Jorge's Own Karl Rove, Walter Kasper, Architect of the New World Ecumenical Order

It was on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, that then President George Walker Bush gave his victory speech several hours after his Democratic Party opponent for re-election, then United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts), had telephoned him to formally concede the election. The election was determined by the results of the Buckeye State, Ohio, and had hung in the balance overnight following the completion of the vote counting. It had appeared for a while that Kerry could turn Ohio into his 2004 version of Florida for Bush, that is, the winning the presidency by winning a plurality of the popular votes in one state despite losing the popular nationally. Ohio’s twenty electoral votes would have given Kerry two hundred seventy-one to Bush’s two hundred sixty-seven. When it became clear, though, that Bush had won Ohio by a clear, although nevertheless relative close margin of 118,601 votes (representing 6.11% of the popular votes cast in the state—see Popular Vote State-Level Data, which is found on a website that has lots of useful, reader-friendly reference material), Kerry conceded to Bush after waiting out the full results.

The “conservative” statist who had invaded a sovereign nation on false premises only to find out that the locals were not much interested in an American occupation of the country following the destruction of their homeland’s political, social and physical infrastructures (water supplies, electrical power generating and transmission stations and power lines, highways, private homes) and the killing of countless thousands of innocent Iraqis both by the armed forces of the United States of America and by the Iranian-trained fighters who took advantage of suddenly porous borders to kill Iraqis and Americans alike was ebullient in victory. (Yup, that was one sentence.)

Bush gave credit to several people in the first part of his victory speech, including his longtime political mastermind, the neoconservative Karl Rove, who served him also in the State of Texas:

I want to thank my superb campaign team. I want to thank you all for your hard work. (APPLAUSE) I was impressed every day by how hard and how skillful our team was.

I want to thank Chairman Marc Racicot and... (APPLAUSE) ... the campaign manager, Ken Mehlman... (APPLAUSE) ... the architect, Karl Rove. (APPLAUSE) I want to thank Ed Gillespie for leading our party so well. (George W. Bush, Victory Speech—November 3, 2004.)

Bush the Lesser's “architect,” Karl Rove, is a skilled practitioner of an amoral“winning at all costs" strategy, something that he has been demonstrating since organizing a “prank” against the 1970 Democratic Party candidate for Illinois State Treasurer, Alan Dixon (who served in the United States Senate between January 3, 1981, and January 3, 1993), to the present day, including the time he spent as a chief counselor to President George Walker Bush:

But Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove swiped some letterhead stationery and sent out 1,000 bogus invitations to the opening of the candidate's headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing."

"It was a youthful prank at the age of 19 and I regret it," Rove says. ("Karl Rove: The Strategist.)

More seriously, or course, it was Karl Rove who helped to convince a former client of his, United States Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri), to mouth a slogan, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land,” when the latter testified before the United States Committee on the Judiciary on January 15, 2001, concerning his nomination by President-elect George Walker Bush to serve as the Attorney General of the United States of America:

Another issue merits specific mention in these opening remarks, and that is the issue that we would identify with the case of Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. As is well known, consistent with Republican United States attorneys general before me, I believe Roe v. Wade, as an original matter, was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion.

But as I have explained this afternoon, I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area and in all other areas. The Supreme Court's decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.  (Text: John Ashcroft' s Senate Confirmation Hearing, January 20, 2001.)

Ashcroft looked sullen and had his eyes fixed downwards as he mouthed these words that he had been coached to give by Bush the Lesser’s “architect,” Karl Rove, who went to war against United States Representative Todd Aiken (R-Missouri) in 2012 when the latter attempted to defend, albeit clumsily, his opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in cases where it is alleged that a child had been conceived as a result of a forcible assault upon his mother (see Karl Rove: Self-Anointed Political Godfather.) Rove is still at it in his efforts to keep supposedly “unelectable” candidates from being nominated by the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” the Republican Party.

Also mentioned by George Walker Bush on November 3, 2004, was Ken Melhman, who came “out of the closet” in 2013:

Oh, just incidentally, you understand, Ken Mehlman, now Mr. Mehlman, a private equity executive in Manhattan, is waging what could be his final campaign: to convince fellow Republicans that gay marriage is consistent with conservative values and good for their party. His about-face, sparked in part by the lawyer who filed the California lawsuit, has sent him on a personal journey to erase what one new friend in the gay rights movement calls his “incredibly destructive” Bush legacy.

He remains controversial, both applauded and vilified. On the left, he is either an unlikely hero or a hypocritical coward. On the right, some Republicans embrace him; others deem him a traitor.

Coming out “has been a little bit like the Tom Sawyer funeral, where you show up at your own funeral and you hear what people really think,” Mr. Mehlman said in a recent interview in his office at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, on the 42nd floor of a Midtown skyscraper. “A big part of one’s brain that used to worry about this issue has now been freed to worry about things that are much more productive.” . . . .

“People were asking, ‘Why are you coming here to stir the pot?’ ” said Craig Robinson, editor of The Iowa Republican, a political Web site. “It was kind of a head-scratcher.”

Mr. Mehlman credited Theodore B. Olson, a solicitor general under Mr. Bush, with providing a spark that set him on his current path. In 2009, Mr. Mehlman, out of politics but still in the closet, invited Mr. Olson — who filed the California suit — to lunch.

Mr. Mehlman said he had been thinking for some time that “a strong argument could be made from both the freedom and the family values perspective.” Mr. Olson told him that courts had deemed marriage a “fundamental right.” The next year, Mr. Mehlman told Mr. Olson that he is gay and wanted to help. (Strategist Out of Closet and Into Fray, This Time...)

As longtime readers of this site might call, former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson had submitted an amicus curiae brief for the United States Department of Justice in 2002 to argue that Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action League who has saved thousands of babies by means of sidewalk counseling, was a “bandit” under the Hobbs Act of 1946 as his activities interfered with the ability of a business, a baby-killing mill, to make money, thereby “robbing” the proprietor:

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.) 

Yes, the "pro-life" George Walker Bush administration authorized its Solicitor General to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States of America that abortuaries are legitimate businesses whose economic well-being was "threatened" by the sidewalk counseling activities of Joe Scheidler. Do you see how the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic system of government is a farce from beginning to end? And even though the Supreme Court of the United States of America rendered the correct decision in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women on February 26, 2003 (see Justice for a True Pro-Life Hero), the ever-mercurial nature of American jurisprudence guarantees nothing about the future as such jurisprudence, both for "strict constructionists" and "liberal judicial activists" is founded in an interpretation of the words of men in written documents without making any reference at all to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted exclusively to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

In other words, the “social issues” have been used as a means to use empty slogans to keep voters opposed to abortion on the Republican Party “reservation,” if you will, while a president and his administration’s officials pursued policies and actions that further institutionalized the evils that they nominally opposed for the sake of electoral expediency. In reality, though, the practitioners of amorality in the farce that is American electoral politics are perfectly comfortable living in a land where the innocent preborn are slaughtered with legally chemical and surgical means. They are also perfectly sanguine about the advances made by campaigns to confer a legal status of “marriage” upon those who are engaged in perverse acts of unnatural vice.

Consider the fact that “Pappy Bush,” who befriend the young “architect” in 1973 when, he, “Bush 41” served as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was a witness at a “gay marriage” in Maine in 2013:

Another prominent Republican has come out in support of same-sex marriage — or at least, in support of one particular same-sex marriage.

Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara served as an official witnesses Saturday at the Maine wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, co-owners of a Kennebunk general store. Thorgalsen posted a photo on Facebook of the 41st commander-in-chief signing a set of documents for them at an outdoor celebration: “Getting our marriage license witnessed!”

No big statement from the ex-prez’s office. His rep Jim McGrath confirmed his and wife Barbara’s presence at the Kennebunkport wedding: “They were private citizens attending a private ceremony for two friends.”

In an e-mail from their honeymoon in London, Clement told us they’ve known the former first couple for years and were thrilled they accepted the wedding invitation. Thinking about “how monumental this time is in our lives” and “how blessed we are to be in their lives,” they decided to ask them “to really personalize it for us” as witnesses.

“This is such a wonderful time for change in our legal system,” she added. “Who would be best to help us acknowledge the importance of our wedding as our friends and as the former leader of the free world. When they agreed to do so we just felt that it was the next acknowledgment of being ‘real and normal.’” Clement, 60, said she and Thorgalsen, 55, have been together for 12 years, during which she helped raise her new wife’s now-adult daughters.

Other members of the Bush circle — including granddaughter Barbara, daughter-in-law and former first lady Laura, and Dick Cheney — have expressed varying levels of support for gay marriage, which became legal in Maine in December. (George H. W. Bush is witness at same-sex marriage....)

The promotion of sin under cover of law and its joyful celebration in the popular culture pleases the mainstream naturalists of the “right” just fine as they are complete creatures of the Protestant-Judeo-Masonic ethos of indifference and sentimentality.

Similarly, it should be fairly obvious by now that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his own “architects,” among whose ranks is to be found none other than the nefarious Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, are products of what can termed as a post-Christian version of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry by means of their complete rejection of anything and everything in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that disagrees with the campaign to “evangelize” in behalf of a falsified “gospel” that reaffirms hardened sinners in their lives of wanton sin while celebrating socialism, statism, environmentalism, feminism and outright debauchery in the name of “social justice” and “mercy.”

Showing that he could have served as part of architect Rove’s own team, Walter Kasper has once again demonstrated that he is a pagan by commending the results of a popular voter referendum in Ireland on “gay marriage” that was the subject of  Jorge Goes Forth and Does the Work of Antichrist Every Day last month:

The grave effects of Ireland’s May 22 referendum in favor of same-sex “marriages,” not only for the secular world, but also especially for the Catholic Church, are showing themselves already.

None other than the leading cardinal who has promoted the liberal agenda for the two-part Synod of Bishops on the Family, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has now come out publicly and with force, telling the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Church needs to address more fully the question of same-sex couples. This topic was at the last Synod “only a marginal topic, but now it becomes central,” Kasper said on Wednesday.

Kasper also defended the vote of the Irish in favor of homosexual “marriages,” saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” He also said that the Irish referendum is “emblematic for the situation in which we find ourselves, not only in Europe, but in the whole West.” Kasper also said: “The postmodern concept – following which everything is equal – stands in contrast to the doctrine of the Church.” (Herr Kasper Defends Ireland's "Gay Marriage" Vote.)

Just A Few Remarks, Well, Maybe a Tad Bit More Than a Few:

A “democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people”?

This is the doctrine of Jorge and Walter's false church, whose teachings are completely at odds with those of the Catholic Church.

What if it is the “will of the people” to support invidious racial discrimination under cover of the civil law?

What if it is the “will of the people” to support the execution of various groups of people on the basis of the ethnic identity or nationality?

What if it is the “will of the people” to, say, support the policies of one who wanted to round up and imprison adherents of the blasphemous Talmud as a “solution” to social problems?

What if it is the “will of the people” to outlaw even private belief in the Catholic Faith as It has been handed down to us from the time of Apostles?

What if it is the “will of the people” to “legalize” “consensual relations” between adults and minors?

What if it is the “will of the people” to “legalize” bestiality?

What if it is the “will of the people” to prohibit the size of families by state-enforced sterilization?

The will of the people?

How about the binding laws of God Himself that are inscribed on the very flesh of human hearts?

Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

5. Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.

6. Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters,[3] for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.

7. As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men."[4] This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.  (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Walter Kasper, yet another figure of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who is quite indeed one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “architects,” does not believe that “the people” have a duty to obey God as He has revealed Himself exclusively to us through His Catholic Church nor does believe that the “people,” whether acting on their own individually or collectively with others in the institution of civil governance, have the “authority” to repeal the binding precepts of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Moreover, Walter Kasper believes that the civil state can and must follow the “will of the people” even this means enacting and enforcing things are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity.

Writing in the Sixteenth Century, Silvio Cardinal Antoniano explained that the contrary is true:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Pope Leo XIII noted the exact same thing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

32. So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1900.)

Hey, Walter, you old heretic, Pope Leo XIII’s words serve as a direct rebuke to you and your falsehoods as “Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue.”

Then again, of course, Jorge and Walter, et al., believe that “same sex couples” are practicing virtue and that it “virtuous” and mandatory for the civil state to recognize this “virtue.”

Ladies and gentlemen, none of this can come from the Catholic Church, she who enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy.

Why cannot this be accepted for the truth that it is?

Yet it is that Jorge and Walter believe in the “will of the people.”

Pope Leo XIII explained one hundred fifteen years ago that the world had heard enough about the “rights of man:”

The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii., 32).  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Pope Leo XIII had also explained that Catholics have the necessity of opposing evil at all times, especially when it is promoted and protected under the civil law:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, 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. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Pope Leo XIII’s clear, bold reiteration of Catholic teaching is rejected by the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism because they are the architects of false religion that is designed precisely to lead the “human family” into a “bond of brotherhood” that the Antichrist will use rule over the earth.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Walter Kasper are devoid of any concept of the horror of personal sin or of the social consequences of the civil protection and cultural promotion and celebration of it.  They believe that they have a duty to “recognize” supposed “rights” conferred by the civil state, whether through legislative action, judicial decree or popular plebiscite, to endorse evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. These heretics believe that what they think is the Catholic Church must “overcome [unjust] discrimination” and to honor “long-lasting” perverted relations that they believe contain “elements of the good:”

Cardinal Kasper made a link between the events in Ireland and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, when he said it now becomes harder for the Church to explain its own moral position to others in the question of homosexuality. “We have to find a new language,” he said. “We have to overcome [unjust] discrimination, which has a long tradition in our culture.” It is important in his view to honor those long-lasting same-sex relationships, which contain “elements of the good,” even though the Church cannot change its fundamental attitude toward them since they are themselves against the teaching of the Gospels.

Many observers have long expected Cardinal Kasper's more explicit public support for the homosexual agenda, saying that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships.

The other reason for this expectation is that Cardinal Walter Kasper had recently published his own book about Pope Francis, entitled “Pope Francis' Revolution of Tenderness and Love”, and it was produced by Paulist Press. Father Mark-David Janus, president and publisher of Paulist Press, was present when Cardinal Kasper gave Pope Francis himself a copy of this new book on March 17. At a private audience later on the same day, Father Janus presented the pope with a promotional film on “LGBT Catholics,” called “Owning Our Faith,” which he himself had helped to bring about. These facts – which may be seen on the website of the St. Philip Neri Catholic Church – administered by the same Paulist Fathers – speak for themselves. (Herr Kasper Defends Ireland's "Gay Marriage" Vote.)

There is no “element of good” in sin.

There is no “element” of a true love God or of others by sinning and/or reaffirming a sinner in his life of sin. This was all reviewed eight months ago in Heresy Leads to Heresy.

Once proudly Catholic Ireland reviled sin and shunned publicly scandalous sinners, something made clear in Devotedly Yours, a collection of letters and reflections written by a Daughter of Charity, Sister Bertrande, which was published in 1954:

I [Sister Bertrande] asked Sister Catherine, the Sister Servant, if any of those children were from “broken homes” . . . . .  she had no concept of what I meant. “Yes,” she said, “the mother is dead in most cases, and the fathers, all of them good men, board the children with us, paying a small amount according to their income. All of these girls come from fine, good, solid families. Pity 'tis the home must be broken by the going of a good mother.”

Ah Ireland . . . . would that only death was meant in America when we speak of broken homes!

I told Peter [Byrne, the tour guide] how thrilled I was with this complete absence of divorce; and of the censorship that prevailed over drama, movies, and literature. “Ach,” he said, “sure and the people would BOO anything indecent right off the stage. In the music hall here the license would be revoked if they put on anything ye might call lurid. . . . And d'ye know certain newspapers are banned because they print nothing but murders, and immorality, and crime . . . .And for all THAT stuff we have an iron curtain. Many a man has given his life to preserve Ireland, Sister; and he did it to preserve Catholic tradition and ideals of culture. “T'would be too bad to preserve the mere land and not the morals of the people.” (Sister Bertrande, Daughter of Charity, Devotedly Yours, Empire-Stone Press, Chicago, Illionis, 1954, pp, 320-321.)

Irishman Peter Byrne spoke over sixty years ago now of preserving Catholic tradition and Catholic morals. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has architects such as Walter Kasper to help him undermine and replace both, something that is well known and will be discussed a bit more in part two tomorrow’s installment.

A false church with sacramentally barren liturgical rites has helped to devastate one formerly Catholic country after another. These devastation was long in the planning by the adversary, and it has taken over fifty years of careful propagation to prepare the way for what is only the logical public manifestation of what was intended all along: the overthrow of the Catholic Faith in favor of a naturalistic “religion of man.” Jorge and Walter have made it impossible for believing Catholics who are still attached to the structures of their false church to "appeal to Rome" their concerns as "Rome" is the seat of Antichrist, and they, Jorge and Walter, make it far easier for the practitioners of realpolitik such as Karl Rove to convince their candidates to ditch all mention of the "social issues" in an era of widespread "toleration" and "acceptance." This is simply the convergence of the forces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Our Lady promised Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must do our part to bring this about by praying for a restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter as we seek to console the good God, Who is so grieved by our sins and those of the world, by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and by making more sacrifices for the conversion of sinners, offering up the tribulations of the moment to Him as the consecrated slaves of His Co-Eternal, Co-Equal Divine Son, Christ the King, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.