according to His heart, who feed their flocks with knowledge and prudence (cf Jer 3, 15).
In that beautiful Central American land, bathed by the Pacific Ocean, the Lord granted his Church a zealous Bishop who, loving God and serving the brothers and sisters, converted into an image of Christ the Good Shepherd. In times of difficult coexistence, Archbishop Romero knew how to lead, defend and protect his flock, remaining faithful to the Gospel and in communion with the whole Church. His ministry was distinguished by a particular attention to the most poor and marginalized. And in the moment of his death, while he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of love and reconciliation, he received the grace to identify himself fully with He who gave his life for his sheep.
On this feast day for the Salvadoran nation, and also for neighboring Latin American countries, we give thanks to God because he granted the martyred Bishop, the ability to see and hear the suffering of his people, and molded his heart so that, in His name, he could direct them and illuminate them, even making of his work a full exercise of Christian charity.
The voice of the newly Blessed continues to resonate today to remind us that the Church, a convocation of brothers surrounding their Lord, is the family of God, in which there should be no division. Faith in Jesus Christ, when understood well and its final consequences assumed, generates communities of that are builders of peace and solidarity. This is what the Church in El Salvador is called to today, in America and in the whole world: to be rich in mercy and to convert into the leaven of reconciliation for society.
Archbishop Romero invites us to sanity and reflection, to respect for life and harmony. It is necessary to renounce “the violence of the sword, of hate” and to live “the violence of love, that left Christ nailed to the Cross, that makes each one of us overcome selfishness and so that there be no more such cruel inequality between us.” He knew how to see and experienced in his own flesh “the selfishness that hides itself in those who do not wish to give up what is theirs for the benefit of others.” And, with the heart of a father, he would worry about the “poor majority”, asking the powerful to convert “weapons into sickles for work.”
May those who have Archbishop Romero as a friend of faith, those who invoke him as protector and intercessor, those who admire his image, find in him the strength and courage to build the Kingdom of God, to commit to a more equal and dignified social order.
It is a favorable moment for a true national reconciliation in front of the challenges we are facing today. The Pope participates in your hopes, and unites Himself to your prayers so that the seed of martyrdom may flourish and become entrenched in the true paths of the sons and daughters of that nation, which proudly hears the name of the divine Saviour of the World.
Dear brother, I ask of you a favor: that you pray and that you may pray for me, while I impart my Apostolic Blessing to all who united in various ways to celebrate the newly Blessed. (Jorge sends letter for the "beatification" of Óscar Romero.)
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and in Truth to pay back in His Sacred Humanity the debt of sin that was owed to Him in His Sacred Divinity.
Yes, Our Lord has reconciled us to God the Father out of the love He has for Him and for each one of us. That ineffable love, however, requires us to confess our sins, amend our lives and to live in a more penitential manner. We must cooperate with the graces He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Calvary and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, which we seek to quit our worldliness and to be stripped of our disordered self-love and our disordered attachment to created things.
The Divine Redeemer did not promise that there would be an end to injustice and suffering or that everyone would share equally in the goods of this passing world. Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X explained that Our Lord rejected notions of a chimerical quality:
Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
As has been noted so many times before on this site in the past twenty-six months, eleven days now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio reserves holy indignation only for those who oppose the daily profanation of formerly Catholic churches wherein are staged the abomination of desolation, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, and reproves only those who are concerned about “ossified” or “petrified” dogmas without seeking to reach the “heart” of those on the “existential peripheries.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio saw fit to spend time paying homage his fellow Latin American “liberation theologian,” Oscar Romero, on the same day that once proudly Catholic Ireland voted by a margin of sixty-two to thirty-eight percent to legalize the moral and social travesty that is “gay marriage.” (See A Resounding Vote for Perverted “Marriage” in Ireland.)
So much for the work of Saint Patrick, who sought to convert the clans of pagan Druids to the true Faith. Druidism has returned to Ireland, and it has done so largely, although not exclusively, as a direct and inevitable consequence of the false doctrines, including “separation of Church and State,” “religious liberty” and false ecumenism, of a counter-church that offers its adherents stones instead of the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Himself, the true Manna Who came down to Heaven and has Ascended to God the Father’s right hand in glory.
To be sure, the Protestant Revolution, with which the counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its “official reconciliation” and will celebrating with great joy throughout 2017, played its own role in wreaking havoc in Ireland, the Land of Saints and Scholars. Irish Catholics suffered great repression at the hands of the English for centuries, despite some relaxation in the Nineteenth Century, following the Protestant Revolution in England, and Catholics in Northern Ireland suffered tremendously under such repression until the latter part of the last century. The influence of Protestantism and popular culture, of course, have played their own roles in de-Catholicizing the remnants of Catholic Ireland.
All of this having been noted, however, it is nevertheless true that the de-Catholicization of Catholic Ireland could not have been as successful and as complete as it has been without the wholesale abandonment of the mission that Our Lord gave to the Apostles on Ascension Thursday and that began this very day, the first Pentecost Sunday, as our first pope, Saint Peter, exhorted the Jews who had gathered from all around the Mediterranean to convert to the true Faith, an exercise is forbidden by the conciliar “popes.”
Although there were certainly a few precedents now and again in the century and one-half leading up to the “Second” Vatican Council, the willingness of the conciliar “bishops” to remain neutral or silent, as “Pope Francis” did prior to the vote in Ireland yesterday, May 23, 2015, as moral evils have been advancing under cover of the law and celebrated abroad in the so-called “popular culture” represents their own rather bold testimony that they do not believe that is their duty to direct souls, upon which the entire fate of nations and the world rests. These apostates are content to let the “people” decide to excuse themselves from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law without suffering a qualm of conscience for doing so.
Quite the contrary, the conciliar “archbishop” of Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, with whom I met twenty-two years ago when he worked in the “Pontifical” Council for Justice and Peace in the Vatican’s extra-territorial Trastevere district of Rome, showed once again that the members of hierarchy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are agents of Antichrist when he wrote an essay for the Irish Times newspaper prior to yesterday’s referendum. I will interject comments at various points in the text that follows:
I was initially reluctant to accept an invitation from The Irish Times to comment further on Friday’s marriage referendum. I do not wish the debate to be seen as predominantly a religious issue or just as a Church-State debate.
As a bishop I have strong views on marriage based on my religious convictions. I have, however, no wish to stuff my religious views down other people’s throats, but I also have a right to express my views in the reasoned language of social ethics. In airing my views in public debate, I do not expect to be listened to on the basis of dogmatic utterance, but on the reasonableness of my argument. (Sham "Archbishop" Martin: ‘I encourage everyone to vote and reflect carefully.)
Brief Comment Number One:
“Stuff my religious views down other people’s throats.”
That’s a statement for you, one that calls to mind the work of two Americanist bishops, Francis Cardinal Spellman and Richard “Cardinal” Cushing (a true bishop but created a “cardinal” by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII), shaped in the cradle of American religious indifferentism and who participated in the destruction of the Catholic Faith at the “Second” Vatican Council, just two years before the beginning of the “Second” Vatican Council:
In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was led by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.
When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.
One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.
In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.
Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.
The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.
Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."
When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 647-649)
It was five years after this travesty that “Cardinal” Cushing told a Boston radio station that he could not interfere with the “consciences” of state legislators as they considered whether to support or to oppose a bill in the Massachusetts General Court (the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). This made it far easier for the Kennedys and the Careys and Cuomos and the Bidens and the O’Neills, among others, to support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in the 1970s with the full support of the ultra-progressives in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, one of whose leaders, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, another true bishop, invented the “consistent ethic of life” (“the seamless garment) slogan to provide pro-abortion Catholics with the cover of “respectability” as long as they opposed the death penalty and supported one statist measure after another to confiscate wealth and then to redistribute it to the poor while “empowering” illegal immigrants at the same time:
Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. (As a matter of historical interest, the repeal effort was sponsored by a young state representative named Michael Dukakis, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidency 23 years later.) In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, "An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,” and effectively scuttled the opposition.
Cardinal Cushing announced:
“My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—upon those of other faiths.”
Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that "I could not in conscience approve the legislation" that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, "I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others."
So there it was: the "personally opposed" argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to "impose" his opinion.
Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. "But my thinking has changed on that matter," he reported, "for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do."
(Notice that the Catholic position is reduced still further here, to a matter of purely sectarian belief—as if it would be impossible for a non-Catholic to support the purpose of the Birth Control law. The cardinal did not explain why that law was enacted in 1899 by the heirs of the Puritans in Massachusetts, long before Catholics came to power in the legislature.)
Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church."
Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the "personally opposed" politician had his rationale. (Cushing's Use of The "Personally Opposed" Argument.)
Today’s Pontius Pilates such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Diarmuid Marinhad lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s abd 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to a blind eye as Catholics in public support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
“Stuff my religious views down the throats of other people”?
Recognizing that Diramuid Martin is no true bishop at all, the fact that he thinks he is a true bishop and can have reluctance to speak out against something that should never be on
the “table” for discussion, no less put up for a popular referendum to be decided by contigent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day, speaks clearly about the false conciliar church’s abandonment of the duties that a Successor of the Apostles has to call to correction and to denounce moral evils.
Pope Gregory the Great, whose mortal remains are situated in the left transept of the Basilica of Saint Peter not far from the high altar, explained bishops in his own day who were “reluctant” to denounce error and falsehood:
The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.
The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.
Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Ghost descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously. (For two different translations, see: The Book of Pastoral Rule and That the ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech.)
Diarmuid Martin is the exact description of the type of bishop or priest whose “reluctance” to denounce error and to lead the faithful in the paths of salvation condemned by Pope Saint Gregory the Great. Please do send Saint Gregory the Gregory the Great’s admonition to Mr. Martin if you have a moment to do so.
Pope Leo XIII, who had the benefit of being a member of the Catholic Church and adhering to the Holy Faith as it has been taught from time immemorial as well as being a true bishop and a true pope, reiterated the truths that had been taught by Pope Saint Gregory the Great in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.” Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
How more clearly can it be shown that conciliarism is a false religion, especially since Diarmuid Martin preaches the exact opposite of what bishops, priests and members of the laity laid down their very lives to defend every jot and tittle of the Sacred Deposit in Faith without apologies?
To assert that one can oppose social evils on the basis of some kind of “social ethics” that ignores the very Commandments of God Himself and the realities of the personal and social horrors of perverse sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is as hopelessly delusional as the efforts made by the mealy-mouthed cowards who argued against “gay marriage” before the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v Hodges:
Consider the pathetic argument advanced by the former solicitor general of the State of Michigan who represented the four states that have sought to “define” marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman and that have refused to recognize “same sex marriages” that are “legal” in other states:
“This case isn’t about how to define marriage,” he said. “It’s about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process or is it the federal courts? And we’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.” (Supreme Court hears arguments in historic perverted "marriage" case)
No, the “people” do not get decide what how God has ordered His creation:
 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 27-30.)
 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.  And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.  And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.  And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.  And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.  Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.  And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2: 18-22.)
 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God.  He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5: 1-2.)
 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:  For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. (Matthew 19: 4-6.)
Those who seek to make purely Judeo-Masonic, naturalistic arguments to oppose moral evils will always lose to the tide of sentimentality and emotion that Chief Justice John Glover Roberts said would be the determining factor in whether each state accepts the social “reality” that is said to be “gay marriage,” This is what Roberts said at one point during the oral argumentation of Mary Bonauto, the attorney for those seeking to establish “gay marriage” as a constitutional “right,” on April 27, 2015, in four combined cases known collectively as Obergefell v. Hodges:
If you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”
In other words, John Glover Roberts, a Catholic within the conciliar structures who is associated with Opus Dei, believes that moral issues can be determined at the polls by the “people,” who can “determined” what has been ordained by God when He created Adam and Eve and is thus part of human nature. He is of one mind and one heart with Diarmuid Martin, who does not want to “impose” his “religious views” on the Irish any more than he, Roberts, wants the issue of “gay marriage” to be “imposed” upon them by the courts. Insisting that the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law be observed, however, is no more of an “imposition” upon anyone than observing the physical laws of nature that prevent human beings from flying on their own unaided powers.
Here is a prediction for you: John Glover Roberts will vote to require those states that do not permit human beings of the same gender to “marry” to recognize such “marriages” considered to be legal in thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia. The final vote: six to thee in favor of this supposedly "limited" ruling. Just a prediction. We will see in about a month's time
John Roberts, you see, is a perfect—and I mean absolutely perfect—creature of the conciliar ethos that is content to base all public policy in naturalism without any reference to God’s eternal laws, no less, of course, to the Social Reign of Christ the King that was overthrown starting with the Protestant Revolution on October 31, 1517.
Diarmuid Martin's effort before the referendum in Ireland yesterday was doomed to fail, not that he really wanted to be an effective voice on the issue, because his false religion teaches him that what is thought to be the Catholic Church cannot use “religious arguments” even in a once proudly Catholic country to turn the people away from an abyss of corruption and the madness that must ensue as a result.
Here is the next excerpt from Mr. Martin’s essay in the Irish Times:
I write then primarily as a citizen of Ireland. I have no affiliation with any group of No campaigners. Some such groups will quote me, but I know how short-lived such affirmation can be. I have said that I intend to vote No, yet there are those of the ecclesiastical right-wing who accuse me of being in favour of a Yes vote, since I do not engage in direct condemnation of gay and lesbian men and women.
My position is that of Pope Francis, who, in the debates around same-sex marriage in Argentina, made it very clear that he was against legalising same-sex marriage, yet he was consistent in telling people not to make judgments on any individual. I know the manner with which the Irish Church treated gay and lesbian people in the past – and in some cases still today – and that fact cannot be overlooked. (Sham "Archbishop" Martin: ‘I encourage everyone to vote and reflect carefully.)
Reasoned argument may not always appeal in a cultural climate where the quick answer is the one which can easily win the day. But reasoned argument is vital in society. Reasoned argument deserves reasoned response and not just soundbites.
Brief Comment Number Two:
Diarmuid Martin manages to play the role of the demagogue by using a disparaging label, “the ecclesiastical right wing” to refer to his Catholic critics. This is the same old demagogic tool that is used on an almost daily basis by Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself at the Casa Santa Marta during his daily sessions of his Ding Dong School of Apostasy. It is also quite similar to then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s having said that her scandalously faithless ne’er do well of a husband, President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, was the victim of a “vast right wing conspiracy.”
Catholics in Ireland who opposed “gay marriage” did so despite the silence of their conciliar hierarchy, men they believe to be legitimate bishops of the Catholic Church, and despite the family pressures brought upon many of them to “go along with the times.”
Additionally, many of these courageous Catholics had to deal with relatives and friends who had turned away from the conciliar church because of how the conciliar hierarchy had consistently protected sodomite clerical abusers, a protection that extended to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who personally refused to discipline any of the “bishops” guilty of spiritual and moral malfeasance in Ireland. Yet it is that they are labeled as members of the “right wing” for having the temerity to call out Diarmuid Martin’s refusal to boldly oppose and to campaign actively against the odious referendum that passed yesterday with a margin in excess of three-fifths of those who voted.
Moreover, aping Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose own silence on the Irish “marriage” referendum spoke volumes about how unimportant he considered its outcome to be to him or to the good of the Irish nation, Diarmuid Martin attempted to demonize those of the “ecclesiastical right wing” by claiming that they sought to “condemn” “gay and lesbian people.” What self-righteous hubris on the part of this craven coward.
To denounce the sin of Sodom is a duty as it is repugnant in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. This will make those steeped in unrepentant sins of perverse vice against the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments unhappy and quite angry. Our Lord, however, did not become Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of sin.
Faithful to Him, Saint Paul the Apostle was moved by God the Holy Ghost to write these words in his Epistle to the Romans that have been quoted many times on this website:
Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their 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: 24-32)
Should what Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Diarmuid Martin believe to be the Catholic Church “apologize” for the way that Saint Paul the Apostle, chosen out of time by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, denounced practitioners of moral depravity?
Is Saint Peter Damian in need of rebuke by Jorge and Diarmuid for having written the following about pestilential clergy who would caught up in this terrible vice of sodomy? (Text found in Mrs. Randy Engel’s The Rite of Sodomy.)
According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:
"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ... This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more?"
No, dearest St. Peter Damian, I think not.
Like every saint before him, and every saint that will ever come after him, St. Peter Damian exhorts the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and reform his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul, "Wake up from your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you." (Eph 5:14) In a remarkable affirmation of the Gospel message, he warns against the ultimate sin of despairing of God's mercy and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:
"... beware of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat with confidence in God's love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; it is not the magnitude of one's crime, but contempt of God that dashes one's hopes."
Then, in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ's sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God, he says.
One of the very interesting historical sidebars to Damian's treatise is that he made no preference to the popular practice of distinguishing "notorious" from "non-notorious" cases of clerical immorality--a policy which can be traced back to the 9th century and the canonical reforms on ecclesiastical and clerical discipline by the great German Benedictine scholar and Archbishop of Mainz, Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776?-856). Under this policy, the removal of clerics found guilty of criminal acts including sodomy, depended on whether or not his offense was publicly known, or was carried out and confessed in secret.
In cases that had become "notorious," the offending cleric was defrocked and/or handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. But if his crime was known only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance and then was permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a similar post in a different diocese. Given the aggressive and predatory nature of the vice of sodomy, it is highly likely that such a policy contributed to, rather than inhibited, sodomical practices among clerics and religious between the mid-800s and the early 1000s. In any case, it was unlikely that Damian, who openly expressed his condemnation of too lenient canonical regulations related to the punishment of clerical sodomites and was so judicious in preserving the integrity of the priesthood and religious life, would have approved such a policy.
Saints are realists, which is no doubt why St. Peter Damian anticipated that his "small book" which exposes and denounces homosexual practices in all ranks of the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the Church. And it did.
In anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense as a 'whistle-blower'. He states that his would-be critics will accuse him of "being an informer and a delator of my brother's crimes," but, he says, he has no fear of either "the hatred of evil men or the tongues of detractors."
Dear, dear reader, the words of St. Peter Damian that come thundering down to us through the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its lambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons:
... I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers' foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God's fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4) ... Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgement? ... How, indeed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? ... "So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother's well-being. "Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses' words, 'Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.' (Ezek 32:26)"
As he draws his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, St. Peter Damian pleads with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacred canons with regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons.
Damian asks the Holy Father to "diligently" investigate the four forms of the vice of sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provides him (Damian) with definitive answers to the following questions by which the "darkness of uncertainty" might be dispelled and an "indecisive conscience" freed from error:
1) Is one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from holy orders?
2) Whether at a prelate's discretion, moreover, one might mercifully be allowed to function in office?
3) To what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical office?
4) Also, if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel him under the circumstances to retire?
Damian closes his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX's pontificate "to utterly destroy this monstrous vice" that a prostrate Church may everywhere rise to vigorous stature." (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 53-55)
Do Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Diarmuid Martin want to destroy this monstrous vice?
They want to befriend those who are attracted to and/or practice it and to see it "mainstreamed" in society, which is pretty much a fait accompli these days (see, for example, Irreversible By Means Merely Human, which dealt with the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning “gay marriage” that is serving as its own “precedent” for the current case just as Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, set the precedent for Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973).
By contrast, consider how Pope Leo IX responded to the report presented to him by Saint Peter Damian:
The approximate date that Damian delivered the Book of Gomorrah to Pope Leo IX is generally held to be the second half of the first year of the pontiff's reign, i.e., mid-1049, although some writers put the date as late as 1051. We do know, absolutely, that the Pope did respond to Damian's concerns, as that response in the form of a lengthy letter (JL 4311; ItPont 4.94f., no.2) is generally attached to manuscripts of the work.
Pope Leo IX opens his letter to "his beloved son in Christ, Peter the hermit," with warm salutations and a recognition of Damian's pure, upright and zealous character. He agrees with Damian that clerics, caught up in the "execrable vice" of sodomy "verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. " Such clerics, indeed profess, if not in words, at least by the evidence of their actions, that they are not what they are thought to be," he declares.
Reiterating the category of the four forms of sodomy that Damian lists,  the Holy Father declares that it is proper that by "our apostolic authority" we intervene in the matter so that "all anxiety and doubt be removed from the minds of your readers".
"So let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with everything your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the devil," the Pope continues. "Therefore, lest the wantonness of this foul impurity be allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by proper repressive action of apostolic severity, and yet some moderation must be placed on its harshness," he states.
Next, Pope Leo IX gives a detailed explanation of the Holy See's authoritative ruling on the matter.
In light of divine mercy, the Holy Father commands, without contradiction, that those who, of their own free will, have practiced solitary or mutual masturbation or defiled themselves by interfemoral coitus, but who have not done so for any length of time, nor with many others, shall retain their status, after having "curbed their desires" and "atoned for their infamous deeds with proper repentance".
However, the Holy See removes all hope for retaining their clerical status from those who alone or with others for a long time, or even a short period with many, "have defiled themselves by either of the two kinds of filthiness which you have described, or, which is horrible to hear or speak of, have sunk to the level of anal intercourse."
He warns potential critics, that those who dare to criticize or attack the apostolic ruling stand in danger of losing their rank. And so as to make it clear to whom this warning is directed, the Pope immediately adds, "For he who does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin."
Pope Leo IX praises Damian for teaching by example and not mere words, and concludes his letter with the beautiful hope that when, with God's help, the monk reaches his heavenly abode, he may reap his rewards and be crowned, "Ö in a sense, with all those who were snatched by you from the snares of the devil."
Clearly, on the objective immorality of sodomical acts, both Damian and Pope Leo IX were in perfect accord with one another. However, in terms of Church discipline, the pope appears to have taken exception with Damian's appeal for the wholesale deposition of all clerics who commit sodomical acts. I say, appears, because I believe that even in the matter of punishing known clerical offenders, both men were more in agreement than not.
Certainly, Damian, who was renown for his exemplary spiritual direction of the novitiates and monks entrusted to his care, was not unaware of certain mitigating circumstances that would diminish if not totally remove the culpability of individuals charged with the crime of sodomy.
For example, as with certain clerical sex abuse cases that have come to light today involving the Society of St. John and the Legionaries of Christ, which the Holy See has yet to investigate, some novices or monks may have been forced or pressured by their superiors to commit such acts. No doubt, it is circumstances such as these that prompted Pope Leo IX to use the term, "who of his own free will" in describing a cleric guilty of sodomy. Also among the four varieties of sodomy Damian discusses in his treatise, he states that interfemoral and anal coitus are to be judged more serious than solitary or mutual masturbation.
All in all, what this writer found to be most remarkable about the pope's letter to Damian, was the absolutist position Pope Leo IX took concerning the ultimate responsibility of the offending cleric's bishop or religious superior. If the latter criticized or attacked this apostolic decree, he risked losing his rank! Prelates who fail to "attack vice, but deal lightly with it," share the guilt and sentence of the one who dies in sin, the pope declared. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 57-58)
Writing five hundred years after Saint Peter Damian and Pope Leo IX, Pope Saint Pius V explained the just penalty due clerics caught in the act of unnatural vice:
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)
Death, not "brotherhood" and "mainstreaming" for the sake of "inclusivity," was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Roman cited above, believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in "such an execrable crime" that caused him "such better sorrow" shocked his papal mind as he sought to "repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal."
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and others in the conciliar structures want to provide "brotherhood" and "acceptance."
Just a slightly different approach, wouldn't you say?
A true pope understood the horror of such a detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime.
A false "pope"seeks to appear as an agent of mercy when he is actually an apostle of eternal death.
Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.
It is shameful that anyone would seek to provide a cover for a man who has such disregard for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and who seeks to indemnify sinners in the name of what is nothing other than a false mercy.
Death, not "brotherhood" and "mainstreaming" for the sake of "inclusivity," was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Roman cited above, believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in "such an execrable crime" that caused him "such better sorrow" shocked his papal mind as he sought to "repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal."
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Diarmuid Martin others in the conciliar structures want to provide "brotherhood" and "acceptance."
Just a slightly different approach, wouldn't you say?
A true pope understood the horror of such a detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime.
A false "pope" and most of his false “bishops” seek to appear as agents of “mercy” when they are actually anti-apostles who facilitate the eternal death of souls and the ruin of nations.
Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of the death penalty for sodomy in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.
Diarmuid Martin, invoking Jorge “Who am I to judge?” Bergoglio, says that Catholics cannot “judge” “gays” and “lesbians.”
First, there is no such thing as a “gay” or a “lesbian” person, only human beings who have chosen to acquire an unnatural vice that is detrimental both to the salvation of their immortal souls and to the very physical well-being of the bodies they cherish and pamper in a variety of detestable ways. To adopt the language of “gayspeak” is to concede that it is permissible for human beings to identify themselves on the basis of their proclivity to commit and/or persistence in the commission of perverse sins against nature itself.
Second, the “do not judge” slogan invoked by Diarmuid Martin is hilarious in that those who are steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments judge and condemn anyone who criticizes them. Many within the ranks of sinners hardened in their perversity have sought to shut down Protestant merchants who have either refused to cater or to photograph “gay weddings” and/or have passages from their corrupted version of Sacred Scripture that makes sodomites feel “uncomfortable.
In this regard, you see, it is no accident whatsoever that the Consilium that planned the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service saw fit to leave out the passages from Saint Paul Epistle to the Romans quoted earlier in this coimmentary even though its planners boasted of having included most of Sacred Scripture in the biennial cycle of daily readings and the triennial cycle of Sunday readings for their “renewed liturgy.” After all, one of Annibale Bugnini’s chief acolytes on the Consilium was none other than a self-identified “gay man,” Father Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B. (see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith.)
As noted four days ago now in Jorge The Most Wicked of Demons, part two, those caught up in the grip of unnatural vice are not “born that way.” Unnatural vice is an acquired, not innate. (Please do read the article for the citations from Catholic medical professionals.)
Time permits just one other excerpt from Diarmuid Martin’s Judeo-Masonic to urge Irish voters to “think” before yesterday’s vote without seeking to remind them of their duties before God:
Reasoned argument requires that both sides are heard for what they are really saying. A reasoned No vote is not homophobic. A reasoned No vote does not deny that gay and lesbian people can be good parents, just as heterosexual people can be bad parents. Single parents deserve recognition and support as they are in fact among the most neglected and isolated men and women in our society. They have often been left to struggle on their own by successive governments – and by the Church – which failed to recognise the contribution that they bring to society. (Sham "Archbishop" Martin: ‘I encourage everyone to vote and reflect carefully.)
Final Comment on this Judeo-Masonic Bilge:
Although the “reasonable” Mister Martin tried to make appeals to the unique complentarity between males and females as he sought to raise questions about how a changed Irish constitution would be interpreted by the courts in this once proudly Catholic country, his belief that “gay and lesbian people can be good parents” undermines what little could have been made of his naturalistic arguments that can never be used to hold back the tidal wave of sentimentality and emotionalism. This false belief is insidious, and it is scandalous for the supposed “archbishop” of Dublin himself to assert this publicly.
Diarmuid Martin was not alone in stating this. He had company in the person of the conciliar “bishop” of Derry, who said the following on Tuesday, May 19, 2015:
The people of Ireland made their way to the polls on Friday May 22 to vote on legalizing gay marriage, and one of the Catholic country's bishops had a word of caution for those poised to vote "no."
"I would hate for people to vote no for bad reasons, for sort of bigoted reasons, for nasty reasons, for bullying reasons," the Bishop of Derry, Rev. Donal McKeown, said during a radio debate. "People have to make up their own mind, and I'm quite happy that they can do that in front of God, be it yes or be it no."
McKeown joined Irish radio program the Shaun Doherty Show on May 19 to discuss the upcoming vote alongside Noel Sharkey, a medical student and campaigner for Ireland's Doctors for Marriage Equality group.
"I don't doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote yes and that's entirely up to them. I'm not going to say they're wrong," McKeown said.
He also praised the loving commitment that exists in many longterm, same-sex relationships and acknowledged that gay and lesbian individuals can make excellent parents. As for voting to allow gay couples to wed, however, McKeown argued that Friday's referendum was a "dangerous experiment" and said that marriage would need to be "redefined" to accommodate such a change.
The bishop expanded on that point in a Thursday op-ed for The Derry Journal:
I believe that those who argue for a ‘yes’ vote have not shown any compelling evidence that the proposed redefinition of marriage will promote a better society for all its citizens.
Indeed, there are many reasons to believe that this would damage the common good and make it very difficult for citizens to advocate traditional marriage in schools and other public fora.
Despite his own strong opposition to gay marriage, McKeown added during the May 19 radio show that the church has largely stayed out of the debate over Friday's vote in order to leave the decision up to the voters. (Irish Sham "Bishop" on Perverted "Marriage": I would hate for people for vote no for the wrong reasons.)
With “opposition” such as this, Irish Catholics who voted “yes” yesterday did not need to much other than to show up at the polls with perfectly clear consciences. “Bishop” Donal McKeon placed more than a few drops of poison into his alleged “opposition” to the referendum that passed overwhelmingly yesterday, starting with the much-repeated lie by so many in the conciliar hierarchy that a supposed “loving commitment” “exists in many longterm, same-sex relationships and acknowledged that gay and lesbian individuals can make excellent parents.”
Here is a little note to you, Diarmuid and Donal: no one truly loves another human being if he does or says anything, whether by omission or commission, that is in opposition to the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. The conciliarists thus deny that God’s love for us is an act of His Divine Will, which seeks the salvation of our immortal souls. Human beings are bound to love others as God loves His rational creatures, not with sappy sentimentality but to will the eternal good of them all.
This can all be summarized once again, especially for those accessing this site for the first time, as follows:
1) God's love for us is an act of His divine will, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls.
2) Our love for others must be premised on willing for them what God wills for us: their salvation.
3) We love no one authentically if we do or say anything, either by omission or commission, which reaffirms him in a life of unrepentant sin.
4) God hates sin. He wills the sinner to repent of his sins by cooperating with the graces He won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross.
5) Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer unspeakable horrors on the wood of the Holy Cross and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.
6) No one can say that he loves Our Lord or Our Lady if he persist in sin unrepentantly and/or celebrates the commission of sin in public acts of defiance against the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the Natural Law.
7) Each sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will, inclining us all the more to sin and sin again. We must, therefore, resolve never to sin again and to do penance for our sins as Our Lady herself implored us to do when she appeared in th Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety years ago.
8) It is therefore forbidden for anyone of this parish or diocese to participate or support, whether morally or financially, any event whatsoever that celebrates any sin, whether natural or unnatural, and/or encourages people to persist in sin as a legitimate "lifestyle."
9) One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner. We have an obligation to admonish those who are in lives on unrepentant sin to turn away from their lives of sin and to strive to pursue the heights of sanctity.
10) God has compassion on all erring sinners, meaning each one of us. He understands our weakness. He exhorts us, as He exhorted the woman caught in adultery, to "Go, and commit this sin no more."
11) It is not an act of "love" for people to persist in unrepentant sins with others.
12) It is not an act of "judgmentalness" or "intolerance" to exhort people who are living lives of unrepentant sin to reform their lives lest their souls wind up in Hell for eternity.
13) Mortal Sins cast out Sanctifying Grace from the soul. Those steeped in unrepentant mortal sin are the captives of the devil until they make a good and sincere Confession.
14) Certain sins cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
15) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments do not "love" the individuals with whom they are sinning. Authentic love cannot exist in a soul committed to a life against the Commandments of God and the eternal welfare of one's own soul, no less the souls of others.
16) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children.
17) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children because their very sinful lives put into jeopardy the eternal of the souls of the children they seek to adopt. It is not possible for people who are sinning unrepentantly to teach children to hate sin as God hates sin. They are immersed in sin. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Casti Connubii, December 31,1930:
But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31,1930.)
18) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are further unfit to adopt children because they have no right in the Divine positive law or the natural law to live together as a "couple." Once again, Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii:
Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31,1930.)
19) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment have no right in the Divine positive law or the natural law to present a "model" of parenthood that is from the devil himself. As noted earlier in this "brief" comentary, the words that Saint Paul wrote about perversity in Rome in his own day are quite apropos of our own.
20) Matrimony was elevated to a Sacrament by Our Lord at the wedding feast in Cana. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is entered into by one man and by one woman to achieve these ends: the procreation and education of children, the mutual good of the spouses, a remedy for concupiscence. Pope Pius XI noted this in Casti Connubii:
This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.
This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
21) It is never permissible to put even one child into spiritual, if not physical, jeopardy by claiming that so many others would be helped if the Church did not cooperate with an unjust law. Our Lord said that it would be better for one to have a millstone thrown around his neck and thrown into a lake than to lead one of his little ones astray. He was not joking.
22) Sinners must repent of the evil they have done in order to live ives of penance and mortification worthy of Saint Francis of Assisi. Pray as many Rosaries as you can each day of our life. They must repent and pray and work for the conversion of those with whom they have sinned, sure to make a full, integral confession to a true piest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance on a weekly basis.
A Catholic bishop would not hesitate to make these points. Neither Jorge Mario Bergoglio or Diarmuid Martin are Catholics or bishops, which is why they speak (or remain silent) and act (or not act) as they do when moral truth is under attack.
They are apostates, content to sound “reasonable” to the masses on matters that have been ordained by God and are no capable of being “changed” by the people, whether individually or collectively in a plebiscite or a legislative body, than can the law of gravity itself. Truth is what it is, and we do not vote on Truth, not unless, of course, we want to play the role of Pontius Pilate.
It is interesting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s experience in supposedly “opposing” “gay marriage” in Argentina was highlighted by Diarmuid Martin as that “opposition” was considered very weak and grudging by “conservative “bishops” and Catholics there. Moreover, Mr. Martin did not mention that Jorge “Cardinal” Bergoglio was in favor of “civil union” status, something that is also abhorrent for the reasons outlined just above.
Unfortunately, however, the result announced yesterday was inevitable in a country whose supposed Catholic officials are held in so little esteem because of the moral scandals they countenance. It is also unsurprising because the Land of Saints and Scholars will soon be home to one of the largest Mohammedan mosques in all of Europe thanks in large measure to conciliarism’s tenets of false ecumenisim, separation of Church and State and “religious liberty”:
The Emir of Qatar, who has long cultivated an image as a pro-Western reformist, has vowed to "spare no effort" to spread Wahhabi Islam throughout Europe. Wahhabism — which not only discourages Muslim integration in the West but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims — threatens to radicalize Muslim immigrants in Ireland.
City planners in the Irish capital, Dublin, have given the go-ahead for the construction of a sprawling mega-mosque complex that will cater to Ireland's burgeoning Muslim population.
According to the Dublin City Council, which approved the project on March 7, the Clongriffin Mosque will consist of: (a) a three-story domed mosque and cultural center with towering minarets; (b) a two-story conference center including a reception foyer, conference room, restaurant, banquet hall, kitchens and ancillary accommodation; (c) a three-story 16-classroom primary school and a two-story 12-classroom secondary school; (d) a two-story fitness center with a gym, sauna, steam room and an Olympic-sized indoor swimming pool; (e) a bookshop, library and mortuary; and (f) three four-story blocks of two-bedroom apartments with ground floor shops.
The Clongriffin Mosque will cater to some of the 30,000 Muslims living in Dublin, which is home to around 60% of the estimated 50,000 Muslims living in Ireland.
Although the number of Muslims in Ireland is relatively small (1.07% of the overall population), when compared to other European countries, the rate of growth of the Muslim population in Ireland has surged exponentially (1,170%) over the past 20 years, and Islam is now the fastest growing religion in the country. The total population of Ireland is 4.6 million.
According to Irish census data for 1991, the number of Muslims in the country was 3,875. After 1991, the Muslim population jumped, due to the arrival of Muslim refugees and asylum seekers from Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. According to the Irish census data for 2002, the number of Muslims was 19,147; by 2006, that number had swelled to 32,539. In the 2011 census, the number of Muslims was 49,204.
Ireland's Muslim population is projected to almost triple over the next twenty years, according to the Washington, DC-based Pew Research Center. A report entitled, The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projections for 2010-2030 forecasts that there will be 125,000 Muslims living in Ireland by 2030.
The Clongriffin Mosque is being promoted by a Dublin-based Muslim organization called the Dublin Welfare Society Limited, an opaque group that was incorporated in April 2010 and has no formal activities other than to lobby for the mosque project.
The mega-mosque will be developed by a local real estate mogul, Gerry Gannon, on extensive land he owns at Clongriffin. According to the Irish Times, the project is a "coup" for Gannon, who hopes to sell hundreds and possibly thousands of newly built homes to Muslim families using the cultural center.
Clongriffin is located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) north of Dublin. Also known as the North Fringe, most of the land on which Clongriffin is being built was previously farmland. In July 2003, the Dublin City Council granted permission to begin developing a new suburb comprising houses and apartments, as well as schools, retail stores, supermarkets and a multi-screen cinema.
But construction in Clongriffin came to an abrupt halt after the Irish property bubble burst in 2009, and the country needed to be rescued in November 2010 with an €85 billion ($109 billion) bailout by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
Before Ireland's real estate crash, Gannon invested millions of euros on developing Clongriffin, including the construction of a railway station linking the suburb to downtown Dublin. With the approval of the mega-mosque project, Clongriffin suddenly has a new lease on life... and so does Gannon.
Planning documents show that the Dublin City Council has approved the construction of 3,678 new homes near where the mega-mosque will be built. Gannon hopes the Clongriffin Mosque will fuel demand for the homes he is eager to sell.
But critics worry that Clongriffin is in danger of becoming an exclusively Islamic suburb on the outskirts of Dublin where Muslims will establish a parallel society rather than integrate.
An Islamist website called "Islamic Vanguards: Spearheading Ireland's Transition" recently warned that Gannon's greed would be Ireland's undoing: "If there's one thing the west yearns, it is money. For it has worshiped this false god without fail for as long as they have departed from the worship of the true God. And it is this weakness, nay addiction that will see what they hold precious being wrenched from their spindly hands. Already as we speak vast swathes of the London metropolis are in Muslim hands, Dublin is set to follow as the wealth that Allah has blessed His servants with is used to reclaim the land for His glory."
In any event, the Clongriffin Mosque will not be the only mega-mosque in town: the new mosque on the northern edge of Dublin will compete with another mega-mosque, located in Clonskeagh on the southern edge of Dublin.
The mosque complex at Clonskeagh, which also goes by the name "Islamic Cultural Center," has been in operation since 1996. Its sprawling four-acre campus was financed by Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the deputy ruler of Dubai.
The Clonskeagh Mosque is home to the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), an Islamist group which seeks to have Islamic Sharia law recognized throughout Europe.
The ECFR is an integral part of the Brussels-based Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), an umbrella group that unites more than 30 Muslim Brotherhood organizations in Europe, and acts as the main vehicle for propagating Muslim Brotherhood ideology in Europe.
The ECFR is chaired by the Egyptian-born, Qatari-based Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential Islamic scholar who is also a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Al-Qaradawi -- a spiritual advisor for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas who has defended suicide attacks against Jews as "martyrdom in the name of Allah" -- has been banned from entering Great Britain and the United States.
Al-Qaradawi speaks openly about the goals of Islam: "What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. (...) This means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice. (...) Conquest through Dawa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through our Dawa."
According to a leaked US State Department memo dated July 7, 2006, the Muslim Brotherhood is stronger in Ireland than anywhere in the world outside of Qatar, and al-Qaradawi "runs Islam in Ireland."
The Muslim Brotherhood, which is heavily influenced by the extremist ideology of Wahhabism, subsidized by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, may be about to tighten its grip over Islam in Ireland even further.
Rumors abound that the new mega-mosque at Clongriffin will be financed by Qatar, which has been engaged in a multi-million euro spending spree to spread Wahhabi Islam around Europe.
Wahhabism -- which not only discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims -- threatens to radicalize Muslim immigrants in Ireland, according to the Irish Times.
Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who has long cultivated an image as a pro-Western reformist and modernizer, has vowed to "spare no effort" to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across "the whole world." (Ireland to Build One of Europe's Largest Mosques.)
Anything goes except Catholicism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is headed by a man who goes forth and does the work of Antichrist and every say.
Remember these words of Pope Pius XI; remember them well:
This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.
These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
The hour is once again very late, now on Pentecost Sunday morning. This regrettable commentary has been written because of the urgency of its nature and because it demonstrates to all how have the courage to see and to admit it the simple truth that counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.
May Our Lady, she who is the Queen of the Holy Apostles and the Help of Christians, and each of the Holy Apostles help us to be faithful to the Catholic Church without counting and without waiting for “right time” to state firmly that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and its hierarchy have been and continues to be agents of Antichrist himself. May every Rosary we pray help to plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
A blessed Pentecost Sunday to you all!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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 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.